Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Port of Alaska's North Extension Stabilization Step 1 Project in Anchorage, Alaska, 2832-2873 [2024-00511]
Download as PDF
2832
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XD572]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to the Port of
Alaska’s North Extension Stabilization
Step 1 Project in Anchorage, Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental
harassment authorization.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as
amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental
harassment authorization (IHA) to the
Port of Alaska (POA) to incidentally
harass marine mammals during
construction activities associated with
the North Extension Stabilization Step 1
(NES1) Project in Anchorage, Alaska.
DATES: This authorization is effective
from April 1, 2024, through March 31,
2025.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the
application and supporting documents,
as well as a list of the references cited
in this document, may be obtained
online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. In case of problems accessing
these documents, please call the contact
listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Reny Tyson Moore, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
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
proposed or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA
is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings
shall be granted if NMFS finds that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
taking will have a negligible impact on
the species or stock(s) and will not have
an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
taking for subsistence uses (where
relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe
the permissible methods of taking and
other ‘‘means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact’’ on the
affected species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the
availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses
(referred to in shorthand as
‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of the takings are set forth.
The definitions of all applicable MMPA
statutory terms cited above are included
in the relevant sections below.
Summary of Request
On July 19, 2022, NMFS received a
request from the POA for an IHA to take
marine mammals incidental to
construction activities related to the
NES1 project in Anchorage, Alaska.
Following NMFS’ review of the
application, the POA submitted revised
versions on December 27, 2022, July 28,
2023, and August 31, 2023. The
application was deemed adequate and
complete on September 7, 2023. The
POA submitted a final version
addressing additional minor corrections
on September 21, 2023. The Federal
Register notice of the proposed IHA and
request for comments was published on
November 6, 2023 (88 FR 76576). The
POA’s request is for take of seven
species of marine mammals by Level B
harassment and, for a subset of these
species (i.e., harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)
and harbor porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena)), Level A harassment.
Neither the POA nor NMFS expect
serious injury or mortality to result from
this activity and, therefore, an IHA is
appropriate.
NMFS previously issued IHAs to the
POA for similar work (85 FR 19294,
April 6, 2020; 86 FR 50057, September
7, 2021). The POA 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 Effects of the Specified
Activity on Marine Mammals and their
Habitat section of the Federal Register
notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR
76576, November 6, 2023), the
Estimated Take section in this notice of
issuance, and online at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidental-
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
take-authorizations-constructionactivities.
This IHA will cover 1-year of the
ongoing Port of Alaska Modernization
Program (PAMP) for which the POA
obtained prior IHAs and intends to
request additional take authorization for
subsequent facets of the program. The
PAMP involves construction activities
related to the modernization of the
POA’s marine terminals.
Description of Specified Activity
The POA, located on Knik Arm in
upper Cook Inlet, provides critical
infrastructure for the citizens of
Anchorage and a majority of the citizens
of Alaska. The North Extension at the
POA is a failed bulkhead structure that
was constructed between 2005 and
2011. Parts of the North Extension
bulkhead structure and the surrounding
upland area are unstable and collapsing,
and some of the sheet piles are visibly
twisted and buckled. The structure
presents safety hazards and logistical
impediments to ongoing Port
operations, and much of the upland area
is currently unusable. The North
Extension Stabilization (NES) project
will result in removal of the failed sheet
pile structure and reconfiguration and
realignment of the shoreline within the
North Extension, including the
conversion of approximately 0.05 square
kilometers (km2; 13 acres) of developed
land back to intertidal and subtidal
habitat within Knik Arm. The NES
project will be completed in two
distinct steps, NES1 and NES2,
separated by multiple years and
separate permitting efforts. This notice
is applicable to an IHA for the
incidental take of marine mammals
during in-water construction associated
with NES1.
The NES1 project will involve the
removal of portions of the failed sheet
pile structure to stabilize the North
Extension. The NES1 project will
remove approximately half of the North
Extension structure extending
approximately 274-meters (m) north
from the southern end of the North
Extension. This project will also
stabilize the remaining portion of the
North Extension by creating an end-state
embankment. While the majority of the
Project will be demolition work, the
term ‘‘construction’’ as used herein
refers to both construction and
demolition work.
In-water construction associated with
this project includes vibratory
installation and removal of 81 24-inch
(61-centimeter (cm)) or 36-inch (91-cm)
temporary steel pipe stability template
piles as well as vibratory removal,
splitting (via a sheet pile splitter used in
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
conjunction with a vibratory hammer),
pile cutting (via hydraulic shears or
underwater ultrathermic cutting) and
possible impact removal of
approximately 4,216 sheet piles from
the structure tailwalls, cell faces
(bulkhead), and closure walls.
Demolition of the failed sheet pile
structure will be accomplished through
excavation and dredging of impounded
soils (fill material), and cutting and
removal of the existing sheet piles, most
likely through use of a pile splitter and
vibratory hammer. It is assumed that
pile splitting will produce the same or
similar sound levels to a vibratory
hammer used without the splitter
attachment. Therefore, the use of a
vibratory hammer to remove sheet piles
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
and the use of a splitter is combined
into a single category (i.e., vibratory
hammer removal) and treated the same
in our analysis.
The first attempt to extract the sheet
piles will be with direct vertical pulling
or with a vibratory hammer; however,
there may be complications with the
sheet pile interlocks, which could
become seized, and other means of pile
removal may be required (i.e., impact
removal, shearing, or torching). In
addition, to minimize potential impacts
on marine mammals from in-water sheet
pile removal, removal in the dry would
be maximized as feasible. The
demolition plan also includes
stabilization of the face sheets through
installation of temporary piles and
dredging back into the cell to relieve
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
2833
pressure on the sheet piles and to
eliminate any release of material into
Cook Inlet beyond natural tidal forces.
It is anticipated that 3 sets of 27
temporary piles would be required for a
total of 81 installations and 81 removals
(table 1). Temporary piles would be
installed and removed with a vibratory
hammer. Sound produced by vibratory
pile installation and removal and
impact pile removal may result in the
take of marine mammals, by harassment
only. Sound produced by all other NES1
project activities (e.g., hydraulic
shearing, ultrathermic cutting) are not
expected to result in the take of marine
mammals and, therefore, are not
discussed further.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
2834
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Jkt 262001
August
September
October
November
Total
Piles
27
14
14
10
10
3
3
0
81
Hours
6.75
3.50
3.50
2.5
2.5
0.75
0.75
0
20.25
Piles
0
27
13
13
13
10
4
1
81
Hours
0
6.75
3.25
3.25
3.25
2.5
1
0.25
20.25
Piles
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hours
10
45
60
60
13
12
4
2
206
16.75
55.25
66.75
65.75
18.75
15.25
5.75
2.25
246.50
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Dates and Duration
16JAN2
The POA anticipates that NES1 inwater construction activities will begin
on April 1, 2024 and extend through
November 2024. In-water pile
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
to the planned activities. Therefore, a
detailed description is not provided
here. Please refer to that Federal
Register notice for the description of the
specific activity.
Activity
PO 00000
Total hours
July
Sheet pile vibratory
hammer removal
June
36-inch (91-cm) or 24inch (61-cm) stability
template pile removal
May
36-inch (91-cm) or 24inch (61-cm) stability
template pile installation
April
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
A detailed description of the planned
NES1 project is provided in the Federal
Register notice for the proposed IHA (88
FR 76576, November 6, 2023). Since
that time, no changes have been made
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EN16JA24.031
Table 1 -- Estimated Timing and Duration by Month of Pile Installation and Removal Activities
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
installation and removal associated with
the NES1 project is anticipated to take
place over approximately 246.5 hours
on 110 nonconsecutive days between
these dates. While the exact sequence of
demolition and construction is
uncertain, an estimated schedule of
sheet pile removal and temporary
stability template pile installation and
removal is shown in table 1.
A detailed description of the timing
and sequencing of the NES1 project is
provided in the Federal Register notice
for the proposed IHA (88 FR 76576,
November 6, 2023). Since that time, no
changes have been made to the dates or
duration. Therefore, a detailed
description is not provided here. Please
refer to that Federal Register notice for
more information regarding the dates
and duration of the NES1 project.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Specific Geographic Region
The Municipality of Anchorage is
located in the lower reaches of Knik
Arm of upper Cook Inlet (see figure 2–
1 in the POA’s application). The POA
sits on the industrial waterfront of
Anchorage, just south of Cairn Point and
north of Ship Creek (lat. 61°15′ N, long.
149°52′ W; Seward Meridian). Knik Arm
and Turnagain Arm are the two
branches of upper Cook Inlet, and
Anchorage is located where the two
arms join. The POA’s boundaries
currently occupy an area of
approximately 0.52 km2.
A detailed description of the specific
geographic region of the NES1 project is
provided in the Federal Register notice
for the proposed IHA (88 FR 76576,
November 6, 2023). Since that time, no
changes have been made to the specific
geographic region. Therefore, a detailed
description is not provided here. Please
refer to that Federal Register notice for
more information regarding the specific
geographic region of the NES1 project.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue
an IHA to the POA was published in the
Federal Register on November 6, 2023
(88 FR 76576). That notice described, in
detail, the POA’s activity, the marine
mammal species that may be affected by
the activity, and the anticipated effects
on marine mammals. In that notice, we
requested public input on the request
for authorization described therein, our
analyses, the proposed authorization,
and any other aspect of the notice of
proposed IHA, and requested that
interested persons submit relevant
information, suggestions, and
comments.
During the 30-day public comment
period, NMFS received comments from
the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
and Eklutna, Inc. NMFS also received a
letter from United States Geological
Survey stating that they had no
comment. All relevant, substantive
comments, and NMFS’ responses, are
provided below. The comments and
recommendations are available online
at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities. Please see the
comment submissions for full details
regarding the recommendations and
supporting rationale.
Comment 1: The CBD opposed NMFS’
issuance of an IHA for construction and
associated activities related to the NES1
project, stating that the proposed actions
would further imperil the already
critically endangered Cook Inlet beluga
whale (CIBW) and that ‘‘most of the
proposed activities should not be
authorized until and unless [NMFS] can
ensure that take will not impede the
survival and recovery of the [CIBW]
population.’’
Response: NMFS shares CBD’s
concern regarding the impacts of human
activities on CIBWs and is committed to
supporting the conservation and
recovery of the species. Under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS
considers the at risk status of CIBWs
(and other species) in both the
negligible impact analysis and through
our consideration of impact
minimization measures that support the
least practicable adverse impact on
those species. For example, the IHA for
the NES1 project includes a requirement
to implement shutdown zones for
CIBWs that encompass the estimated
Level B harassment zones. However,
section 101(a)(5)(D) also mandates that
NMFS ‘‘shall issue’’ an IHA if we are
able to make the necessary findings for
any specified activity for which
incidental take is requested.
In accordance with our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(c), we use
the best available scientific evidence to
determine whether the taking by the
specified activity within the specified
geographic region will have a negligible
impact on the species or stock and will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of such species or
stock for subsistence uses. Based on the
best scientific evidence available, NMFS
determined that the take incidental to
POA’s NES1 project would have no
more than a negligible impact on the
affected species and stocks, including
CIBW, and no unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of marine
mammals for subsistence uses.
Moreover, NMFS has required through
the IHA implementation of mitigation
and monitoring measures that balances
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
2835
the safety needs of this demolition
project with reducing potential impacts
to CIBWs and other marine mammals to
the lowest level practicable, thereby
providing the means of effecting the
least practicable adverse impact on the
affected species and stocks of marine
mammals.
Further, as described in the Federal
Register notice of the proposed IHA (88
FR 76576, November 6, 2023), data from
several years of scientific monitoring at
the POA during previous work
involving pile driving (occurring April
through November) demonstrate there is
no significant difference in beluga
whale sightings during and in absence
of pile driving (Kendell and Cornick,
2016). While we do anticipate some
behavioral modifications to occur, these
will likely be limited to increased travel
speeds, reduced vocalizations, and
potentially traveling in more cohesive
groups (Kendell and Cornick, 2016).
However, we anticipate behavior will
return to normal after the whales move
past the POA (e.g., when they reach
productive foraging grounds north of the
POA) as these areas would not be
ensonified by pile driving noise. There
is no evidence CIBWs have abandoned
foraging in Knik Arm due to pile driving
noise or that exposure to pile driving
noise has resulted in more than a
negligible impact to the CIBW
population (e.g., 61N Environmental,
2021, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c; EasleyAppleyard and Leonard, 2022). In light
of the mitigation and monitoring
measures and scientific data to date, we
anticipate the impacts of any Level B
harassment to CIBWs will be limited to
short-term, mild to moderate behavioral
changes and will not affect the fitness of
any individuals. Therefore, NMFS’
negligible impact determination is well
supported and the authorized take for
the NES1 project is neither reasonably
expected nor likely to adversely affect
the stock through effects on annual rates
of recruitment or survival and thus, will
not contribute to or exacerbate the
stock’s decline. Additionally, the NMFS
Alaska Regional Office issued a
Biological Opinion (BiOp) on December
15, 2023, under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), on the
issuance of an IHA to the POA under
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the
NMFS Office of Protected Resources
(OPR) that determined that the issuance
of the IHA is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of CIBWs.
CBD cited a letter from the Marine
Mammal Commission (MMC) submitted
to NMFS in response to the issuance of
an IHA for the POA’s Petroleum and
Cement Terminal (PCT) project (MMC,
2020) that specifically recommended for
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
2836
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
POA construction activities, that the
Service ‘‘defer issuance of the final
incidental harassment authorizations to
[the POA] or any other applicant
proposing to conduct sound-producing
activities in Cook Inlet until [it] has a
reasonable basis for determining that
authorizing any additional incidental
harassment takes of Cook Inlet beluga
whales would not contribute to or
exacerbate the stock’s decline.’’ NMFS
responded to this recommendation in
the Federal Register notice of the final
IHA for the PCT project (e.g., 85 FR
19294, April 1, 2020) and we
incorporate that response by reference.
In summary, that notice describes how
there is no evidence that exposure to
pile driving noise in Knik Arm has
resulted in more than a negligible
impact to the CIBW population.
Therefore, NMFS negligible impact
determination was well supported and
the authorized take for the PCT project
was neither reasonably expected nor
likely to adversely affect the stock
through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival. Thus NMFS
had a reasonable basis for determining
that authorizing take incidental to the
PCT project would not contribute to or
exacerbate the stock’s decline. Since the
publication of this notice, no new
information has become available that
would suggest that determination was
incorrect. Similarly, NMFS’
independent evaluation of the best
scientific evidence in this case supports
our negligible impact determination and
our finding that the authorized take for
the NES1 project is neither reasonably
expected nor likely to adversely affect
the stock through effects on annual rates
of recruitment or survival. Thus, NMFS
has a reasonable basis for determining
that authorizing take incidental to the
NES1 project would not contribute to or
exacerbate the stock’s decline. NMFS
did not receive any recommendations
from the MMC regarding the proposed
IHA for the NES1 project.
Finally, we also note CBD’s
suggestion that this IHA authorizes the
subject construction activities. We note
that NMFS does not have authority
under the MMPA or other statute to
authorize the specified activity. NMFS’
authority pertains only to the
authorization of marine mammal take
incidental to that activity and to the
prescription of appropriate mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements.
Comment 2: The CBD expressed
concern regarding uncertainty in the
trends of the CIBW population status.
They stated that ‘‘changes in survey
methods bring into question the
approach of determining any trend in
population status.’’ They cited scientific
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
studies that confirm a negative trend in
the population status of CIBWs.
Response: CBD is incorrect in that
survey methods for detecting trends in
CIBW population have changed; the
survey field methods are essentially
unchanged since 2004 (Paul Wade,
personal communication, December 11,
2023). The analysis methods used to
detect trends in the CIBW population
have been updated and implemented in
recent studies examining the CIBW
population, notably Sheldon and Wade
(2019) and Goetz et al. (2023).
Results of recent studies, including
those cited by CBD, provide evidence
that the CIBW population increased
between 2004 and 2010, declined after
2010, and increased again from 2016 to
2022 (Jacobsen et al., 2020; Shelden and
Wade, 2019; Warlick et al., 2023; Goetz
et al., 2023). While there is some
uncertainty around CIBW population
trend analyses, the results of these four
studies are consistent in showing
general trends. Thus, while the CBD
were correct that some studies confirm
a negative trend in beluga whale
abundance, recent studies, which NMFS
considers the best scientific information
available, suggest this trend may now be
increasing. Additional data in the
coming years will help to inform
whether the recent positive trend in the
CIBW population will continue.
Comment 3: The CBD states that
NMFS must conduct a comprehensive
analysis of all CIBW take and asserts
that NMFS should place an overall cap
on authorizations for CIBW incidental
take. They state that the various
construction, vessel traffic, oil and gas,
and other activities are cumulatively
threatening the conservation and
recovery of CIBWs. CBD also provides
examples for the number of takes
authorized by NMFS for various time
periods, citing Migura and Bollini
(2021) and recent authorizations to the
POA.
Response: We note first that the
Migura and Bollini (2021) paper cited
by CBD seems to have led to a
misunderstanding of the takes
authorized or permitted by NMFS. In
summary, CBD asserts that NMFS
authorized nearly 120,000 takes of
CIBWs from 2017 to 2025 and that in
2020 alone, NMFS authorized the
equivalent of 50 percent of the entire
CIBW population to be ‘‘incidentally’’
harassed by industrial projects in the
Inlet, such as oil and gas development
and pile driving activities.
The vast majority of the asserted
∼120,000 total takes (99 percent),
including all of the very small amount
of take by Level A harassment, were
authorized under directed research or
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
enhancement permits, which directly
support research or actions identified in
the Recovery Plan to address CIBW
recovery goals. Further, the vast
majority (∼99 percent) of the total
permitted research or enhancement take
numbers cited by CBD are low-level
MMPA Level B harassment from remote
or non-invasive procedures that are
considered not likely to adversely affect
listed species pursuant to the ESA (i.e.,
no associated take under the ESA is
either expected to occur or exempted for
those specific activities).
Regarding the comprehensive
evaluation and minimization of
permitted takes, we reference the
analysis that has already been
completed through NMFS’ 2019
Biological and Conference Opinion on
the Proposed Implementation of a
Program for the Issuance of Permits for
Research and Enhancement Activities
on Cetaceans in the Arctic, Atlantic,
Indian, Pacific, and Southern Oceans
(NMFS, 2019), which determined that
the research and enhancement takes
permitted by the program would not
jeopardize the existence of any of the
affected species. As part of our
programmatic framework for permitting
directed take of ESA species, the
Permits and Conservation Division will
continue to closely evaluate the number
and manner of CIBW takes requested by
each applicant, how the proposed
research ties to recovery plan goals, and
the collective number of authorized and
requested takes to consider the potential
cumulative impact of the activities to
the population. Each directed take
annual report is reviewed to understand
how authorized takes were actually
used and to closely monitor the impacts
that permitted research methods are
having on the target animals.
Regarding the incidental takes
authorized for 2020, those takes
represent instances of exposure above
the Level B harassment threshold that
could occur within a day. In other
words, if those approximately 130 takes
were assumed to be 130 separate
individual whales, it would mean that
those individual whales were each
behaviorally disturbed on one day in
that year. The more likely scenario is
that some of those 130 exposures were
takes of the same whale on a few
different days, and in fact a lesser
number of individuals were taken, but
still on only a few days within a year.
In all cases, the necessary findings
under MMPA and ESA were made prior
to the authorization of the take.
Neither the MMPA nor NMFS’
codified implementing regulations call
for consideration of the take resulting
from other activities in the negligible
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
impact analysis. The preamble for
NMFS’ implementing regulations (54 FR
40338, September 29, 1989) states, in
response to comments, that the impacts
from other past and ongoing
anthropogenic activities are to be
incorporated into the negligible impact
analysis via their impacts on the
baseline. Consistent with that direction,
NMFS has factored into its negligible
impact analysis the impacts of other
past and ongoing anthropogenic
activities via their impacts on the
baseline (e.g., as reflected in the
density/distribution and status of the
species, population size and growth
rate, and other relevant stressors (such
as incidental mortality in commercial
fisheries, Unusual Mortality Events
(UMEs), and subsistence hunting); see
the Negligible Impact Analyses and
Determinations section of this notice of
issuance). The 1989 final rule for the
MMPA implementing regulations also
addressed public comments regarding
cumulative effects from future,
unrelated activities. There, NMFS stated
that such effects are not considered in
making findings under section 101(a)(5)
concerning negligible impact. In this
case, this ITA as well as other ITAs
currently in effect or proposed within
the specified geographic region, are
appropriately considered an unrelated
activity relative to the others. The ITAs
are unrelated in the sense that they are
discrete actions under section
101(a)(5)(D) issued to discrete
applicants.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
requires NMFS to make a determination
that the take incidental to a ‘‘specified
activity’’ will have a negligible impact
on the affected species or stocks of
marine mammals and will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of such species or stocks for
taking for subsistence uses. NMFS’
implementing regulations require
applicants to include in their request a
detailed description of the specified
activity or class of activities that can be
expected to result in incidental taking of
marine mammals (see 50 CFR
216.104(a)(1)). Thus, the ‘‘specified
activity’’ for which incidental take
coverage is being sought under section
101(a)(5)(D) is generally defined and
described by the applicant. Here, the
POA was the applicant for the IHA, and
we are responding to the specified
activity as described in that application
(and making the necessary findings on
that basis). Therefore, setting limits on
the number and types of CIBW takes
across all activities in Cook Inlet would
not be an appropriate requirement of an
MMPA ITA. The take estimates NMFS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
authorizes represent the upper limits for
individuals and some instances of take
may represent multiple exposures to a
single individual.
Separately, setting blanket take limits
may not be meaningful, as the nature
and intensity of impacts from a given
activity can vary widely. For example,
an animal exposed to noise levels just
above our harassment threshold in a
non-critical area may experience a small
behavioral change with no biological
consequence while an animal exposed
to very loud noise levels (but lower than
levels that would result in a permanent
threshold shift (PTS)) in an area where
active critical foraging occurs could
result in behavioral changes that may be
more likely to impact fitness. While
both of these examples would be
characterized as Level B harassment, the
resulting impact on the population
could be different. Context differences
such as these are analyzed in our
negligible impact analysis for each
application under the MMPA.
Through the response to public
comments in the 1989 implementing
regulations, NMFS also indicated (1)
that we would consider cumulative
effects that are reasonably foreseeable
when preparing a National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
analysis, and (2) that reasonably
foreseeable cumulative effects would
also be considered under section 7 of
the ESA for ESA-listed species, as
appropriate. Accordingly, NMFS has
written an Environmental Assessment
(EA) that addressed cumulative impacts
of the NES1 project and all past, present
and reasonably foreseeable future
actions. Additionally, the NMFS Alaska
Regional Office issued a BiOp on
December 15, 2023, under section 7 of
the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to
the POA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA by the NMFS OPR that
independently considered the
reasonably foreseeable cumulative
effects of activities on ESA-listed
species.
Comment 4: The CBD asserts that
NMFS’s negligible impact determination
is arbitrary and capricious and that the
specified activities would have greater
than a negligible impact on CIBWs. The
CBD claims that NMFS failed to
substantiate its assumption that impacts
are negligible because CIBWs remained
in the area during similar construction
activities and that NMFS
underestimated the impacts of pile
driving on CIBWs. They state that pile
driving threatens marine mammals by
potentially displacing them from key
foraging habitat, causing hearing loss,
masking communications, and
interfering with natural behaviors. They
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
2837
cite several studies regarding behavioral
responses of marine mammals to pile
driving.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the
CBD’s claim that NMFS failed to
substantiate our assumptions that
impacts to CIBWs are negligible in our
determination. In the Negligible Impact
Analysis and Determination section of
the Federal Register notice of the
proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November
6, 2023) and this notice of issuance, we
describe how the take estimated and
authorized for the NES1 project will
have a negligible impact on all of the
affected species, including CIBWs (as
discussed above). We discussed how
this determination is based upon the
authorized number of CIBWs that might
be exposed briefly during the 110
nonconsecutive days of activity, the low
level of behavioral harassment that
might result from an instance of take
that could occur within a year, and the
likelihood that the mitigation measures
required further lessen the likelihood of
exposures. NMFS has considered the
status of CIBWs in its analysis, as well
as the importance of reducing impacts
from anthropogenic noise, but
nonetheless, there is no evidence that
brief exposure to low level noise
causing Level B harassment would have
a greater than negligible impact on
CIBWs.
NMFS’ negligible impact finding
considers a number of parameters
including, but not limited to, the nature
of the activities (e.g., duration, sound
source), effects/intensity of the taking,
the context of takes, and mitigation. For
CIBWs, NMFS’ finding did account for
data demonstrating that CIBWs are not
discouraged from entering Knik Arm
and traveling to critical foraging
grounds to the north when pile driving
activities, such as those proposed by
NES1, are occurring (e.g., 61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b;
Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022),
but it also relied on other data that show
at most, low-level behavioral responses
of CIBWs to pile driving activities. For
example, during the POA’s PCT and
South Floating Dock (SFD) pile driving
activities, CIBWs were more likely to
display no reaction or to continue to
move towards the POA during pile
installation and removal (61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b). In
situations during which CIBWs showed
a possible reaction to pile driving,
individuals were observed either
moving away from the pile driving
activities or increasing their rate of
travel (61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a,
2022b). Other behavioral responses
observed in relation to pile driving
activities include moving silently
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
2838
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
through the area, decreased sighting
durations, and the formation of more
cohesive groups (Kendall and Cornick,
2015).
NMFS understands that marine
mammals will have varying responses to
elevated noise levels resulting from pile
driving activities such as masking of
communication and foraging signals,
avoidance behaviors, and more.
However, NMFS disagrees with CBD
that we have underestimated the
impacts of pile driving on beluga
whales. Marine mammal data collected
at the POA during pile driving
activities, as described above, provides
evidence that effects of pile driving on
CIBWs will be limited to temporary
modifications in behavior such as
increased swim speeds, tighter group
formations, and cessation of
vocalizations, but not through the loss
of foraging capabilities or abandonment
of habitat. Further, while masking of
CIBW signals can have a profound
impact on the communication of CIBWs
(e.g., Brewer et al., 2023), the short-term
duration and limited areas affected by
the NES1 project make it very unlikely
that the fitness of individual marine
mammals would be impacted. In
addition, the frequency range of pile
driving activities is typically below 1
kHz (Richardson et al., 1995), which is
below the peak frequencies for many
CIBW communication signals (Brewer et
al., 2023). Therefore, while expected
impacts to CIBWs from the NES1 project
are considered Level B harassment
events, they are events with relatively
little consequence for individuals in
terms of energetic effects or foregone
opportunities to engage in important
foraging or social behaviors.
While exposure to elevated noise
levels associated with the NES1 project
may result in low-level behavioral
changes in CIBWs, NMFS’ review of the
best available scientific evidence, as
summarized and cited herein,
demonstrates that these responses do
not rise to the level of having adverse
effects on the reproduction or survival
of CIBWs. CBD provides no evidence to
the contrary. Therefore, NMFS has
appropriately concluded that the
activity will have a negligible impact on
the CIBW population.
Comment 5: The CBD expressed
concern regarding the take estimates for
CIBWs proposed by NMFS. They state
that the take estimates fail to explain
how pods of animals are accounted for
and improperly discounts the estimated
CIBW take with a 59 percent
adjustment. They suggest that this
supposed failure may result in a higher
take than anticipated. They believe that
take should be estimated without
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
considering the demonstrated efficacy of
the proposed mitigation requirements,
with expected benefits of the mitigation
requirements being described only
separately.
Response: CBD is concerned that
exposure of one pod of whales to
harassment by the construction could
exceed the take authorized. They cite
McGuire et al. (2020) which suggests
CIBW groups can be between 61 and
313 whales. CBD is correct that there
have been large observations of CIBW
pods, and that if one very large pod
appeared near the POA during pile
driving activities, it could result in the
POA meeting or exceeding authorized
take for this species. However, such
large pods are not expected to be
observed near the POA based on the
best scientific information available,
including recent marine mammal
monitoring efforts. The mean (median,
standard deviation) CIBW group size
observed during the 2020 through 2022
POA and NMFS marine mammal
monitoring efforts in Knik Arm were
4.28 (3, 4.86) whales (61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b;
Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022).
Further, the 95 percentile group size of
CIBWs observed during these years was
12.30 individuals. This means that of
the 495 documented CIBW groups in
these data sets, 95 percent consisted of
fewer than 12.3 whales; 5 percent of the
groups consisted of more than 12.3
whales. Lastly, the largest group
observed during these efforts was 53
individuals. Therefore, NMFS believes
that the 72 takes by Level B harassment
authorized for CIBW during the
authorized one-year period adequately
accounts for the possibility of the POA
taking multiple pods (or groups) of
CIBWs.
The CBD stated that the 59 percent
adjustment is ‘‘based on one data point’’
from the PCT project monitoring
program. This is incorrect. As described
in the Estimated Take sections of the
Federal Register notice of the proposed
IHA (88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023)
and this notice of issuance, this
adjustment was calculated by including
data from all observations from April to
November for each year of the PCT
project, the same time frame over which
the POA will be conducting the NES1
project. Between the two phases of the
PCT project, 90 total Level B harassment
takes were authorized and 53 were
potentially realized (i.e., 53 CIBWs were
observed within estimated Level B
harassment zones), equating to an
overall percentage of 59 percent (Note
that simple occurrence within the
estimated harassment zone in and of
itself does not demonstrate that a take
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
has occurred). In our calculations for
estimating CIBW take in the Estimated
Take sections of the Federal Register
notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR
76576, November 6, 2023) and this
notice of issuance, NMFS did
preliminarily calculate take for CIBWs
without the 59% adjustment (i.e., 122
instances of take). However, we disagree
with the CBD that the adjustment for
mitigation requirements should be
described separately and not be
considered in the take estimation. This
59% adjustment is based on the
effectiveness of monitoring during the
PCT Phase 1 and PCT Phase 2 projects,
which most accurately reflect the
current POA marine mammal
monitoring program, the current
program’s effectiveness, and CIBW
occurrence in the proposed project area.
It is anticipated that the POA
monitoring program during the NES1
project will be similar to that of the
program implemented during the PCT
project. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that it is appropriate to
include the adjustment in our
calculation of authorized take.
Comment 6: The CBD assert that the
root mean square (RMS) thresholds of
120-decibels (dB) referenced to 1
micropascal (re 1mPa) for continuous
and 160 dB re 1mPa for impulsive or
intermittent sources are insufficiently
conservative to protect CIBWs. They cite
Mooney et al. (2018), which suggests
that wild beluga whales have highly
sensitive hearing. They state that, at a
minimum, NMFS should use a 120-dB
threshold for all sound sources.
Response: NMFS disagrees that we
should apply a 120-dB threshold for
Level B harassment from all sound
sources based on beluga hearing
sensitivity. First, we provide here some
necessary background on
implementation of acoustic thresholds.
NMFS has historically used generalized
acoustic thresholds based on received
levels to predict the occurrence of
behavioral disturbance rising to the
level of Level B harassment, given the
practical need to use a relatively simple
threshold based on information that is
available for most activities. Thresholds
were selected largely in consideration of
measured avoidance responses of
mysticete whales to airgun signals and
to industrial noise sources, such as
drilling. The selected thresholds of 160dB RMS sound pressure level (SPL) and
120-dB RMS SPL, respectively, have
been extended for use for estimation of
behavioral disturbance rising to the
level of Level B harassment associated
with noise exposure from sources
associated with other common
activities.
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
Sound sources can be divided into
broad categories based on various
criteria or for various purposes. As
discussed by Richardson et al. (1995),
source characteristics include strength
of signal amplitude, distribution of
sound frequency and, importantly in
context of these thresholds, variability
over time. With regard to temporal
properties, sounds are generally
considered to be either continuous or
transient (i.e., intermittent). Continuous
sounds, which are produced by the
industrial noise sources (such as
vibratory pile driving) for which the
120-dB behavioral threshold was
selected, are simply those for which
sound pressure levels remain above
background sound during the
observation period (ANSI, 2005).
Intermittent sounds are defined as
sounds with interrupted levels of low or
no sound (NIOSH, 1998). Simply put, a
continuous noise source produces a
signal that continues over time, while
an intermittent source produces signals
of relatively short duration having an
obvious start and end with predictable
patterns of bursts of sound and silent
periods (i.e., duty cycle) (Richardson
and Malme, 1993). It is this fundamental
temporal distinction that is most
important for categorizing sound types
in terms of their potential to cause a
behavioral response. For example,
Gomez et al. (2016) found a significant
relationship between source type and
marine mammal behavioral response
when sources were split into continuous
(e.g., shipping, icebreaking, drilling)
versus intermittent (e.g., sonar, seismic,
explosives) types. In addition, there
have been various studies noting
differences in responses to intermittent
and continuous sound sources for other
species (e.g., Neo et al., 2014; Radford
et al., 2016; Nichols et al., 2015).
Given the existing paradigm—
dichotomous thresholds appropriate for
generic use in evaluating the potential
for behavioral disturbance rising to the
level of Level B harassment resulting
from exposure to continuous or
intermittent sound sources—the CBD
does not explain why potential
harassment from an intermittent sound
source (i.e., impact pile driving) should
be evaluated using a threshold
developed for use with continuous
sound sources. As we have stated in
prior responses to this recommendation,
consideration of the preceding factors
leads to a conclusion that the 160-dB
threshold is more appropriate for use for
intermittent sources such as impact pile
driving than the 120-dB threshold.
Further, any dB-based threshold itself
is a step-function approach (i.e., animals
exposed to received levels above the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
threshold are considered to be ‘‘taken’’
and those exposed to levels below the
threshold are not); but, in reality, it is
in fact intended as a sort of mid-point
of likely behavioral responses (which
are extremely complex depending on
many factors including species, noise
source, individual experience, and
behavioral context). What this means is
that, conceptually, the function
recognizes that some animals exposed to
levels below the threshold will in fact
react in ways that are appropriately
considered take, while others that are
exposed to levels above the threshold
will not. Use of a specific dB threshold
allows for a simplistic quantitative
estimate of take, while we can
qualitatively address the variation in
responses across different received
levels in our discussion and analysis.
Lastly, NMFS has acknowledged that
the scientific evidence indicates that
certain species are, in general, more
acoustically sensitive than others. In
particular, harbor porpoise and beaked
whales are considered to be
behaviorally sensitive, and it may be
appropriate to consider use of lower
Level B harassment thresholds for these
species. Beluga whales have been
observed to have sensitive hearing (<80
dB) in the frequency range of 16 to 100
kilohertz (kHz) (Mooney et al., 2018).
However, noise from pile driving
activities is typically below 1 kHz
(Richardson et al., 1995), well outside
this sensitive hearing range. Therefore,
based on the best available science (i.e.,
Mooney et al., 2018), sensitivity in
CIBW hearing does not support the
application of a 120-dB threshold for
Level B harassment from all pile driving
sound sources. NMFS is currently
engaged in an ongoing effort to develop
updated guidance regarding the effects
of anthropogenic sound on marine
mammal behavior, and in this effort
NMFS is considering this issue for
assessing Level B harassment. However,
until this work is completed and new
guidelines are identified (if
appropriate), NMFS will continue using
the historical Level B harassment
thresholds (or derivations thereof) and
will appropriately evaluate behavioral
disturbance rising to the level of Level
B harassment due to intermittent sound
sources relative to the 160-dB threshold.
Comment 7: CBD states that NMFS
should undertake the analysis using the
framework provided by Southall et al.
(2023) to determine the vulnerability of
marine mammals to noise disturbance.
Response: Southall et al. (2023)
present an analytical framework for
assessing the relative risk of
anthropogenic disturbances, such as
those resulting from noise, on marine
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
2839
vertebrates. This framework is based on
both species-specific ‘vulnerability’
(which accounts for population, life
history, auditory communication
systems, and environmental factors) and
species-specific and scenario-specific
‘severity’ (which includes population
modeling methods for acute (short-term,
project specific) exposure events) and a
spatial-temporal-spectral algorithm for
estimating a disturbance magnitude
metric from aggregate events (long-term,
multiple years, and or multiple
projects). For each species and exposure
scenario, a vulnerability and severity
risk rating are computed, which allows
for the assessment of the overall risk of
each scenario for each species. Lastly, in
this framework a subjective
consideration of confidence in the risk
assessment scores is provided. The
Southall et al. (2023) framework has
been used to model results from the
construction and operation of wind
farms and seismic surveys.
While the framework presented by
Southall et al. (2023) is a useful tool for
evaluating risk of marine mammals to
exposure events, such as pile driving
activities, it is intended to be used as a
complementary tool to use when
implementing marine policies. It is ‘‘not
intended to replicate or supersede
current regulatory guidelines for
auditory or behavioral impact’’
(Southall et al., 2023). Furthermore, the
framework presented by Southall et al.
(2023) does not estimate defined
impacts such as injury (equivalent to
Level A harassment) or behavioral
disturbance (equivalent to Level B
harassment) that would inform take
estimates. In the Federal Register notice
of the proposed IHA (88 FR 76576,
November 6, 2023) and this notice of
issuance, NMFS discusses the
anticipated impacts of the NES1 project
activities in the context of species
status, which included an assessment of
species population trends, life history
traits, auditory communication systems,
and environmental factors as well as
estimated impacts of project activities.
Thus, for this action, NMFS has
determined that the application of the
framework proposed by Southall et al.
(2023) would not provide meaningful
additive information in our assessment
of take or in our negligible impact
determination, and therefore, we do not
apply it here.
Comment 8: The CBD states that
NMFS’ negligible impact determination
fails to adequately consider adverse
impacts to CIBW critical habitat and
biologically important areas (BIAs). In
addition, they assert that the proposed
NES1 project does not avoid or impose
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
2840
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
any specific mitigation for the yearround CIBW BIA.
Response: In our analysis, NMFS
considered the potential for impacts to
CIBWs and their habitat in general (see
the Potential Effects of Specified
Activities on Marine Mammals and their
Habitat section of the Federal Register
notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR
76576, November 6, 2023). The CIBW
Recovery Plan (NMFS, 2016b)
determined that CIBWs having waters
that do not restrict passage within or
between critical habitat areas and
having waters with in-water noise levels
below levels resulting in abandonment
of critical habitat were essential for the
conservation of this species. While some
marine mammals—largely harbor
porpoise, which are generally
considered as one of the most
behaviorally sensitive marine mammal
species—have been observed to
abandon or reduce time spent in
preferred habitat during periods of
increased anthropogenic noise (e.g.,
Wartzok et al., 2003; Carstensen et al.,
2006; Da¨hne et al., 2012; Forney et al.,
2017), CIBW presence in the project area
has persisted during numerous periods
of pile driving, dredging, and other
construction activities at the POA.
Previous monitoring data indicates that
CIBWs are not abandoning critical
habitat and are able to transit through
the project area to primary foraging
areas north of the Port. Instead, they
travel more often and faster past the
POA, more quietly, and in tighter
groups (Kendall and Cornick, 2015; 61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b).
Moreover, marine mammal monitoring
results from the POA and NMFS (e.g.,
61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b;
Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022)
suggest that the areas that are expected
to be impacted by noise during the
NES1 project are not particularly
important feeding or calving areas for
CIBWs. Rather CIBWs typically transit
through the area adjacent to the POA to
foraging areas located to the north (e.g.,
Six Mile Creek, Eagle River, Eklutna
River). For these reasons, NMFS expects
the effects that sounds from the NES1
project will have on these essential
features will be small (see NMFS,
2023a).
Concerning BIAs, CBD improperly
cited Ferguson et al. (2015) when
referring to the CIBW BIA. This BIA was
updated by Wild et al. (2023) as part of
the BIA II effort, which built upon the
2015 study but used new methodology
and structured expert elicitation
principles to update existing BIAs, and
identify and delineate new BIAs (see
Harrison et al., 2023). In this new effort,
Wild et al. (2023) defined a static, year-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
round, small and resident BIA for
CIBWs whose boundary is consistent
with NMFS’ critical habitat designation,
(including excluding the area adjacent
to POA, illustrating that the area is of
low value) (Wild et al., 2023).
In regards to specific mitigation
requirements for this year-round BIA,
the proposed IHA does include a
measure that requires the POA to make
all practicable efforts to complete
construction activities between April
and July when CIBWs are typically
found in lower numbers near the POA.
However, due to the design of the
existing sheet pile wall, the need for
demolition to occur in a sequential
manner to prevent structural failure,
and uncertainty regarding construction
progress until work is initiated, the POA
cannot commit to restricting pile driving
to these months. Given that the location
and sequencing of the activity cannot be
changed, NMFS has prescribed
mitigation measures that affect the least
practicable adverse impact on the stock.
CBD did not provide a specific
recommendation for NMFS to consider.
Comment 9: The CBD stresses that
NMFS should have analyzed the
potential impact on feeding of preferred
prey in making its negligible impact
determination.
Response: NMFS provided this
information in the Acoustic Impacts
section of the Federal Register notice of
the proposed IHA (88 FR 76576,
November 6, 2023), and provides
additional discussion in the Negligible
Impact Analysis and Determination
section for CIBWs of this notice. In
summary, the habitat near the POA is
not typically considered high quality
foraging habitat for CIBWs and feeding
is not a predominant behavior observed
in CIBWs near the POA. Further, there
is no evidence to suggest that CIBWs are
restricted in transiting between
preferred feeding areas during pile
driving activities (e.g., 61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b,
2022c; Easley-Appleyard and Leonard,
2022). Lastly, any impacts to preferred
prey are anticipated to be temporary,
and most likely limited to fish avoiding
the action area.
Comment 10: The CBD postulates that
NMFS’ small numbers determination is
flawed because the amount of take
proposed to be authorized is greater
than 12 percent of the CIBW population
and that NMFS’ definition of small
numbers ‘‘conflates this criterion with
the negligible impact requirement.’’
CBD claims the incidental harassment
authorization here violates the MMPA
because it does not guarantee that only
small numbers of CIBWs and other
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
marine mammals impacted by the
POA’s activities will be taken.
Response: CBD suggests that by
defining small numbers to be relative to
the overall population the criterion ends
up being similar to the negligible impact
finding and that Congress’s intent was
that the MMPA protect not only
populations, but individual marine
mammals. We disagree that our small
numbers finding is conflated with our
negligible impact finding. While ‘‘small
numbers’’ is simply a percent of the
population, our negligible impact
finding considers a number of
parameters including, but not limited to,
the nature of the activities (e.g.,
duration, sound source), effects/
intensity of the taking, the context of
takes, and mitigation.
The reference to a take limit of 12
percent for small numbers comes from
a 2003 district court opinion (Natural
Resources Defense Council v. Evans,
279 F.Supp.2d 1129 (N.D. Cal. 2003)).
However, given the particular
administrative record and
circumstances in that case, including
the fact that our small numbers finding
for the challenged incidental take rule
was based on an invalid regulatory
definition of small numbers, we view
the district court’s opinion regarding 12
percent as dicta.
In NMFS’ Final Rule for taking of
marine mammals incidental to
geophysical surveys in the Gulf of
Mexico (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021),
NMFS fully describes its interpretation
and implementation of ‘‘small
numbers’’. Included as part of that
discussion, NMFS explains the concept
of ‘‘small numbers’’ in recognition that
there could also be quantities of
individuals taken that would
correspond with ‘‘medium’’ and ‘‘large’’
numbers. As such, NMFS has
established that one-third of the most
appropriate population abundance
number—as compared with the
assumed number of individuals taken—
is an appropriate limit with regard to
‘‘small numbers.’’ This relative
approach is consistent with the
statement from the legislative history
that ‘‘[small numbers] is not capable of
being expressed in absolute numerical
limits’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 97–228, at 19
(September 16, 1981)), and relevant case
law (Center for Biological Diversity v.
Salazar, 695 F.3d 893, 907 (9th Cir.
2012) (holding that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service reasonably interpreted
‘‘small numbers’’ by analyzing take in
relative or proportional terms)).
As described in the Small Numbers
section of the Federal Register notice of
the proposed IHA (88 FR 76576,
November 6, 2023) and this notice of
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
issuance, NMFS is authorizing take of
less than 2 percent for eight stocks and
22 percent for one stock (i.e., CIBWs)
and based on this analysis, NMFS finds
that small numbers of marine mammals
will be taken relative to the population
size of the affected species or stocks.
Comment 11: CBD asserts that NMFS
relies on visual monitoring measures
that it claims are ‘‘known to be
ineffective and inadequate’’ to protect
marine mammals.
Response: NMFS disagrees the
mitigation and monitoring measures
included in this authorization are
ineffective and inadequate and CBD
does not provide additional information
to support their claim. The IHA requires
a minimum of two Protected Species
Observer (PSO) stations, and that at
each station, at least two PSOs must be
on watch at any given time. Further, the
PSO stations must be located so that the
PSOs can fully monitor the shutdown
zones and call for activities to be
delayed when CIBWs are entering or
observed within the Level B harassment
zones. The POA has a demonstrated
history of successfully implementing a
rigorous monitoring program during
recent construction projects in Knik
Arm (i.e., PCT and SFD), and
monitoring data from these projects
provides evidence that their PSOs are
capable of observing belugas out to
11,057-m from the NES1 project site.
This distance is dependent on several
factors such as visual acuity, sea state,
glare, animal behavior/body type, speed
of travel for vessel and animal, etc.; but
this demonstrates that it is possible for
PSOs to detect and identify marine
mammals to the species level several km
from the source, including CIBWs. In
addition, Easley-Appleyard and Leonard
(2022) reported that PSOs who worked
for the PCT monitoring program
expressed that they were effective at
detecting CIBWs from two monitoring
stations despite occasional challenges
related to the timing of the detection
and the ability to track multiple CIBW
groups.
The majority of the work for this
project will be the vibratory removal of
sheet piles, which has an estimated
Level B harassment distance of 1,954-m.
The largest zones will be associated
with the installation and removal of the
temporary steel pipe piles, which could
have estimated Level B harassment
zones up to 6,861-m. These distances
are well within the distances that PSOs
at the POA have effectively detected
CIBWs as described above. Further,
there are mitigation measures
preventing pile driving from occurring if
visibility in any portion of the
shutdown zone (i.e., the Level B
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
harassment zone for CIBWs) is obscured
by weather or sea state. Therefore, we
find the visual monitoring plan can
reasonably be expected to be an
effective tool at detecting marine
mammals, ensuring the mitigation
measures are adhered to.
Comment 12: CBD suggests that
construction should be restricted from
August through October, and further
states that NMFS ‘‘should also consider
time area restrictions that would further
mitigate impacts to beluga whales and
other marine mammals,’’ though it
provides no recommendations.
Response: Time-area restrictions were
considered for this project, in addition
to the PSO requirements. We note that
August through November are months
with high CIBW abundance, and NMFS
expects that the POA will likely have to
shut down pile driving activities more
frequently during that time period due
to the increased presence of CIBWs in
Knik Arm. NMFS is requiring the POA
to complete in-water work as early in
the construction season as is
practicable. However, the design of the
existing sheet pile wall, the safety
requirements of the demolition
sequencing, and the likely highly
adaptive nature of the field work once
construction commences do not allow
NMFS to practicably restrict pile driving
to any specific time periods or areas
(e.g., only allowing pile driving April
through July). Furthermore, there are
potential consequences of pausing or
delaying the construction season,
including de-rating the structural
capacity of the existing docks, a
shutdown of dock operations due to
deteriorated conditions, or an actual
collapse of one or more dock structures.
The potential for collapse increases with
schedule delays, due to both worsening
deterioration and the higher probability
of a significant seismic event occurring.
Any of these scenarios could have dire
consequences for the populations of
Anchorage and Alaska who are served
by the POA. In this context, NMFS has
determined that the current mitigation
and monitoring measures affect the least
practicable adverse impact on marine
mammal species and stocks.
Comment 13: CDB states that NMFS
failed to consider other mitigation
measures to reduce the proposed
activities’ impacts to the least
practicable level such as bubble curtains
placement configurations, pile caps,
physical barrier technologies, such as
dewatered cofferdams, passive acoustic
monitoring (PAM), and sound source
verification (SSV) studies.
Response: CBD does not provide any
specific information contradicting
NMFS’ determinations concerning
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
2841
whether these measures should be
included in the suite of mitigation
requirements determined to provide the
means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impact on the affected species
or stocks of marine mammals. CBD
states that bubble curtains were required
for previous POA pile driving activities,
and recommends that one could be
placed beyond the construction area for
the NES1 site due to spacing and safety
concerns. They also state that NMFS
could consider other noise mitigation
technologies such as pile caps,
dewatered cofferdams, and other
physical barrier mitigation. CBD is
correct that NMFS has required the POA
to use bubble curtains for other POA
pile driving activities. During
construction of the PCT, two different
types of bubble curtain systems were
utilized, confined bubble curtain
systems and unconfined bubble curtain
systems. Both bubble curtain systems
were expensive to construct, maintain,
and repair. It was necessary to build
several versions of each model for each
pile size in case of damage and so that
two or more piles could be
simultaneously staged and prepared for
installation, which was done in an effort
to save time. Both bubble curtain
systems were time-consuming to deploy
and retrieve, adding an average of 6
hours (confined) and 4 hours
(unconfined) of deployment and
retrieval time to each pile. Thus, as
described in the Proposed Mitigation
section of the Federal Register notice of
the proposed IHA (88 FR 76576,
November 6, 2023), adding a
requirement for a bubble curtain may
hinder production of the NES1 project,
which could push the in-water
construction schedule further into the
late summer months, which are known
for higher CIBW abundance in lower
Knik Arm, thus lengthening the
duration of potential interactions
between CIBW and in-water works.
Lastly, data from prior SSV studies
conducted during the PCT project (i.e.,
Illingworth & Rodkin (I&R), 2021a,
2022b), yielded mixed results regarding
the efficacy of bubble curtains for use
with vibratory hammers (which makes
up the majority of the NES1 project).
Therefore, a requirement to use bubble
curtains in this case (aside from the cost
and safety concerns) would likely have
a detrimental impact over the full scope
of the project.
Further, dredging associated with the
NES1 project will frequently require
barges and vessels to maneuver through
the area between the sheet pile face and
the disposal area located in the middle
of Knik Arm. Additional barges to stage
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
2842
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
air compressors for a bubble curtain
would add multiple anchor lines that
would present a logistical challenge to
the frequent vessel transit and increase
the risk of a safety incident, particularly
if there were to be an uncontrolled
release of sediments from a structure
collapse. Additional vessels, air
compressors, and crew also increase the
cost and potential negative impacts of
the project. The POA believes this
combination of logistical challenges,
time requirements, and safety
considerations make it impractical for
the POA to use a bubble curtain for this
project. NMFS has considered input
from the POA, as well as other
information, and concurs that use of
bubble curtains is not practicable in this
case. Additional information regarding
practicability and efficacy concerns
with using bubble curtains during the
NES1 project were included in the
Proposed Mitigation section of the
Federal Register notice of the proposed
IHA (88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023)
and the Mitigation section of this notice.
Pile cap cushions are commonly used
in conjunction with an impact hammer
to reduce stress on a pile during
hammer blows. Their efficacy as an
underwater sound attenuation measure
during pile installation remains
uncertain. There are safety and logistical
concerns with the use of a pile cap
cushion as they have been known to
combust from the friction created during
impact pile driving. The NES1 project
does not involve the installation of piles
using an impact hammer. Pile cap
cushions are not compatible with
vibratory pile installation or removal, or
with sheet pile installation or removal.
Therefore, the inclusion of pile caps is
not a feasible option for this project.
Other physical barrier technologies,
such as dewatered cofferdams, would
substantially increase project risks,
construction schedule and costs.
Cofferdams are typically sheet pile
structures supported by cylindrical steel
piles that would require installation and
removal of temporary sheet and
cylindrical piles along the entire length
of the NES1 face sheets, which would
increase potential impacts on CIBWs
and other marine species. Other
physical barriers installed into Knik
Arm would also need to be engineered
to a level to resist the tidal forces of
Knik Arm, and would likely require pile
supports, increasing impacts, duration,
and cost. Thus, NMFS has determined
that the recommendation of applying
other physical barriers to mitigate noise
from construction activities is not an
appropriate addition to the required
suite of mitigation measures for the
NES1 project.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
In addition, the CBD states that NMFS
should require PAM for marine
mammals. The use of PAM for real-time
mitigation purposes has been used in
Cook Inlet for some studies. These
efforts have generally not resulted in
successful deployment of PAM or useful
detections of marine mammals to inform
mitigation and monitoring during the
activities due to the environmental
conditions of the region. For example, a
real-time PAM system implemented as
part of the 2012 Apache 3D seismic
survey program in lower- and mid-Cook
Inlet only yielded six confirmed marine
mammal detections. One of these
detections was of a CIBW, however, it
did not result in a shutdown procedure
(Lomac-MacNair et al., 2013). Similarly,
a real-time PAM program was required
in the IHA for the 2015 SAExploration
3D seismic program. This program only
detected 15 marine mammal detections
(including 2 from CIBWs) over 310
hours. For these reasons, we have
determined PAM is not likely to be
sufficiently effective at detection for
real-time mitigation for the POA’s
construction activities and, therefore, is
not included in the IHA.
Researchers have begun to implement
more effective passive acoustic monitors
for research purposes at several places
in Cook Inlet (e.g., Castellote et al.,
2020). However, the framework used by
those researchers is impractical,
particularly for the POA’s planned
activity. An article on NOAA’s website
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/scienceblog/beluga-whale-acoustic-monitoringsurvey-post-3) illustrates the level of
customization, expertise, and difficulty
required to assemble a passive acoustic
mooring to then deploy in the Inlet.
Additionally, these instruments are
stationary, which means to effectively
use these monitors as a means of
avoiding harassment of marine
mammals during the POA’s, the POA
would need to build and successfully
deploy dozens (or more) of stationary
monitors along a route of travel that is
subject to change depending upon
weather or other environmental and
shipping restrictions. Additionally, the
data stored on these types of moorings
is not accessible until they are retrieved
by the researcher who deployed them.
In the future, if an established network
of passive acoustic monitors with
shared access to the data is available,
this could be a useful tool for
implementing mitigation measures, but
is currently not practicable. NMFS looks
forward to advances in technology that
could make real-time PAM a practicable
mitigation measure in these areas in the
future.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Lastly, CBD recommends that NMFS
should require that in-situ SSV studies
be conducted to ensure that the Level A
and Level B harassment zones are
sufficient. Lessons learned from prior
SSV studies carried out at the POA (e.g.,
I&R, 2021a, 2022b) indicate that Knik
Arm is a very challenging environment
to collect high quality acoustic data
usable by NMFS, the POA, and others
due to the presence of strong tidal
currents, which can create substantial
flow noise in recordings, and prevalent
anthropogenic noise, which can mask
acoustic signals of interest. Specifically
during the NES1 project, multiple
barges, tugs, and other support vessels,
which can obscure signals of interest,
will be within the action area at all
times during the project. Further, active
dredging and removal of above-water
soils, and vessels with generators
running will be present at all times.
While both the POA and NMFS believe
sound source data would be valuable,
this measure is not practicable given the
known challenges of the area.
Comment 14: CBD asserts that NMFS
should require larger exclusion zones.
Response: CBD did not provide any
additional information for NMFS to
consider to support this
recommendation. The exclusion zones
proposed in the Federal Register notice
of the proposed IHA (88 FR 76576,
November 6, 2023) (referred to as
shutdown zones) are equivalent to the
estimated Level B harassment zone for
CIBWs. This is consistent with
shutdown zones required in other recent
ITAs issued to the POA for construction
activities at the Port including the PCT
(85 FR 19284, April 6, 2020) and SFD
(86 FR 50057, September 7, 2021)
projects, which resulted in the number
of CIBWs occurring within estimated
harassment zones being 59 percent and
7 percent of the authorized take for each
project, respectively. Therefore, NMFS
disagrees that the final IHA should
include larger exclusion zones and
requires the exclusion zones proposed
in the Federal Register notice of the
proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November
6, 2023) in the final IHA.
Comment 15: The CBD asserts that a
1-year renewal should require new
permitting and programmatic analysis of
impacts.
Response: NMFS disagrees with this
assertion. NMFS’ IHA Renewal process
meets all statutory requirements. All
IHAs issued, whether an initial IHA or
a Renewal IHA, are valid for a period of
not more than 1-year. Renewal IHAs are
limited to another year of identical or
nearly identical activities in the same
location or the same activities that were
not completed within the 1-year period
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
of the initial IHA. Should a Renewal
request be made, additional
documentation would be required from
the POA that NMFS would make
publicly available and would use to
verify that the activities are identical to
those in the initial IHA, are nearly
identical such that the changes would
have either no effect on impacts to
marine mammals or decrease those
impacts, or are a subset of activities
already analyzed and authorized but not
completed under the initial IHA. NMFS
would also confirm, among other things,
that the activities would occur in the
same location; involve the same species
and stocks; provide for continuation of
the same mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements; and that no new
information had been received that
would alter the prior analysis. If new
information has been received that
would alter the prior analysis, that
information would be analyzed in the
notice of the proposed Renewal IHA. A
Renewal request would also contain a
preliminary monitoring report,
specifically to verify that effects from
the activities do not indicate impacts of
a scale or nature not previously
analyzed. Any Renewal request is
subject to an additional 15-day public
comment period that provides the
public an opportunity to review these
few documents, provide any additional
pertinent information and comment on
whether they think the criteria for a
Renewal have been met. Between the
initial 30-day comment period on these
same activities and the additional 15
days, the total comment period for a
Renewal is 45 days.
In addition to the IHA Renewal
process being consistent with all
requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D),
it is also consistent with Congress’
intent for issuance of IHAs to the extent
reflected in statements in the legislative
history of the MMPA. Through the
provision for Renewals in the
regulations, description of the process
and express invitation to comment on
specific potential Renewals in the
Request for Public Comments section of
each proposed IHA, the description of
the process on NMFS’ website, further
elaboration on the process through
responses to comments such as these,
posting of substantive documents on the
agency’s website, and provision of 30 or
45 days for public review and comment
on all proposed initial IHAs and
Renewals respectively, NMFS has
ensured that the public ‘‘is invited and
encouraged to participate fully in the
agency decision-making process.’’
Regarding a programmatic analysis,
we refer to our response to Comment 3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
Comment 16: CBD asserts that the
proposed activities will have an
unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence uses. CBD states that the
proposed activities may have an adverse
impact on the availability of beluga
whales, harbor seals, and Steller sea
lions for Native Alaskan subsistence
harvest. They also state that the IHA
should require consultation with Native
Alaskan communities to ensure
adequate mitigation for subsistence
harvest for harbor seals and Steller sea
lions.
Response: The POA sent letters to and
conducted follow-up calls with the
Kenaitze, Tyonek, Knik, Eklutna,
Ninilchik, Salamatof, and Chickaloon
Tribes informing them of the proposed
project (i.e., timing, location, and
features), the availability of the notice of
proposed IHA for public comment, and
inquiring about any marine mammal
subsistence concerns they have. The
POA also explained the measures that
have been taken or will be taken to
minimize any adverse effects of NES1
on the availability of marine mammals
for subsistence uses. No Tribes or
affected subsistence communities/users
expressed concern over subsistence use
during the 30-day public comment
period for the proposed IHA. One letter
was received from Eklutna Inc.
requesting that Alaska Native residents
with traditional knowledge about
marine mammals and the local marine
environment be involved in the
monitoring and support roles related to
the project (i.e., as PSOs) (see Comment
22 Response), but it did not suggest
concerns regarding unmitigable adverse
impact on subsistence uses. The POA
adequately communicated with
representative Alaska Native
subsistence users and Tribal members to
ensure any concerns they had regarding
marine mammal subsistence uses would
be addressed, hence fulfilling any
requirements provided by the MMPA.
Overall, there is little subsistence use
of marine mammals near the project
area. There has been no subsistence
harvest of CIBWs since 2005 (NMFS,
2022d) and subsistence harvest of other
marine mammals in upper Cook Inlet is
limited to harbor seals. Steller sea lions
are rare in upper Cook Inlet; therefore,
subsistence use of this species is not
common. Residents of the Native Village
of Tyonek are the primary subsistence
users in the upper Cook Inlet area,
however no NES1 activities will take
place in or near Tyonek’s identified
traditional subsistence hunting areas.
Additionally, the harvest of marine
mammals in upper Cook Inlet is
historically a small portion of the total
subsistence harvest, and the number of
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
2843
marine mammals harvested in upper
Cook Inlet is expected to remain low.
The potential impacts from harassment
on stocks that are harvested in Cook
Inlet would be limited to minor
behavioral changes (e.g., increased swim
speeds, changes in dive time, temporary
avoidance near the POA) within the
vicinity of the POA or slight PTS. NMFS
has found that the taking of marine
mammals incidental to the NES1 project
would have a negligible impact on the
population, meaning we do not
anticipate there to be adverse impacts
on the annual rates of recruitment or
survival. Therefore, the taking would
not impede recovery of CIBW for
potential future subsistence use. The
full explanation and support for this
finding is described further in the
Unmitigable Adverse Impact
Determination section of this notice.
NMFS has required rigorous
mitigation and monitoring measures in
the IHA to reduce impacts to CIBWs,
Steller sea lions, and harbor seals
including shutdown measures at the
Level B harassment zone for CIBWs and
Level A harassment zone for harbor
seals and Steller sea lions if pile driving
is occurring and an animal enters the
zone. These measures are expected to
reduce both the scope and severity of
potential harassment takes by reducing
the potential for exposure above
harassment thresholds. In addition to
the mitigation measures, the POA will
monitor from elevated platforms at a
minimum of two locations dispersed
throughout lower Knik Arm. All stations
will have at least two NMFS-approved
observers on-watch at any given time.
Therefore, marine mammal detection
effectiveness is expected to be high. In
accordance with our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(c), we use
the best available scientific evidence to
determine whether the taking by the
specified activity within the specified
geographic region will have a negligible
impact on the species or stock and will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of such species or
stock for subsistence uses. Based on the
scientific evidence available, NMFS
determined that the impacts of the
authorized take incidental to pile
driving would result in a negligible
impact and no unmitigable adverse
impact on availability of marine
mammals for subsistence uses.
Comment 17: CBD states that NMFS
must prepare a programmatic
environmental impact statement (EIS)
for its CIBW take authorizations. They
state that at a minimum, NMFS should
analyze the PAMP in a single NEPA
review that considers all cumulative,
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
2844
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
indirect, and direct environmental
effects.
Response: For clarity, NMFS’
authorization does not ‘‘approve
activities’’; that permitting
responsibility lies with the United
States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). Rather, NMFS authorizes
unintentional take of marine mammals
incidental to specified activities.
Therefore, under NEPA, NMFS must
evaluate the impacts of our issuance of
the ITA to the POA for the NES1
activities.
NMFS originally declared its intent to
prepare an EIS for oil and gas activities
in Cook Inlet, Alaska (79 FR 61616,
October 14, 2014). However, in a 2017
Federal Register notice (82 FR 41939,
September 5, 2017), NMFS indicated
that due to a reduced number of ITA
requests in the region, combined with
funding constraints at that time, we
were postponing any potential
preparation of an EIS for oil and gas
activities in Cook Inlet. As stated in the
2017 Federal Register notice, should the
number of ITA requests, or anticipated
requests, noticeably increase, NMFS
will re-evaluate whether preparation of
an EIS is necessary. Currently, the
number of ITA requests for activities
that may affect marine mammals in
Cook Inlet is at such a level that
preparation of an EIS is not yet
necessary. Nonetheless, under NEPA,
NMFS is required to consider
cumulative effects of other potential
activities in the same geographic area,
and these are discussed in greater detail
in the Final EA prepared for this
issuance of an IHA to the POA for the
NES1 project, which supports our
finding that NMFS’ issuance of the POA
IHA will not have a significant impact
on the human environment.
CBD assert that NMFS should analyze
the PAMP in a single NEPA review and
comment that ‘‘[NMFS] has already
segmented analysis of the [PCT] and
[SFD] and, here, the NES1
construction’’. NMFS has appropriately
analyzed and captured all past, present
and reasonably foreseeable future
actions under NEPA. This includes the
projects associated with the PAMP,
which each have independent utility
and require separate authorizations and
NEPA analyses. The EAs for each PAMP
activity appropriately analyze the
cumulative, indirect, and direct
environmental effects of each specified
action. They include an evaluation of
each action’s affected area, the scale and
geographic extent of each action, and
the degree of cumulative effects on
resources (including the duration of
impact, and whether the impacts were
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
adverse and/or beneficial and their
magnitude) under NEPA.
CBD is correct that Federal agencies
generally prepare an EIS for a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
While CBD acknowledges that
significance is determined by
considering the potential affected
environment and the degree of the
action (40 CFR 1501.3(b)), CBD argues
that if this factor is met, then the agency
must prepare an EIS. CBD further argues
that, ‘‘the impacts on an endangered
species like the environmentally and
culturally significant Cook Inlet beluga
and its designated critical habitat is
sufficient to trigger a full EIS.’’ NMFS
disagrees. NMFS can prepare an EA so
long as the record supports the
conclusion that potential impacts are
not ‘‘significant’’ per 40 CFR 1501.3(b)
for the purposes of NEPA. Based on the
information presented in the application
and NMFS’ Policy and Procedures for
Compliance with the NEPA and Related
Authorities (Companion Manual (CM)
for NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)
216–6A) (NOAA 2017), sections 3 and 7,
NMFS’ determination to prepare an EA
is appropriate and in compliance with
NEPA and 40 CFR 1501.3. NMFS
appropriately signed a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for the
issuance of the IHA for incidental take
associated with the POA’s NES1 project
in support of this determination. The
FONSI concluded that NMFS’ proposed
action, the issuance of an IHA to the
POA, will not meaningfully contribute
to significant impacts to specific
resources, given the limited scope of
NMFS’ action and required mitigation
measures. Accordingly, preparation of
an EIS for this action is not necessary.
Comment 18: CBD believes the draft
EA for the NES1 project fails to comply
with the requirements of NEPA. They
stipulate that the draft EA fails to
consider a reasonable range of
alternatives and lacks a meaningful
environmental and cumulative impacts
analysis.
Response: In accordance with the
NEPA and the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ)
Regulations, NMFS is required to
consider a reasonable range of
alternatives to a Proposed Action, as
well as a No Action Alternative.
Reasonable alternatives are viable
options for meeting the purpose and
need for the proposed action. The
evaluation of alternatives under NEPA
assists NMFS with understanding, and
as appropriate, minimizing impacts
through an assessment of alternative
ways to achieve the purpose and need
for our Proposed Action. Reasonable
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
alternatives are carried forward for
detailed evaluation under NEPA while
alternatives considered but determined
not to meet the purpose and need are
not carried forward. For the purposes of
this EA, an alternative will only meet
the purpose and need if it satisfies the
requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA.
In accordance with NOAA’s
implementing procedures, the CM for
NAO 216–6A, Section 6.B.i, NMFS is
defining the No Action alternative as
not authorizing the requested incidental
take of marine mammals under Section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. This is
consistent with our statutory obligation
under the MMPA to either: (1) Deny the
requested authorization; or (2) grant the
requested authorization and prescribe
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements. The Preferred Alternative
(i.e., issuance of the IHA) includes
mandatory mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements for POA to
achieve the MMPA standard of effecting
the least practicable adverse impact on
each species or stock of marine mammal
and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and other areas of similar significance.
Since NMFS is required to prescribe
mitigation to effect the least practicable
adverse impact on marine mammals,
mitigation that reduces impacts on
marine mammals is inherently included
in Alternative 2 (the proposed action)
and is included as part of the analysis
of alternative(s) in the Environmental
Consequences chapter in the EA. NMFS
described both the No Action
Alternative and Preferred Alternative in
the EA. We have also included an
‘‘Alternatives Considered but
Eliminated from Further Consideration’’
section in the final EA that considered
whether other alternatives could meet
the purpose and need while supporting
this applicant’s proposal to demolish
the NES. There is no requirement under
NEPA to consider more than two
alternatives, or to consider alternatives
that are substantially similar to other
alternatives or which have substantially
similar consequences. NMFS’ range of
alternatives is based on the proposed
action and the purpose and need, which
are linked to NMFS’ authorities under
the MMPA. For the purposes of analysis
under NEPA in the EA, an alternative
will only meet the purpose and need if
it satisfies the requirements under
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA.
Therefore, NMFS determined that,
based on our authorities and criteria
under the MMPA, which included
criteria regarding mitigation measures,
appropriate considerations were applied
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
to identify which alternatives to carry
forward for analysis.
CBD comments that the
environmental and cumulative impacts
section of the EA is not sufficient. CBD
asserts that NMFS does not evaluate
what the level of take will have on
individual whales or the population,
and fails to take into account any impact
to CIBW pods. In addition, they state
that NMFS does not include the most
recent available information regarding
the impacts of noise on marine
mammals, and new information about
CIBWs. In the draft EA, NMFS described
both the general effects to marine
mammals from exposure to noise (e.g.,
pile driving) and scientific literature
identifying responses of CIBWs to pile
driving at the POA in Chapter 4 of the
EA. This includes, as described in the
Federal Register notice of proposed IHA
(88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023) and in
our response to Comment 1, data from
several years of recent scientific
monitoring at the POA during previous
work involving pile driving (e.g.,
Kendall and Cornick, 2016; 61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b,
2022c; Easley-Appleyard and Leonard,
2022). In Chapter 3 of the EA we also
describe anticipated impacts on marine
mammal habitat and their prey. We
believe these descriptions are sufficient
with regard to the requirements of
NEPA and the CEQ regulations.
NMFS disagrees that we did not
include the most recent available
information about noise on marine
mammals or new information about
CIBWs. As described above, the EA
includes an analysis of CIBW
observations directly in relation to inwater construction, including pile
driving activities from 2020 through
2021 that took place at the POA (61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b,
2022c; Easley-Appleyard and Leonard,
2022). Chapter 4 of the EA also includes
an assessment on the impacts on marine
mammals to noise that includes recent
information on permanent and
temporary threshold shifts, avoidance or
abandonment behaviors, changes in
vocalizations, and the masking of
communication and foraging signals.
The impacts of the NES1 project on
marine mammals, including CIBWs, are
expected to represent short-term,
localized, negligible, adverse, direct
impacts. For CIBWs, NMFS anticipates
these impacts will manifest as whales
moving more quickly and silently
through the area, in more cohesive
groups, but not by habitat abandonment
or ceasing traveling through Knik Arm.
CBD also states that the draft EA fails
to evaluate the cumulative impacts of
other proposed projects and ongoing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
activities in Cook Inlet. In Chapter 4 of
the draft EA, NMFS evaluated the
cumulative impacts of the past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future
actions in the action area, including
projects associated with PAMP and the
Alaska LNG project, which the CBD
mentioned should be included, and
research activities. These instances do
not change NMFS’ overall
determination regarding the cumulative
impacts of the NES1 project on marine
mammals or marine mammal habitat. As
stated in the draft EA, while
consideration of activities in sum
suggests an increase in industrialization
of Cook Inlet, many of the past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future
actions are spatially and temporally
limited and do not permanently reduce
or degrade the habitat available to
marine mammals or their prey species.
While the NES1 project would add an
incremental contribution to the
combined environmental impacts of
other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions; those direct
and indirect adverse impacts are
expected to be mainly short-term,
localized, and minor, as described in the
draft EA. None of the harassment
authorized by NMFS in other ITAs
would overlap in time or space with
impacts from the NES1 Project.
The CBD postulates that NMFS’
consideration of climate change is
inadequate. However, CBD improperly
states that the proposed project is for
cement and petroleum. That is incorrect
as the proposed project is for the
demolition of portions of the failed NES
sheet pile structure and reconfiguration
and realignment of the shoreline within
the North Extension. NMFS considers
climate change in its EA. However, as
mentioned above NMFS does not
authorize any of the POA’s activities but
rather take of marine mammals
incidental to the POA’s activities. While
changes in environmental conditions
due to climate change could result in
prey distribution changes or loss for
beluga whales or other marine
mammals, the NES1 project is planned
to occur during a 1-year period, during
which time the impacts of climate
change on marine mammals are likely to
remain at baseline levels.
Comment 19: CBD states that NMFS
must comply with the ESA but asserts
that NMFS should not issue take
authorization under the ESA because
such taking would jeopardize the
continued existence of CIBWs.
Response: In the Federal Register
notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR
76576, November 6, 2023), NMFS
indicated that we requested section 7
consultation under the ESA. CBD
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
2845
indicates they believe the proposed
taking would jeopardize the recovery
and survival of CIBWs but did not
further explain how they reached this
conclusion. NMFS has fully complied
with the ESA. NMFS Alaska Region
issued a BiOp on December 15, 2023
concluding that issuance of take, by
harassment, of CIBW, humpback whales
(Mexico Distinct Population Segment
(DPS) and Western DPS), and Steller sea
lions would not jeopardize the
continued existence of those stocks and
the takings would not adversely modify
critical habitat. The full analysis
supporting these conclusions can be
found in the BiOp (NMFS, 2023a).
Comment 20: In their letter, CBD
stated they did not believe NMFS
should authorize take of CIBWs and
other marine mammals but, if NMFS did
take action to do so, we must impose
stringent mitigation measures to ensure
the least practicable adverse impact on
protected species.
Response: The proposed IHA
included a suite of mitigation measures,
which have been carried forward into
the final IHA, which NMFS determined
to effect the least practicable adverse
impact on marine mammals, in
accordance with the MMPA (see the
Mitigation section).
Comment 21: A commenter from
Eklutna, Inc. representing the
indigenous Dena’ina people of the
Anchorage, Alaska area requested that
Dena’ina individuals from the local area
be trained and employed as NMFSapproved PSOs. They stated that the
Dena’ina people possess a deep-seated
knowledge and understanding of the
local marine ecosystem, particularly
concerning the marine mammals that
NMFS aims to protect through its
monitoring efforts. Given the
significance of these species to their
way of life and the potential impacts of
the NES1 project, the commenter
proposed that members of their
community be actively involved in the
monitoring and support roles related to
the project. They stressed that this
initiative would not only ensure
effective monitoring of marine
mammals, but also foster a sense of
ownership and participation among the
indigenous community in the
conservation efforts.
Response: NMFS agrees that Alaska
Native residents with traditional
knowledge about marine mammals and
the local marine environment hold
valuable knowledge and skills that are
critical to the effectiveness of a PSO. In
the final IHA, NMFS requires at least
one PSO to have at least 1-year of prior
experience performing the duties of a
PSO during construction activity
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
2846
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
pursuant to a NMFS-issued ITA or
Letter of Concurrence. 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 ITA. For
this project, in consideration of valuable
traditional ecological knowledge that
many community members hold, PSOs
may also substitute relevant Alaska
native traditional knowledge for
experience. Regarding hiring preference
for regional residents with traditional
ecological knowledge, NMFS cannot
require an IHA-holder to employ certain
individuals, though it does require that
an applicant request NMFS approval for
all PSOs so that NMFS can confirm that
they meet the requirements outlined in
the IHA. NMFS has passed this
recommendation on to the POA for its
consideration and has suggested that the
POA send letters to the Kenaitze,
Tyonek, Knik, Eklutna, Ninilchik,
Salamatof, and Chickaloon Tribes
informing them of the hiring process
when known.
Changes From the Proposed IHA to
Final IHA
As a result of the public comments
received from CBD and Eklutna, Inc.
(and summarized above), provisions
were added to the final IHA and this
Federal Register notice of issuance that
incorporates additional discussion
regarding impacts to CIBW preferred
prey, and our clarification of
requirements related to PSO
qualifications (i.e., making clear that
relevant Alaska native traditional
knowledge can be considered as a
substitute for relevant experience when
considering prospective PSOs for the
NES1 project).
Since the Federal Register notice of
the proposed IHA was published (88 FR
76576, November 6, 2023), NMFS
became aware of an error in the
calculation of the RMS SPLs that were
used as proxies for unattenuated
vibratory pile removal of steel pipe piles
for this project. NMFS has recalculated
these levels and has revised the
Estimated Take section accordingly.
Specifically, the RMS SPL proxy for the
vibratory removal of 24-inch (61-cm)
piles changed from 168-dB to 169-dB.
The RMS SPL for the vibratory removal
of 36-inch (91-cm) piles did not change
(i.e., it remains 159-dB RMS). As a result
of the change to the 24-inch (61-cm)
RMS SPL, the Level B harassment zone
for this activity increased from 5,967-m
to 6,861-m, and the Level A harassment
zones for low-frequency cetaceans, midfrequency cetaceans, high-frequency
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
cetaceans, and phocid pinniped
increased slightly (i.e., between 1-m to
7-m increases). Given the shutdown
zone for CIBWs is equivalent to the
Level B harassment zone (see the
Mitigation section of this Federal
Register notice of issuance), the
shutdown zone for this activity has
increased from 6,000-m to 6,900-m
(6,861-m rounded up) for this species.
The shutdown zone for low-frequency
cetaceans also increased from 40-m to
50-m due to this change.
In the proposed IHA, NMFS proposed
to require the POA to submit interim
weekly and monthly monitoring reports
(that include raw electronic data sheets)
during the NES1 construction season.
Since the Federal Register notice of the
proposed IHA published (88 FR 76576,
November 6, 2023), the POA has
expressed concern that the inclusion of
raw electronic data sheets with weekly
and monthly reports will not be feasible
for their monitoring program. In
addition, the raw data will need to be
reviewed and corrected for any errors.
Rather, the POA has agreed to submit
the final electronic data sheets with the
final draft summary report. NMFS has
accepted this request and has revised
the final IHA to indicate that the final
electronic data sheets must be submitted
with the final draft summary report
instead of with the required weekly and
monthly monitoring reports. This is
consistent with reporting requirements
for the PCT and SFD IHAs.
Typographical errors identified in
tables 2 and 13 in the Federal Register
notice of the proposed IHA have been
corrected in this Federal Register notice
of issuance (see tables 1 and 10,
respectively). In addition, some
clarifying language regarding source
levels proposed for impact pile removal
and pile splitting has been added to the
Estimated Take section. Lastly, in the
Endangered Species Act section of the
Federal Register notice of the proposed
IHA, NMFS omitted reference to the
Western North Pacific DPS of humpback
whales as a listed species under the ESA
for which NMFS OPR was requesting
ESA section 7 consultation. However,
this species was considered in the
formal consultation and is assessed in
the BiOp issued by the NMFS Alaska
Regional Office on December 15, 2023.
No other changes have been made from
the proposed IHA to the final IHA.
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities
There are seven species of marine
mammals that may be found in upper
Cook Inlet during the planned
construction and demolition activities.
Sections 3 and 4 of the IHA application
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution
and habitat preferences, and behavior
and life history of the potentially
affected species. NMFS fully considered
all of this information, and we refer the
reader to these descriptions, instead of
reprinting the information. Additional
information regarding population trends
and threats may be found in NMFS’
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’ website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Additional information on CIBWs
may be found in NMFS’ 2016 Recovery
Plan for the CIBW, available online at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
resource/document/recovery-plan-cookinlet-beluga-whale-delphinapterusleucas, and NMFS’ 2023 report on the
abundance and trend of CIBWs in Cook
Inlet in June 2021 and June 2022,
available online at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/
document/abundance-and-trendbelugas-delphinapterus-leucas-cookinlet-alaska-june-2021-and.
Table 2 lists all species or stocks for
which take is expected and authorized
for this activity, and summarizes
information related to the population or
stock, including regulatory status under
the MMPA and ESA and potential
biological removal (PBR), where known.
PBR is defined by the MMPA as the
maximum number of animals, not
including natural mortalities, that may
be removed from a marine mammal
stock while allowing that stock to reach
or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS’
SARs). While no serious injury or
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 or stocks and
other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates
presented in this document represent
the total number of individuals that
make up a given stock or the total
number estimated within a particular
study or survey area. NMFS’ stock
abundance estimates for most species
represent the total estimate of
individuals within the geographic area,
if known, that comprises that stock. For
some species, this geographic area may
extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed
stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS’ U.S. Alaska and Pacific SARs
(e.g., Carretta, et al., 2023; Young et al.,
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
2847
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
2023). Values presented in table 2 are
the most recent available at the time of
publication and are available online at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
marine-mammal-stock-assessments.
The most recent abundance estimate for
CIBWs, however, is available from Goetz
et al. (2023) and available online at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-
story/new-abundance-estimateendangered-cook-inlet-beluga-whales.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
Table 2 -- Species Likely Impacted by the Specified Activities
Common
name
Scientific name
MMPAStock
ESA/M
MPA
status;
Strategic
(YIN)]
Stock abundance
Nbest, (CV, Nmin, most
recent abundance
survey)2
Annua
PBR
1
M/SI3
Order Cetartiodactyla- Cetacea - Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Gray whale
Eschrichtius
robustus
Family Eschrichtiidae
26,960 (0.05, 25,849,
Eastern North
-I-; N
2016)
Pacific
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)
11,278 (0.56, 7,265,
-, -, N
Hawaii
2020)
Humpback
whale
Megaptera
novaeangliae
MexicoNorth Pacific
T,D,Y
NIA (NIA, NIA,
2006)
801
131
127
27.09
UND
5
0.57
Order Cetartiodactyla- Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Beluga
whale
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Killer
whale
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Delphinapterus
leucas
Cook Inlet
Orcinus orca
Eastern North
Pacific
Alaska
Resident
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
E/D;Y
-I-; N
Sfmt 4725
331 (0.076, 290,
2022) 4
0.53
0
1,920 (NIA, 1,920,
2019)
19
1.3
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
EN16JA24.032
Family Delphinidae
2848
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
Eastern North
Pacific Gulf
of Alaska,
Aleutian
Islands and
Bering Sea
Transient
-I-; N
587 (NIA, 587, 2012)
5.9
0.8
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
Harbor
porpoise
Gulf of
Alaska
Phocoena
phocoena
-I-; y
31,046 (0.214, NIA,
1998)
UND
5
72
318
255
Order Camivora - Superfamily Pinnipedia
Steller sea
lion
Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
Eumetopias
52,932 (NIA, 52,932
Western
E/D;Y
2019)
jubatus
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
On June 15, 2023, NMFS released an
updated abundance estimate for
endangered CIBWs in Alaska (Goetz et
al., 2023) that incorporates aerial survey
data from June 2021 and 2022, but
which is not included in the most recent
SAR (Young et al., 2023). Data collected
during NMFS recent aerial survey effort
suggest that the whale population is
stable or may be increasing slightly.
Goetz et al. (2023) estimated that the
population size is currently between
290 and 386, with a median best
estimate of 331. In accordance with the
MMPA, this population estimate will be
incorporated into the next draft CIBW
SAR, which will be reviewed by an
independent panel of experts, the
Alaska Scientific Review Group. After
this review, the SAR will be made
available as a draft for public review
before being finalized. We have
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
determined that it is appropriate to
consider the CIBW estimate of
abundance reported by Goetz et al.
(2023) in our analysis rather than the
older estimate currently available from
the Alaska SAR (Young et al., 2023)
because it is based on the most recent
and best available science.
As indicated above, all seven species
(with nine managed stocks) in table 2
temporally and spatially co-occur with
the activity to the degree that take is
reasonably likely to occur. Minke
whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) and
Dall’s porpoises (Phocoenoides dalli)
also occur in Cook Inlet; however, the
spatial occurrence of these species is
such that take is not expected to occur,
and they are not discussed further
beyond the explanation provided here.
Data from the Alaska Marine Mammal
Stranding Network database (NMFS,
unpublished data) provide additional
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
support for these determinations. From
2011 to 2020, only one minke whale and
one Dall’s porpoise were documented as
stranded in the portion of Cook Inlet
north of Point Possession. Both were
dead upon discovery; it is unknown if
they were alive upon their entry into
upper Cook Inlet or drifted into the area
with the tides. With very few
exceptions, minke whales and Dall’s
porpoises do not occur in upper Cook
Inlet, and therefore take of these species
is considered unlikely.
In addition, sea otters (Enhydra lutris)
may be found in Cook Inlet. However,
sea otters are managed by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are
not considered further in this document.
A detailed description of the species
likely to be affected by the NES1 project,
including a brief introduction to the
affected stock as well as available
information regarding population trends
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
EN16JA24.033
Family Phocidae (earless seals)
Cook Inlet/
28,411 (NIA, 26,907,
Harbor seal
Phoca vitulina
Shelikof
-I-; N
807
107
2018)
Strait
1 - 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 MMP A. Under the MMP A, 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 MMP A as depleted and as a strategic
stock.
2 - NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at:
https:/lwww.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 MISI often cannot
be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with
estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
4 - This abundance estimate is from Goetz et al. (2023).
5 - UND means undetermined.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
and threats, and information regarding
local occurrence, were provided in the
Federal Register notice of the proposed
IHA (88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023).
Since that time, we are not aware of any
changes in the status of these species
and stocks; therefore, detailed
descriptions are not provided here.
Please refer to that Federal Register
notice for these descriptions. Please also
refer to NMFS’ website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for
generalized species accounts.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory
modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to
anthropogenic sound can have
deleterious effects. To appropriately
assess the potential effects of exposure
to sound, it is necessary to understand
the frequency ranges marine mammals
are able to hear. 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, 2019) recommended that marine
mammals be divided into hearing
groups based on directly measured
(behavioral or auditory evoked potential
techniques) or estimated hearing ranges
(behavioral response data, anatomical
modeling, etc.). 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
2849
based on the approximately 65-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. Specific to this action, gray
whales and humpback whales are
considered low-frequency (LF)
cetaceans, CIBWs, and killer whales are
considered mid-frequency (MF)
cetaceans, harbor porpoises are
considered high-frequency (HF)
cetaceans, Steller sea lions are otariid
pinnipeds, and harbor seals are phocid
pinnipeds.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
Table 3 -- Marine Mammal Hearing Groups (NMFS, 2018)
Generalized Hearing
Range*
Hearing Group
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans
(baleen whales)
7 Hz to 35 kHz
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans
(dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose
whales)
150 Hz to 160 kHz
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans
(true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, Cephalorhynchid,
Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L. australis)
275 Hz to 160 kHz
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater)
(true seals)
50 Hz to 86 kHz
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater)
(sea lions and fur seals)
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.,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). This
division between phocid and otariid
pinnipeds is now reflected in the
updated hearing groups proposed in
Southall et al. (2019).
For more detail concerning these
groups and associated frequency ranges,
please see NMFS (2018) for a review of
available information.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
The effects of underwater noise from
the POA’s construction activities have
the potential to result in harassment of
marine mammals in the vicinity of the
POA. The Federal Register notice of the
proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November
6, 2023) included a discussion of the
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
EN16JA24.034
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
2850
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
effects of anthropogenic noise on marine
mammals and the potential effects of
underwater noise from the POA’s
construction activities on marine
mammals and their habitat. That
information and analysis is referenced
in this notice of issuance of the final
IHA and is not repeated here; please
refer to the notice of the proposed IHA
(88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes
authorized through the IHA, which will
inform both NMFS’ consideration of
‘‘small numbers,’’ and the negligible
impact determinations.
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 will primarily be by
Level B harassment, as use of the
acoustic sources (i.e., vibratory and
impact pile driving) has the potential to
result in disruption of behavioral
patterns for individual marine
mammals. There is also some potential
for auditory injury (Level A harassment)
to result, primarily for HF cetaceans and
phocids because predicted auditory
injury zones are larger than for MF
cetaceans and otariids. Auditory injury
is unlikely to occur for mysticetes, MF
cetaceans, and otariids due to measures
described in the Mitigation section. The
mitigation and monitoring measures are
expected to minimize the severity of the
taking to the extent practicable. As
described previously, no serious injury
or mortality is anticipated or authorized
for this activity. Below we describe how
the take numbers were estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally
speaking, we estimate take by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
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) the number of days of activities.
We note that while these factors can
contribute to a basic calculation to
provide an initial prediction of potential
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 take estimates.
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—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 or exposure
context (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle, duration of the exposure,
signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the
source), the environment (e.g.,
bathymetry, other noises in the area,
predators in the area), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography, life stage,
depth) and can be difficult to predict
(e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021; Ellison
et al., 2012). Based on what the
available science indicates and the
practical need to use a threshold based
on a metric that is both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS
typically uses a generalized acoustic
threshold based on received level to
estimate the onset of behavioral
harassment. NMFS generally predicts
that marine mammals are likely to be
behaviorally harassed in a manner
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
considered to be Level B harassment
when exposed to underwater
anthropogenic noise above RMS SPL of
120-dB re 1 mPa for continuous (e.g.,
vibratory pile driving, drilling) and
above RMS SPL 160-dB re 1 mPa for
non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic
airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific
sonar) sources. Generally speaking,
Level B harassment take estimates based
on these behavioral harassment
thresholds are expected to include any
likely takes by temporary threshold shift
(TTS) as, in most cases, the likelihood
of TTS occurs at distances from the
source less than those at which
behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of
a sufficient degree can manifest as
behavioral harassment, as reduced
hearing sensitivity and the potential
reduced opportunities to detect
important signals (conspecific
communication, predators, prey) may
result in changes in behavior patterns
that would not otherwise occur.
The POA’s planned activity includes
the use of continuous (vibratory pile
driving) and intermittent (impact pile
driving) noise sources, and therefore the
RMS SPL thresholds of 120- and 160-dB
re 1 mPa are applicable.
Level A Harassment. NMFS’
Technical Guidance for Assessing the
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on
Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0;
NMFS, 2018) identifies dual criteria to
assess auditory injury (Level A
harassment) to five different marine
mammal groups (based on hearing
sensitivity) as a result of exposure to
noise from two different types of
sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
The POA’s planned activity includes the
use of impulsive (impact pile driving)
and non-impulsive (vibratory driving)
sources.
These thresholds are provided in the
table 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.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
2851
Table 4 -- Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds*
(Received Level)
Hearing Group
Impulsive
Non-impulsive
Cell l
Low-Frequency (LF)
Cetaceans
Cell 2
219 dB
LE,LF,24h.' 183 dB
Lpk,flat:
LE,LF,24h:
Cell 3
Mid-Frequency (MF)
Cetaceans
Cell 4
23 0 dB
fa,},,,!F,24h: 185 dB
Lpk,flat:
LE,},,,!F,24h:
Cell 5
High-Frequency (HF)
Cetaceans
Lpk,flat:
199 dB
198 dB
Cell 6
202 dB
155 dB
LE,HF,24h:
173 dB
LE,HF,24h:
Cell 7
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW)
(Underwater)
Lpk,flat:
Cell 8
218 dB
185 dB
LE,PW,24h:
201 dB
LE,PW,24h:
Cell 9
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW)
(Underwater)
Cell JO
23 2 dB
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB
Lpk,flat:
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.
Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 µPa, and cumulative sound exposure level
has a reference value of lµPa 2s. 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 NMFS' 2018 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.
Note:
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and
environmental parameters of the activity
that are used in estimating the area
ensonified above the acoustic
thresholds, including source levels and
transmission loss (TL) coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is
the existing background noise plus
additional construction noise from the
planned project. Marine mammals are
expected to be affected via sound
generated by the primary components of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
the project (i.e., impact pile removal and
vibratory pile installation and removal).
Calculation of the area ensonified by the
specified action is dependent on the
background sound levels at the project
site, the source levels of the planned
activities, and the estimated
transmission loss coefficients for the
planned activities at the site. These
factors are addressed in order, below.
Background Sound Levels at the Port
of Alaska. As noted in the Potential
Effects of Specified Activities on Marine
Mammals and Their Habitat section of
the Federal Register notice of the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November
6, 2023), the POA is an industrial
facility in a location with high levels of
commercial vessel traffic, port
operations (including dredging), and
extreme tidal flow. Previous
measurements of background noise at
the POA have recorded a background
SPL of 122.2-dB RMS (Austin et al.,
2016). NMFS concurred that this SPL
reasonably represents background noise
near the project area, and therefore we
have used 122.2-dB RMS as the
threshold for Level B harassment
(instead of 120-dB RMS).
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
EN16JA24.035
(LE)
2852
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Sound Source Levels of Specified
Activities. The intensity of pile driving
sounds is greatly influenced by factors
such as the type of piles (material and
diameter), hammer type, and the
physical environment (e.g., sediment
type) in which the activity takes place.
In order to calculate the distances to the
Level A harassment and the Level B
harassment sound thresholds for the
methods and piles being used in this
project, the POA used acoustic
monitoring data from sound source
verification studies to develop proxy
source levels for the various pile types,
sizes and methods (table 5). While sitespecific sound source verification
studies have been conducted at the
POA, the vast majority of the
measurements recorded in those studies
were made when bubble curtains were
deployed around the sound source,
which act to attenuate sound levels
(Austin et al., 2016; I&R, 2021a, 2021b).
Bubble curtains are not a feasible
mitigation measure for the NES1 project
due to the demolition and sequencing
nature of the project (see the Mitigation
section of this notice for additional
discussion), and therefore the majority
of the proxy values for this project are
based on measurements recorded from
locations other than the POA.
Underwater sound was measured in
2008 at the POA for the Marine
Terminal Redevelopment Project
(MTRP) during installation of sheet
piles to assess potential impacts of
sound on marine species. Sound levels
for installation of sheet piles measured
at 10-m typically ranged from 147- to
161-dB RMS, with a mean of
approximately 155-dB RMS (James
Reyff, unpublished data). An SPL of
162-dB RMS was reported in (California
Department of Transportation
(CALTRANS), 2020) summary tables for
24-inch (61-cm) steel sheet piles. This is
a more rigid type of sheet pile that
requires a large vibratory driver (James
Reyff, personal communication, August
26, 2020). Based on the 2008
measurements at the POA and the
CALTRANS data, a value of 160-dB
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
RMS was assumed for vibratory removal
of sheet piles.
NMFS concurred that the source
levels proposed by the POA for all pile
sizes during impact removal and
vibratory installation of all pile types
are appropriate to use for calculating
harassment isopleths for the POA’s
planned NES1 activities (table 5).
Impact removal is the process of hitting
a pile with an impact hammer with a
small number of strikes (up to 50 per
pile) to loosen it from the soil so that it
can be removed via other means such as
direct pulling or with a vibratory
hammer. There are no data to our
knowledge available on impact removal
of this nature. The POA proposed to use
SPL values measured during the impact
installation of 24-inch (61-cm) AZ steel
sheet piles from the Berth 23, Port of
Oakland Project (CALTRANS, 2020) for
this activity. Given this is the best
available information, NMFS has
accepted the POA’s proposed SPLs for
this activity.
However, the source levels proposed
by the POA for vibratory pile removal
were based on limited data collected at
the POA. Therefore, NMFS considered
and evaluated all data related to
unattenuated vibratory removal of 24inch (61-cm) and 36-inch (91-cm) steel
pipe piles available, including sound
source verification data measured at the
POA during the PCT project (Reyff et al.,
2021a) and elsewhere (i.e., Coleman,
2011; U.S. Navy, 2012; I&R, 2017).
NMFS gathered data from publicly
available reports that reported driving
conditions and specified vibratory
removal for certain piles. If vibratory
removal was not specifically noted for a
given pile, we excluded that data from
the analysis. Mean RMS SPLs reported
by these studies were converted into
pressure values, and pressure values for
piles from each project were averaged to
give a single SPL for each project. The
calculated project means were then
averaged and converted back into dBs to
give a single recommended SPL
(rounded to the nearest whole dB) for
each pile type.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Ten measurements were available for
unattenuated vibratory removal of 24inch (61-cm) piles: 3 from Columbia
River Crossing in Oregon (mean RMS
SPL of 173-dB; Coleman, 2011), 5 from
Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek in
Norfolk, Virginia (mean RMS SPL of
148-dB; I&R, 2017), and 2 from the PCT
project at the POA (mean RMS SPL of
169-dB; I&R, 2021a, 2023). The
calculated average SPL for unattenuated
vibratory removal of 24-inch (61-cm)
steel pipe piles from these studies was
169-dB RMS (table 5). Forty
measurements were available for
unattenuated vibratory removal of 36inch (91-cm) piles: 38 from the U.S.
Navy Test Pile Program at Naval Base
Kitsap in Bangor, Washington (mean
RMS SPL of 160-dB; U.S. Navy, 2012),
and 2 from the PCT project at the POA
(mean RMS SPL of 159-dB; I&R, 2021,
2023). The calculated average SPL for
unattenuated vibratory removal of 36inch (91-cm) steel pipe piles from these
studies was 159-dB RMS (table 5). Note
that the proxy values in table 5
represent SPL referenced at a distance of
10- m from the source.
Interestingly, the RMS SPLs for the
unattenuated vibratory removal of 24inch (61-cm) piles were much louder
than the unattenuated vibratory removal
of 36-inch (91-cm) piles, and even
louder than the unattenuated vibratory
installation of 24-inch piles. I&R (2023)
suggest that at least for data recorded at
the POA, the higher 24-inch (61-cm)
removal levels are likely due to the piles
being removed at rates of 1,600 to 1,700
revolutions per minute (rpm), while 36inch (91-cm) piles, which are
significantly heavier than 24-inch (61cm) piles), were removed at a rate of
1,900 rpm. The slower rates combined
with the lighter piles would cause the
hammer to easily ‘‘jerk’’ or excite the 24inch (61-cm) piles as they were
extracted, resulting in a louder rattling
sound and louder sound levels. This did
not occur for the 36-inch (91-cm) piles,
which were considerably heavier due to
increased diameter, longer length, and
greater thickness.
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
Tabl e 5
2853
• • P roxv L eves
I (.at 10 m1)
-- Summarv ofU nattenuated In-W ater P'lI e Dr1vm1
Pile Type
Installation or
Removal
Peak
SPL
(re 1
µPa)
RMS
SPL
(re 1
µPa)
SEL1 (re 1
µPa 2-sec)
Source
Impact driving
Sheet pile
Removal
Sheet pile
Removal (hammer
or splitter)
160
CALTRANS (2015, 2020)
Installation
161
U.S. Navy (2015)
24-inch (61-cm)
steel pipe
36-inch (91-cm
steel pipe
169
NA
CALTRANS (2020)
Coleman (2011), I&R
(2017, 2021, 2023)
Installation
166
U.S. Navy (2015)
Removal
159
U.S. Navy (2012), I&R
(2021, 2023)
Exposure Level
A splitter will be used in conjunction
with a vibratory hammer to make
vertical cuts in sheet piles as necessary
to help with their removal. The POA
assumes that a pile splitter will produce
the same or similar sound levels as a
vibratory hammer without the splitter
attachment; therefore, the POA
combined use of a vibratory hammer to
remove sheet pile and use of a splitter
into a single category (i.e., vibratory
hammer removal). NMFS is currently
unaware of any hydroacoustic
measurements of pile splitting with a
vibratory hammer. NMFS specifically
requested comments on the proposed
SPL values for vibratory pile splitting in
the Federal Register notice of the
proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November
6, 2023). No additional data or
recommendations for proxy SPLs for
these activities were received during the
public comment period. Given this is
the best available information, NMFS
has accepted the POA’s proposed SPLs
and assessments.
Transmission Loss. For unattenuated
impact pile driving, the POA proposed
to use 15 as the TL coefficient, meaning
they assumed practical spreading loss
(i.e., the POA assumes TL =
15*Log10(range)); NMFS concurred with
this value and has used the practical
spreading loss model for impact driving
in this analysis.
The TL coefficient that the POA
proposed for unattenuated vibratory
installation and removal of piles is 16.5
(i.e., TL = 16.5*Log10(range)). This value
is an average of measurements obtained
VerDate Sep<11>2014
NA
179
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
from two 48-inch (122-cm) piles
installed via an unattenuated vibratory
hammer in 2016 (Austin et al., 2016). To
assess the appropriateness of this TL
coefficient to be used for the NES1
project, NMFS examined and analyzed
additional TL measurements recorded at
the POA. This included a TL coefficient
of 22 (deep hydrophone measurement)
from the 2004 unattenuated vibratory
installation of one 36-inch (91-cm) pile
in Knik Arm (Blackwell, 2004), as well
as TL coefficients ranging from 10.3 to
18.2 from the unattenuated vibratory
removal of 24-inch (61 cm) and 36-inch
(91-cm) piles and the unattenuated
vibratory installation of one 48-inch
(122-cm) pile at the POA in 2021 (I&R
2021, 2023). To account for statistical
interdependence due to temporal
correlations and equipment issues
across projects, values were averaged
first within each individual project, and
then across projects. The mean and
median value of the measured TL
coefficients for unattenuated vibratory
piles in Knik Arm by project were equal
to 18.9 and 16.5, respectively. NMFS
used the project median TL coefficient
of 16.5 during unattenuated vibratory
installation and removal of all piles
during the NES1 project. This value is
representative of all unattenuated
vibratory measurements in the Knik
Arm. Further, 16.5 is the mean of the
2016 measurements, which were made
closer to the NES1 project area than
other measurements and were
composed of measurements from
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
multiple directions (both north and
south/southwest).
Estimated Harassment Isopleths. All
estimated Level B harassment isopleths
are reported in table 6. At POA, Level
B harassment isopleths from the NES1
project will be limited by the coastline
along Knik Arm along and across from
the project site. The maximum
predicted isopleth distance is 6,861-m
during vibratory removal of 24-inch (61cm) steel pipe piles.
The ensonified area associated with
Level A harassment is more technically
challenging to predict due to the need
to account for a duration component.
Therefore, NMFS developed an optional
User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the
Technical Guidance that can be used to
relatively simply predict an isopleth
distance for use in conjunction with
marine mammal density or occurrence
to help predict potential takes. We note
that because of some of the assumptions
included in the methods underlying this
optional tool, we anticipate that the
resulting isopleth estimates are typically
going to be overestimates of some
degree, which may result in an
overestimate of potential take by Level
A harassment. However, this optional
tool offers the best way to estimate
isopleth distances when more
sophisticated modeling methods are not
available or practical. For stationary
sources such as pile driving, the
optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts
the distance at which, if a marine
mammal remained at that distance for
the duration of the activity, it would be
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
EN16JA24.036
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
1Sound
Removal
205
189
Vibratory driving
2854
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
expected to incur PTS. Inputs used in
the User Spreadsheet are reported in
table 6 and the resulting isopleths and
ensonified areas are reported in table 7.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
Table 6 -- NMFS User Spreadsheet Inputs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Vibratory Pile Driving
Sheet Pile
Sheet Pile
24-inch (61-cm) steel pipe
36-inch (91-cm) steel pipe
Removal
Removal
Installation
Removal
Installation
Removal
Spreadsheet
Tab Used
E.1)
Impact pile
driving
Al) NonImpul,
Stat, Cont.
Al) NonImpul, Stat,
Cont.
Al) NonImpul,
Stat, Cont.
Al) NonImpul, Stat,
Cont.
Al) NonImpul,
Stat, Cont.
Source Level
(SPL)
179 dB
SEL
160 dB
RMS
161 dB RMS
169 dB
RMS
166 dB RMS
159 dB
RMS
Transmission
Loss
Coefficient
15
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
Weighting
Factor
Adjustment
(kHz)
2
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Time to install
I remove
single pile
(minutes)
--
5
15
15
15
15
Number of
strikes per pile
50
--
--
--
--
--
Piles per day
3
24
12
12
12
12
Distance of
sound
pressure level
measurement
(m)
10
10
10
10
10
10
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
EN16JA24.037
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Impact Pile
Driving
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
2855
Pile
Type/
Size
Activity
Impact
Removal
Vibratory
Installation
Sheet
pile
24-inch
(61-cm)
36-inch
(91-cm)
Vibratory
or Splitter
Removal
Sheet
pile
Vibratory
Removal
24-inch
(61-cm)
36-inch
(91-cm)
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take
Estimation
In this section we provide information
about the occurrence of marine
mammals, including density or other
relevant information which informed
the take calculation. We also describe
how the information provided above
was synthesized to produce a
quantitative estimate of the take that is
reasonably likely to occur and is
authorized.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Gray Whale
Sightings of gray whales in the project
area are rare. Few, if any, gray whales
are expected to approach the project
area. However, based on three separate
sightings of single gray whales near the
POA in 2020 and 2021 (61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a; EasleyAppleyard and Leonard, 2022), the POA
anticipates that up to six individuals
could be within estimated harassment
zones during NES1 project activities.
Therefore, NMFS authorized six takes
by Level B harassment for gray whales
during the NES1 project. Take by Level
A harassment is not anticipated or
authorized. The Level A harassment
zones (table 7) are smaller than the
required shutdown zones (see the
Mitigation section). It is unlikely that a
gray whale will enter and remain within
the Level A harassment zone long
enough to incur PTS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
Level A harassment distance
(m)
p
ow
LevelB
harassmen
t distance
(m) all
hearing
groups
LevelB
harassmen
tarea
(km2) all
hearing
groups
LF
MF
HF
w
153
6
182
82
6
858
1.44
14
2
20
9
1
2,247
8.39
28
4
40
18
2
4,514
26.13
10
1
14
6
1
1,954
6.47
42
5
60
27
3
6,861
37.64
11
2
15
7
1
1,700
4.99
Humpback Whale
Killer Whale
Sightings of humpback whales in the
project area are rare, and few, if any,
humpback whales are expected to
approach the project area. However,
there have been a few observations of
humpback whales near the POA as
described in the Description of Marine
Mammals in the Area of Specified
Activities section of the Federal
Register notice of the proposed IHA (88
FR 76576, November 6, 2023). Based on
the two sightings in 2017 of what was
likely a single individual at the
Anchorage Public Boat Dock at Ship
Creek (ABR, Inc., 2017) south of the
project area, the POA requested
authorization of six takes of humpback
whales. However, given the maximum
number of humpback whales observed
within a single construction season was
two (in 2017), NMFS instead anticipates
that only up to four humpback whales
could be exposed to project-related
underwater noise during the NES1
project. Therefore, NMFS authorized
four takes by Level B harassment for
humpback whales during the NES1
project. Take by Level A harassment is
not anticipated or authorized. The Level
A harassment zones (table 7) are smaller
than the required shutdown zones (see
the Mitigation section), therefore, it is
unlikely that a humpback whale will
enter and remain within the Level A
harassment zone long enough to incur
PTS.
Few, if any, killer whales are expected
to approach the NES1 project area. No
killer whales were sighted during
previous monitoring programs for POA
construction projects, including the
2016 TPP, 2020 PCT, and 2022 SFD
projects (Prevel-Ramos et al., 2006;
Markowitz and McGuire, 2007; Cornick
and Saxon-Kendall, 2008, 2009; Cornick
et al., 2010, 2011; ICRC, 2009, 2010,
2011, 2012; Cornick and Pinney, 2011;
Cornick and Seagars, 2016; 61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022b), until PCT
construction in 2021, when two killer
whales were sighted (61N
Environmental, 2022a). Previous
sightings of transient killer whales have
documented pod sizes in upper Cook
Inlet between one and six individuals
(Shelden et al., 2003). Therefore, the
POA conservatively estimated that no
more than one small pod (assumed to be
six individuals) could be within
estimated harassment zones during
NES1 project activities.
Take by Level A harassment is not
anticipated or authorized due to the
implementation of shutdown zones,
which will be larger than the Level A
harassment zones (described below in
the Mitigation section), and the low
likelihood that killer whales will
approach this distance for sufficient
duration to incur PTS. Therefore, NMFS
authorized six takes by Level B
harassment for killer whales.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
EN16JA24.038
Table 7 -- Calculated Distance and Areas of Level A and Level B Harassment Per
Pile Type and Pile Driving Method
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
2856
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
Harbor Porpoise
Monitoring data recorded from 2005
through 2022 were used to evaluate
hourly sighting rates for harbor
porpoises in the NES1 project area (see
table 4–3 in the POA’s application).
During most years of monitoring, no
harbor porpoises were observed.
However, there has been an increase in
harbor porpoise sightings in upper Cook
Inlet in recent decades (e.g., 61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a; Shelden et
al., 2014). The highest sighting rate for
any recorded year during in-water pile
installation and removal was an average
of 0.037 harbor porpoises per hour
during PCT construction in 2021, when
observations occurred across most
months. Given the uncertainty around
harbor porpoise occurrence at the POA
and potential that occurrence is
increasing, it is estimated that
approximately 0.07 harbor porpoises per
hour (the 2021 rate of 0.037 harbor
porpoises per hour doubled) may be
observed near the NES1 project area per
hour of hammer use. With 246.5 hours
of in-water pile installation and
removal, the POA estimated that there
could be 18 instances where harbor
porpoises (0.07 harbor porpoises per
hour * 246.5 hours = 17.3 harbor
porpoises rounded up to 18 harbor
porpoises) could be within estimated
harassment zones during NES1 project
activities.
Harbor porpoises are small, lack a
visible blow, have low dorsal fins, an
overall low profile, and a short surfacing
time, making them difficult to observe
(Dahlheim et al., 2015). To account for
the possibility that a harbor porpoise
could enter a Level A harassment zone
and remain there for sufficient duration
to incur PTS before activities were shut
down, the POA assumed that 5 percent
of estimated harbor porpoise takes (1
take of harbor porpoise; 5 percent of 18
= 0.9, rounded up to 1) could be taken
by Level A harassment. In its request,
the POA rounded this estimate up to
two to account for the average group
size of this species, However, NMFS has
determined such adjustments are
generally unnecessary for purposes of
estimating potential incidents of Level
A harassment and did not concur with
the request. At relatively close
distances, NMFS believes it unlikely
that groups will necessarily adhere to
each other for sufficient duration for the
entire group to incur PTS. While it is
unlikely that a harbor porpoise could
enter a Level A harassment zone for
sufficient duration to incur PTS given
the required shutdown measures (see
the Mitigation section for more
information) and potential for avoidance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
behavior, this species moves quickly
and can be difficult to detect and track,
therefore, NMFS authorized 1 take by
Level A harassment and 17 takes by
Level B harassment for harbor
porpoises, for a total of 18 instances of
take.
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lions are anticipated to
occur in low numbers within the NES1
project area as summarized in the
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities section of
the Federal Register of the proposed
IHA (88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023).
Similar to the approach used above for
harbor porpoises, the POA used
previously recorded sighting rates of
Steller sea lions near the POA to
estimate requested take for this species.
During SFD construction in May and
June of 2022, the hourly sighting rate for
Steller sea lions was 0.028. The hourly
sighting rate for Steller sea lions in
2021, the most recent year with
observations across most months, was
approximately 0.01. Given the
uncertainty around Steller sea lion
occurrence at the POA and potential
that occurrence is increasing, the POA
estimated that approximately 0.06
Steller sea lions per hour (the May and
June 2022 rate of 0.028 Steller sea lions
per hour doubled) may be observed near
the NES1 project areas per hour of
hammer use. With 246.5 hours of inwater pile installation and removal, the
POA estimates that 15 Steller sea lions
(0.06 sea lions per hour * 246.5 hours
= 14.79 sea lions rounded up to 15)
could be within estimated harassment
zones during NES1 project activities.
However, the highest number of Steller
sea lions that have been observed during
the 2020–2022 monitoring efforts at the
POA was nine individuals (eight during
PCT Phase 1 monitoring and one during
NMFS 2021 monitoring). Given the
POA’s estimate assumes a higher Steller
sea lion sighting rate (0.06) than has
been observed at the POA and results in
an estimate that is much larger than the
number of Steller sea lions observed in
a year, NMFS believed that the 15
estimated takes requested by the POA
overestimated potential exposures of
this species. NMFS instead authorized
nine takes by Level B harassment for
Steller sea lions during the NES1
project.
The largest Level A harassment zone
for Steller sea lions is 6-m. While it is
unlikely that a Steller sea lion will enter
a Level A harassment zone for sufficient
duration to incur PTS, the POA is aware
of a Steller sea lion that popped up next
to a work skiff during the TPP in 2016,
which was documented as a potential
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
take by Level A harassment by the PSOs
on duty at the time. Pile driving,
however, was not occurring at the time
the event was recorded and a brief
observation of an animal within a Level
A harassment zone does not necessarily
mean the animal experienced Level A
harassment (other factors such as
duration within the harassment zone
need to be taken into consideration).
However, as a result of the
aforementioned event, the POA
requested authorization of an additional
two takes of Steller sea lions by Level
A harassment. Given the small Level A
harassment zone (6-m), and shutdown
zones of ≥ 10-m (see the Mitigation
section), NMFS believes that it is
unlikely that a Steller sea lion will be
within the Level A harassment zone for
sufficient duration to incur PTS.
Therefore, NMFS did not authorize take
by Level A harassment for Steller sea
lions. Rather, all nine estimated takes
are authorized as Level B harassment.
Harbor Seal
No known harbor seal haulout or
pupping sites occur in the vicinity of
the POA. In addition, harbor seals are
not known to reside in the NES1 project
area, but they are seen regularly near the
mouth of Ship Creek when salmon are
running, from July through September.
With the exception of newborn pups, all
ages and sexes of harbor seals may occur
in the NES1 project area. Any
harassment of harbor seals during inwater pile installation and removal will
involve a limited number of individuals
that may potentially swim through the
NES1 project area or linger near Ship
Creek.
The POA evaluated marine mammal
monitoring data to calculate hourly
sighting rates for harbor seals in the
NES1 project area (see table 4–1 in the
POA’s application). Of the 524 harbor
seal sightings in 2020 and 2021, 93.7
percent of the sightings were of single
individuals; only 5.7 percent of
sightings were of 2 individual harbor
seals, and only 0.6 percent of sightings
reported 3 harbor seals. Sighting rates of
harbor seals were highly variable and
appeared to have increased during
monitoring between 2005 and 2022. It is
unknown whether any potential
increase was due to local population
increases or habituation to ongoing
construction activities. The highest
individual hourly sighting rate recorded
for a previous year was used to quantify
take of harbor seals for in-water pile
installation and removal associated with
NES1. This occurred in 2021 during
PCT Phase 2 construction, when harbor
seals were observed from May through
September. A total of 220 harbor seal
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
sightings were observed over 734.9
hours of monitoring, at an average rate
of 0.30 harbor seal sightings per hour.
The maximum monthly sighting rate
occurred in September 2020 and was
0.51 harbor seal sightings per hour.
Based on these data, the POA estimated
that approximately one harbor seal (the
maximum monthly sighting rate (0.51)
rounded up) may be observed near the
NES1 project per hour of hammer use.
This approximate sighting rate of one
harbor seal per hour was also used to
calculate potential exposures of harbor
seals for the SFD project (86 FR 50057,
September 7, 2021). Therefore, the POA
estimated that during the 246.5 hours of
anticipated in-water pile installation
and removal, up to 247 harbor seals (1
harbor seal per hour * 246.5 hours =
246.5 harbor seals, rounded up to 247)
could be within estimated harassment
zones.
Harbor seals often appear curious
about onshore activities and may
approach closely. The mouth of Ship
Creek, where harbor seals linger, is
about 2,500-m from the southern end of
the NES1 and is therefore outside of the
Level A harassment zones calculated for
harbor seals (table 7). However, given
the potential difficulty of tracking
individual harbor seals along the face of
the NES1 site and their consistent lowlevel use of the POA area, NMFS
anticipates the potential for some take
by Level A harassment for harbor seals.
For the SFD project, NMFS authorized
8.6 percent of estimated harbor seal
takes as potential Level A harassment
based on the proportion of previous
harbor seal sightings within the
estimated Level A harassment zones for
that project (86 FR 50057, September 7,
2021), but the NES1 Project is more
distant from Ship Creek than SFD.
NMFS therefore anticipated that a
smaller proportion of takes by Level A
harassment may occur during the NES1
project, and reduced this percentage to
5 percent. Therefore, NMFS authorized
13 harbor seal takes (5 percent of 247
exposures) by Level A harassment and
234 takes (247 exposures minus 13) by
Level B harassment, for a total of 247
takes.
Beluga Whale
For the POA’s PCT and SFD projects,
NMFS used a sighting rate methodology
to calculate potential exposure (equated
to take) of CIBWs to sound levels above
harassment criteria produced by the
POA’s construction activities (85 FR
19294, April 6, 2020; 86 FR 50057,
September 7, 2021, respectively). For
the PCT project, NMFS used data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
collected during marine mammal
observations from 2005 to 2009 (Kendall
and Cornick, 2015) and the total number
of monthly observation hours during
these efforts to derive hourly sighting
rates of CIBWs per month of observation
(April through November) (85 FR 19294,
April 6, 2020). For the SFD project,
observation data from 2020 PCT
construction were also incorporated into
the analysis (86 FR 50057, September 7,
2021; 61N Environmental, 2021).
The marine mammal monitoring
programs for the PCT and SFD projects
produced a unique and comprehensive
data set of CIBW locations and
movements (table 8; 61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b;
Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022)
that is the most current data set
available for Knik Arm. During the PCT
and SFD projects, the POA’s marine
mammal monitoring programs included
11 PSOs working from 4 elevated,
specially designed monitoring stations
located along a 9-km stretch of coastline
surrounding the POA. The number of
days data was collected varied among
years and project, with 128 days during
PCT Phase 1 in 2020, 74 days during
PCT Phase 2 in 2021, and 13 days
during SFD in 2022 (see table 6–7 in the
POA’s application for additional
information regarding CIBW monitoring
data). PSOs during these projects used
25-power ‘‘big-eye’’ and hand-held
binoculars to detect and identify marine
mammals, and theodolites to track
movements of CIBW groups over time
and collect location data while they
remained in view.
These POA monitoring programs were
supplemented in 2021 with a NMFSfunded visual marine mammal
monitoring project that collected data
during non-pile driving days during
PCT Phase 2 (table 8; Easley-Appleyard
and Leonard, 2022). NMFS replicated
the POA monitoring efforts, as feasible,
including use of 2 of the POA’s
monitoring platforms, equipment (Big
Eye binoculars, theodolite, 7x50 reticle
binoculars), data collection software,
monitoring and data collection protocol,
and observers; however, the NMFSfunded program utilized only 4 PSOs
and 2 observation stations along with
shorter (4- to 8-hour) observation
periods compared to PCT or SFD data
collection, which included 11 PSOs, 4
observation stations, and most
observation days lasting close to 10
hours. Despite the differences in effort,
the NMFS dataset fills in gaps during
the 2021 season when CIBW presence
began to increase from low presence in
July and is thus valuable in this
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
2857
analysis. NMFS’ PSO’s monitored for
231.6 hours on 47 non-consecutive days
in July, August, September, and
October.
Distances from CIBW sightings to the
project site from the POA and NMFSfunded monitoring programs ranged
from less than 10-m up to nearly 15-km
during these monitoring programs.
These robust marine mammal
monitoring programs in place from 2020
through 2022 located, identified, and
tracked CIBWs at greater distances from
the NES1 project site than previous
monitoring programs (i.e., Kendall and
Cornick, 2015), and contributed to a
better understanding of CIBW
movements in upper Cook Inlet (e.g.,
Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022).
Given the evolution of the best
available data of CIBW presence in
upper Cook Inlet, particularly regarding
the distances at which CIBWs were
being observed and documented (which
increased during the PCT and SFD
compared to earlier monitoring efforts),
the POA proposed, and NMFS
concurred, that the original sighting rate
methodology used for the PCT and SFD
projects was no longer the best approach
for calculating potential take of CIBWs
for the NES1 project. The recent and
comprehensive data set of CIBW
locations and movements from the PCT
and SFD projects (61N Environmental,
2021, 2022a, 2022b; Easley-Appleyard
and Leonard, 2022) provided the
opportunity for refinement of the
previously used sighting rate
methodology with updated data. Data
for 2020, 2021, and 2022 were selected
for the updated sighting rate analysis for
the NES1 project because they are the
most current data available and are
therefore most likely to accurately
represent future CIBW occurrence at the
project site, which may be affected by
CIBW population size, CIBW movement
patterns through Knik Arm,
environmental change (including
climate change), differences in salmon
and other prey abundance among years,
and other factors (table 8). The data
from 2005 to 2009 (Kendall and
Cornick, 2015), which were used by
NMFS for the sighting rate analyses for
the PCT and SFD IHAs, were not
included in this analysis due to the
changes in observation programs and
age of the data collected. Monitoring
data from the 2016 TPP (Cornick and
Seagars, 2016) were also not included in
the analysis because of limited hours
observed, limited seasonal coverage,
and differences in the observation
programs.
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
2858
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
Table 8 -- Marine Mammal Monitoring Data Used for CIBW Sighting Rate
Calculations
Year
Monitoring Type and
Data Source
Number of
CIBW group
fixes
Number of
CIBW groups
Number of
CIBWs
2,653
245
987
2020 PCT: POA Construction
Monitoring
61N Environmental, 2021
2021
PCT: NMFS Monitoring
Easley-Appleyard and
Leonard, 2022
694
109 1
575
2021
PCT: POA Construction
Monitoring
61N Environmental, 2021,
2022a
1,339
132
517
151
9
41
2022 SFD: POA Construction
Monitoring
61N Environmental, 2022b
The sighting rate methodology used
for the PCT (85 FR 19294, April 6, 2020)
and SFD (86 FR 50057, September 7,
2021) projects used observations of
CIBWs recorded in Knik Arm, regardless
of observation distance to the POA, to
produce a single monthly sighting rate
that was then used to calculate potential
CIBW take for all activities, regardless of
the size of the ensonified areas for the
project activities (i.e., take was
calculated solely based on the monthly
sighting rates and the estimated hours of
planned activities, and did not consider
the estimated sizes of the ensonified
areas). This method may have
overestimated potential CIBW takes
when harassment zones were small
because distant CIBWs will have been
included in the sighting rate. This
method also resulted in takes estimates
that were identical for installation and
removal of all pile sizes, regardless of
pile driving method used (e.g.,
vibratory, impact) or implementation of
attenuation systems, since the
calculation did not consider the size of
the ensonified areas.
NMFS and the POA collaboratively
developed a new sighting rate
methodology for the NES1 project that
incorporated a spatial component for
CIBW observations, which allows for
more accurate estimation of potential
take of CIBWs for this project. NMFS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
proposes to use this approach to
estimate potential takes of CIBW for
authorization. During the POA’s and
NMFS’ marine mammal monitoring
programs for the PCT and SFD projects,
PSOs had an increased ability to detect,
identify, and track CIBWs groups at
greater distances from the project work
site when compared with previous years
because of the POA’s expanded
monitoring program as described above.
This meant that observations of CIBWs
in the 2020–2022 dataset (table 8)
include sightings of individuals at
distances far outside the ensonified
areas estimated for the NES1 project
(table 7). Therefore, it is not appropriate
to group all CIBW observations from
these datasets into a single sighting rate
as was done for the PCT and SFD
projects. Rather, CIBW observations
should be considered in relation to their
distance to the NES1 project site when
determining appropriate sighting rates
to use when estimating take for this
project. This helps to ensure that the
sighting rates used to estimate take are
representative of CIBW presence in the
NES1 ensonified areas.
To incorporate a spatial component
into the sighting rate methodology, the
POA calculated each CIBW group’s
closest point of approach (CPOA)
relative to the NES1 project site. The
2020–2022 marine mammal monitoring
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
programs (table 8) enabled the
collection, in many cases, of multiple
locations of CIBW groups as they
transited through Knik Arm, which
allowed for track lines to be interpolated
for many groups. The POA used these
track lines, or single recorded locations
in instances where only one sighting
location was available, to calculate each
group’s CPOA. CPOAs were calculated
in ArcGIS software using the Global
Positioning System (GPS) coordinates
provided for documented sightings of
each group (for details on data
collection methods, see 61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b;
Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022)
and the NES1 location midpoint,
centered on the project site. A CIBW
group was defined as a sighting of one
or more CIBWs as determined during
data collection. The most distant CPOA
location to NES1 was 11,057-m and the
closest CPOA location was 15-m.
The cumulative density distribution
of CPOA values represents the
percentage of CIBW observations that
were within various distances to the
NES1 action site (figure 1). This
distribution shows how CIBW
observations differed with distances to
the NES1 site and was used to infer
appropriate distances within which to
estimate spatially-derived CIBW
sighting rates (figure 1). The POA
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
EN16JA24.039
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
1 This number differs slightly from table 6-8 in the POA's application due to our removal of a few duplicate data
points in the NMFS data set.
2859
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
implemented a piecewise regression
model that detected breakpoints (i.e.,
points within the CPOA data at which
statistical properties of the sequence of
observational distances changed) in the
cumulative density distribution of the
CPOA locations, which they proposed
to represent spatially-based sighting rate
bins for use in calculating CIBW
sighting rates. The POA used the
‘‘Segmented’’ package (Muggeo, 2020) in
the R Statistical Software Package (R
Core Team, 2022) to determine
statistically significant breakpoints in
the linear distances of the CIBW data
using this regression method (see
section 6.5.5.3 of the POA’s application
for more details regarding this statistical
analysis). This analysis identified
breakpoints in the CPOA locations at
74-, 1,651-, 2,808-, and 7,368-m (figure
1).
Breakpoints by piecewise linear regression
I
l
',:
too
'I'
:-r·
'
:, I
-- r
':'I
'
I
I'
I'
I
I
"
I
I
',,
0.75,
I
0,
C
0
I
I
'
'I
l
I
I
,,,
1'
'II
"
l
',,
ii
,I
,:
I
,,I'
~
II)
'':
r
;
B o.5:0
, I
,,'
,,
0
1S
.
I
I
'
';{!/_
'
1125
:
'
''I'
"''I
,l
,,I
'
I
l
"'"'
I
':
I
1,, ,,
I
I
I
I
I,
l
,
I
1000
,I
''
''
I
I
I
l
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
000
,-,,
'
I
I
I
.2000
3000
4000
6000
Distance to NES1
1000
[ml
8000
9000
11000
Piecewise regression is a common tool
for modeling ecological thresholds
(Lopez et al., 2020; Whitehead et al.,
2016; Atwood et al., 2016). In a similar
scenario to the one outlined above,
Mayette et al. (2022) used piecewise
regression methods to model the
distances between two individual
CIBWs in a group in a nearshore and a
far shore environment. For the POA’s
analysis, the breakpoints (i.e., 74-,
1,651-, 2,808-, and 7,368-m) detect a
change in the frequency of CIBW groups
sighted and the slope of the line
between two points indicates the
magnitude of change. A greater positive
slope indicates a greater accumulation
of sightings over the linear distance (xaxis) between the defining breakpoints,
whereas a more level slope (i.e., closer
to zero) indicates a lower accumulation
of sightings over that linear distance (xaxis) between those defining
breakpoints (figure 1; see table 6–8 in
the POA’s application for the slope
estimates for the empirical cumulative
distribution function).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
The breakpoints identified by the
piecewise regression analysis are in
agreement with what is known about
CIBW behavior in Knik Arm based on
recent monitoring efforts (61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b;
Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022).
Observation location data collected
during POA monitoring programs
indicate that CIBWs were consistently
found in higher numbers in the
nearshore areas, along both shorelines,
and were found in lower numbers in the
center of the Arm. Tracklines of CIBW
group movements collected from 2020
to 2022 show that CIBWs displayed a
variety of movement patterns that
included swimming close to shore past
the POA on the east side of Knik Arm
(defined by breakpoint 1 at 74-m), with
fewer CIBWs swimming in the center of
Knik Arm (breakpoints 1 to 2, at 74- to
1,651-m). CIBWs commonly swam past
the POA close to shore on the west side
of Knik Arm, with no CIBWs able to
swim farther from the POA in that area
than the far shore (breakpoints 2 to 3,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
at 1,651- to 2,808-m). Behaviors and
locations beyond breakpoint 4 (7,368-m)
include swimming past the mouth of
Knik Arm between the Susitna River
area and Turnagain Arm; milling at the
mouth of Knik Arm but not entering the
Arm; and milling to the northwest of the
POA without exiting Knik Arm. The
shallowness of slope 5, at distances
greater than 7,368-m, could be due to
detection falloff from a proximity
(distance) bias, which occurs when
PSOs are less likely to detect CIBW
groups that are farther away than groups
that are closer.
The POA, in collaboration with
NMFS, used the distances detected by
the breakpoint analysis to define five
sighting rate distance bins for CIBWs in
the NES1 project area. Each breakpoint
(74-, 1,651-, 2,808-, and 7,368-m, and
the complete data set of observations
[>7,368-m]) was rounded to the nearest
meter and considered the outermost
limit of each sighting rate bin, resulting
in five identified bins (table 9). All
CIBW observations less than or equal to
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
EN16JA24.040
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Figure 1 -- Percent of CIBW CPOA Observations in Relation to Distance from the
NESl Project Site and Associated Breakpoints Determined by Piecewise Linear
Regression
2860
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
each bin’s breakpoint distance were
used to calculated that bin’s respective
monthly sighting rates (e.g., all sightings
from 0- to 74-m are included in the
sighting rates calculated for bin number
1, all sightings from 0 to 1,651-m are
included in the sighting rates calculated
for bin number 2, and so on). NES1
construction is anticipated to take place
from April through November 2024,
therefore monthly sighting rates were
only derived for these months (table 9).
Table 9 -- CIBW Monthly Sighting Rates for Different Spatially-Based Bin Sizes
CIBW/Hour1
Bin
Number
Distance
(m)
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
1
:::; 74
0.09
0.06
0.10
0.04
0.83
0.62
0.51
0.11
2
:::; 1,651
0.25
0.14
0.13
0.06
1.43
1.32
1.15
0.70
3
:::; 2,808
0.36
0.22
0.21
0.07
2.08
1.90
2.04
0.73
4
:::; 7,368
0.67
0.33
0.29
0.13
2.25
2.19
2.42
0.73
5
> 7,368
0.71
0.39
0.30
0.13
2.29
2.23
2.56
0.73
Observation hours have been totaled from the PCT 2020 and 2021 programs, the NMFS 2021 data
collection effort, and the SFD 2022 program (61N Environmental 2021, 2022a, 2022b; EasleyAppleyard and Leonard, 2022).
1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
piles via a vibratory hammer by the
monthly CIBW sighting rates calculated
for bin number 3 (table 10). The
resulting estimated CIBW exposures
were totaled for all activities in each
month (table 11).
In their calculation of CIBW take, the
POA assumed that only 24-inch (61-cm)
template piles will be installed (rather
than 36-inch (91-cm)) and removed
during the project. If 36-inch (91-cm)
piles are used for temporary stability
template piles, it is assumed that the
potential impacts of this alternate
construction scenario and method on
marine mammals are fungible (i.e., that
potential impacts of installation and
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
removal of 36-inch (91-cm) steel pipe
piles will be similar to the potential
impacts of installation and removal of
24-inch (61-cm) steel pipe piles based
on the estimated ensonified areas and
relevant sighting rate bins). Using the
monthly activity estimates in hours
(table 1) and monthly calculated
sighting rates (CIBWs/hour) for the
spatially derived distance bins (table
10), the POA estimated that there could
be up to 122 (121.1 rounded up to 122)
instances of CIBW take where during
the NES1 project (table 11).
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
EN16JA24.041
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Potential exposures (equated with
takes) of CIBWs were calculated by
multiplying the total number of
vibratory installation or removal hours
per month for each sized/shaped pile
based on the anticipated construction
schedule (table 1) with the
corresponding sighting rate month and
sighting rate distance bin (table 10). For
example, the Level B harassment
isopleth distance for the vibratory
installation of 24-inch (61-cm) piles is
2,245-m, which falls within bin number
3 (table 9). Therefore, take for this
activity was calculated by multiplying
the total number of hours estimated
each month to install 24-inch (61-cm)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Jkt 262001
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
16JAN2
Sighting
Rate Bin
Number
and
Distance
2,247
CIBWs/Hour
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
3
(2,808 m)
0.36
0.22
0.21
0.07
2.08
1.90
2.04
0.73
6,861
4
(7,368 m)
0.67
0.33
0.29
0.13
2.25
2.19
2.42
0.73
4,514
4
(7,368 m)
0.67
0.33
0.29
0.13
2.25
2.19
2.42
0.73
1,699
3
(2,808 m)
0.36
0.22
0.21
0.07
2.08
1.90
2.04
0.73
1,954
3
(2,808 m)
0.36
0.22
0.21
0.07
2.08
1.90
2.04
0.73
ObsetVation Hours/Month1 :
87.9
615.1
571.6
246.9
224.5
326.2
109.5
132.0
ObsetVation hours have been totaled from the PCT 2020 and 2021 programs, the NMFS 2021 data collection effort, and the
SFD 2022 program (61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022).
1
2861
implemented when CIBWs entered or
approached the estimated Level B
harassment zone) by applying an
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
7, 2021) projects, NMFS accounted for
the implementation of mitigation
measures (e.g., shutdown procedures
PO 00000
24-inch
Vibratory
Installation
24-inch
Vibratory
Removal
36-inch
Vibratory
Installation
36-inch
Vibratory
Removal
Sheet Pile
Vibratory
Removal
Level B
Harassmen
t Isopleth
Distance
(m)
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
For the PCT (85 FR 19294, April 6,
2020) and SFD (86 FR 50057, September
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EN16JA24.042
Table 10 --Allocation of Each Level B Harassment Isopleth to a Sighting Rate Bin and CIBW Monthly Sighting
Rates for Different Pile Sizes and Hammer Types
2862
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
Tabl e 11
and that 41 percent of the calculated
CIBW Level B harassment takes would
be avoided by successful
implementation of required mitigation
measures.
The POA calculated the adjustment
for successful implementation of
mitigation measures for NES1 using the
percentage of realized takes for the PCT
project (see table 6–12 in the POA’s
application). The recent data from PCT
Phase 1 and PCT Phase 2 most
accurately reflected the current marine
mammal monitoring program, the
current program’s effectiveness, and
CIBW occurrence in the NES1 project
area. Between the 2 phases of the PCT
project, 90 total Level B harassment
takes were authorized and 53 were
potentially realized (i.e., number of
CIBWs observed within estimated Level
B harassment zones), equating to an
overall percentage of 59 percent. The
SFD Project, during which only 7
percent of authorized take was
potentially realized, represented
installation of only 12 piles during a
limited time period and does not
represent the much higher number of
piles and longer construction season
anticipated for NES1.
NMFS has determined that the 59percent adjustment accurately accounts
for the efficacy of the POA’s marine
mammal monitoring program and
required shutdown protocols. NMFS
therefore assumes that approximately 59
percent of the takes calculated for NES1
may actually be realized. This adjusts
the potential takes by Level B
harassment of CIBWs authorized from
122 to 72 (table 11). Take by Level A
harassment is not anticipated or
authorized because the POA will be
required to shutdown activities when
CIBWs approach and or enter the Level
B harassment zone (see the Mitigation
section for more information).
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
-- Esf1mated Monthl'"' CIBW LeveI B Harassment Exposures
24-inch Vibratory
Installation and
Removal
Sheet Pile
Removal
April
May
June
July
Au!!llst
September
October
November
Total
2.4
3.0
1.7
0.6
12.5
6.9
4.0
0.2
31.3
3.6
9.9
12.6
4.2
27.0
22.8
8.2
1.5
89.8
Total Estimated Level B Harassment Exposures for All Activities:
Total Estimated Level B Harassment Exposures with 59% Correction Factor (Rounded):
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
In summary, the total amount of Level
A harassment and Level B harassment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
121.1
72
authorized for each marine mammal
stock is presented in table 12.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
EN16JA24.043
adjustment factor to CIBW take
estimates. This was based on the
assumption that some Level B
harassment takes will likely be avoided
based on required shutdowns for CIBWs
at the Level B harassment zones (see the
Mitigation section of those notices for
more information). For the PCT project,
NMFS compared the number of realized
takes at the POA to the number of
authorized takes for previous projects
from 2008 to 2017 and found the
percentage of realized takes ranged from
12 to 59 percent with an average of 36
percent (85 FR 19294, April 6, 2020).
NMFS then applied the highest
percentage of previous realized takes (59
percent during the 2009–2010 season) to
ensure potential takes of CIBWs were
fully evaluated. In doing so, NMFS
assumed that approximately 59 percent
of the takes calculated would be
realized during PCT and SFD
construction (85 FR 19294, April 6,
2020; 86 FR 50057, September 7, 2021)
2863
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
Table 12 -- Amount of Take Authorized as a Percentage of Stock Abundance, by
Stock and Harassment Type
Authorized Take
Species
Level A
LevelB
Total
0
6
6
Gray whale
Humpback whale
0
4
Stock
Percent of Stock
Eastern North Pacific
0.02
Hawai'i
0.04 1
4
Mexico-North Pacific
Beluga whale
0
Killer whale
72
0
6
72
6
UNKl,2
Cook Inlet
21.75
Eastern North Pacific Alaska
Resident
0.31 1
Eastern North Pacific Gulf of
Alaska, Aleutian Islands and
Bering Sea Transient
1.021
Hamor porpoise
1
17
18
Gulf of Alaska
0.06
Steller sea lion
0
9
9
Western
0.02
Hamor seals
13
234
247
Cook Inlet/ Shelikof Strait
0.87
NMFS conservatively assumes that all takes occur to each stock
NMFS does not have an official abundance estimate for this stock and the minimum population
estimate is considered to be unknown (Young et al., 2023)
1
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
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
(latter not applicable for this action).
NMFS regulations require applicants for
ITAs 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
well as subsistence uses where
applicable, NMFS considers 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, and
impact on operations.
The POA presented mitigation
measures in section 11 of their
application that were modeled after the
requirements included in the IHAs
issued for Phase 1 and Phase 2 PCT
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
construction (85 FR 19294, April 6,
2020) and for SFD construction (86 FR
50057, September 7, 2021), which were
designed to minimize the total number,
intensity, and duration of harassment
events for CIBWs and other marine
mammal species during those projects
(61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a,
2022b). NMFS concurred that these
proposed measures reduce the potential
for CIBWs, and other marine mammals,
to be adversely impacted by the planned
activity.
The POA must employ the following
mitigation measures:
• Ensure that construction
supervisors, crews, contractors, other
personnel operating at the site, the
monitoring team, and relevant POA staff
are trained on all mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements,
and all implementing protocols or
procedures, as relevant to their
respective role or position prior to the
start of all pile installation and removal
activities, so that responsibilities,
communication procedures, monitoring
protocols, and operational procedures
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
EN16JA24.044
2
2864
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
are clearly understood. New personnel
joining during the project must be
trained prior to commencing work;
• Employ PSOs and establish
monitoring locations as described in
section 5 of the IHA and the POA’s
Marine Mammal Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan (see appendix B of the
POA’s application). The POA must
monitor the project area to the
maximum extent possible based on the
required number of PSOs, required
monitoring locations, and
environmental conditions;
• The POA, construction supervisors
and crews, PSOs, and relevant POA staff
must avoid direct physical interaction
with marine mammals during
construction activities. If a marine
mammal comes within 10-m of such
activity, operations shall cease and
vessels must reduce speed to the
minimum level required to maintain
steerage and safe working conditions, as
necessary to avoid direct physical
interaction;
• Monitoring must take place from 30
minutes prior to initiation of pile
driving (i.e., pre-start clearance
monitoring) through 30 minutes postcompletion of pile driving;
• 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 13 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 or when the mitigation
measures required specifically for
CIBWs (below) are satisfied;
• For all construction activities,
shutdown zones must be established
following table 13. The purpose of a
shutdown zone is generally to define an
area within which shutdown of activity
will occur upon sighting of a marine
mammal (or in anticipation of an animal
entering the defined area). In addition to
the shutdown zones specified in table
13 and the minimum shutdown zone of
10-m described above, requirements
included in NMFS’ IHA, the POA will
implement a minimum 100-m shutdown
zone around the active NES1 project
work site, including around activities
other than pile installation or removal
that NMFS has determined do not
present a reasonable potential to cause
take of marine mammals. Shutdown
zones for pile installation and removal
will vary based on the type of
construction activity and by marine
mammal hearing group (table 13). Here,
shutdown zones are larger than or equal
to the calculated Level A harassment
isopleths shown in table 6 for species
other than CIBW and are equal to the
estimated Level B harassment isopleths
for CIBWs;
Table 13 -- Shutdown Zones during Project Activities
Activity
Pile
Type/
Size
LF
cetaceans
NonCIBW
MF
cetaceans
CIBWs
HF
cetaceans
PW
ow
10
900
190
90
10
10
2,300
20
10
10
10
4,600
40
20
10
10
2,000
20
10
10
10
6,900
60
30
10
10
1,700
20
10
10
Sheet
160
pile
24-inch
20
(61-cm)
Vibratoiy
Installation
36-inch
30
(91-cm)
Sheet
10
pile
Vibratoiy
24-inch
50
Removal
(61-cm)
36-inch
20
(91-cm)
Notes: cm= centimeter(s), m- meter(s)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Impact
Removal
• Marine mammals observed
anywhere within visual range of the
PSO must be tracked relative to
construction activities. If a marine
mammal is observed entering or within
the shutdown zones indicated in table
13, 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 13, or 15 minutes
(non-CIBWs) or 30 minutes (CIBWs)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
have passed without re-detection of the
animal;
• The POA 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. PSOs shall begin observing for
marine mammals 30 minutes before
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
‘‘soft start’’ or in-water pile installation
or removal begins; and
• 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.
The following additional mitigation
measures are required for CIBWs:
• The POA must make all practicable
efforts to complete construction
activities between April and July, when
CIBWs are typically found in lower
numbers near the NES1 site;
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
EN16JA24.045
Shutdown Zone (m)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
• Prior to the onset of pile driving or
removal, should a CIBW be observed
within the estimated Level B
harassment zone (table 7) (i.e. the
CIBWs shutdown zone column in table
13), pile driving must not commence
until the whale(s) has voluntarily
traveled at least 100-m beyond the
estimated Level B harassment zone and
is on a path away from such zone, or the
whale has not been re-sighted within 30
minutes;
• If pile installation or removal has
commenced, and a CIBW(s) is observed
within or likely to enter the estimated
Level B harassment zone, pile
installation or removal must be delayed.
Pile driving may not commence until
the whale has voluntarily traveled at
least 100-m beyond the Level B
harassment zone and is on a path away
from such zone, or until no CIBW has
been observed in the Level B
harassment zone for 30 minutes; and
• If during installation and removal of
piles, PSOs can no longer effectively
monitor the entirety of the CIBW Level
B harassment zone due to
environmental conditions (e.g., fog, rain,
wind), pile driving may continue only
until the current segment of the pile is
driven; no additional sections of pile or
additional piles may be driven until
conditions improve such that the Level
B harassment zone can be effectively
monitored. If the Level B harassment
zone cannot be monitored for more than
15 minutes, the entire Level B
harassment zone will be cleared again
for 30 minutes prior to pile driving.
In addition to these additional
mitigation measures, NMFS had
requested that the POA restrict all pile
driving and removal work to April to
July, when CIBWs are typically found in
lower numbers. However, given the
safety and environmental concerns of
collapse of the Northern Extension once
removal work commences, required
sequencing of pile installation and
removal and fill removal, and
uncertainties and adaptive nature of the
work, the POA stated that it cannot
commit to restricting pile driving and
removal to April to July. Instead, as
required in the mitigation measures,
NMFS will require the POA to complete
as much work as is practicable in April
to July to reduce the amount of pile
driving and removal activities needed in
August through November.
For previous IHAs issued to the POA
(PCT: 85 FR 19294, April 6, 2020; SFD:
86 FR 50057, September 7, 2021), the
use of a bubble curtain to reduce noise
has been required as a mitigation
measure for certain pile driving
scenarios. The POA did not propose to
use a bubble curtain system during the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
NES1 project, stating that it is not a
practicable mitigation measure for this
demolition project. NMFS concurred
with this determination. Practicability
concerns include the following:
• NES1 construction activities
include installation of round,
temporary, stability template piles to
shore up the filled NES1 structure while
fill material and sheet piles are
removed. Stability template piles that
will be required for demolition of the
sheet pile structure are located in
proximity of the sheet piles. A bubble
curtain will not physically fit between
the sheet piles and the template piles;
• Bubble curtains cannot be installed
around the sheet piles as they are
removed because the structure consists
of sheet piles that are connected to one
another and used to support fillmaterial. It will not be possible to place
a bubble curtain system along the sheet
pile face for similar reasons, including
lack of space for the bubble curtain and
the structures and equipment that will
be needed to install and operate it, and
the high likelihood that it could not
function or be retrieved; and
• NES1 is a failed structure, and has
been deemed ‘‘globally unstable’’ and
poses significant risk for continued
deterioration and structural collapse. If
the existing structure were to collapse
during deconstruction and sheet pile
removal, there is risk of a significant
release of impounded fill material into
CIBW habitat, the POA’s vessel
operating and mooring areas, and the
USACE Anchorage Harbor Project. Due
to the stability risk of the existing
impounded material, it is expected that
construction and demolition means and
methods will be highly adaptive once
actual field work commences, and use
of a bubble curtain with deconstruction
will limit operations in the field and
create significant health and safety
issues.
The POA also has efficacy concerns
about requiring a bubble curtain for
NES1 construction activities. Adding a
requirement for a bubble curtain may
hinder production, due to the time
required to install and remove the
bubble curtain itself. This has the
potential to drive the in-water
construction schedule further into the
late summer months, which are known
for higher CIBW abundance in lower
Knik Arm, thus lengthening the
duration of potential interactions
between CIBW and in-water work.
Therefore, NMFS is concerned that use
of a bubble curtain may not be an
effective measure, given the potential
that bubble curtain use could ultimately
result in increased impacts to CIBW, in
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
2865
addition to the aforementioned
practicability issues.
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s planned measures, as well as
other measures considered by NMFS,
NMFS has determined that the
mitigation measures required herein
provide the means of effecting the least
practicable impact on the affected
species or stocks and their habitat,
paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an
activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA states that NMFS must set forth
requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking.
The MMPA implementing regulations at
50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that
requests for authorizations must include
the suggested means of accomplishing
the necessary monitoring and reporting
that will result in increased knowledge
of the species and of the level of taking
or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be
present while conducting the activities.
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
activity; 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,
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
2866
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
acoustic habitat, or other important
physical components of marine
mammal habitat); and
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
The POA will implement a marine
mammal monitoring and mitigation
strategy intended to avoid and minimize
impacts to marine mammals (see
appendix B of the POA’s application for
their Marine Mammal Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan). Marine mammal
monitoring will be conducted at all
times when in-water pile installation
and removal is taking place.
Additionally, PSOs will be on-site
monitoring for marine mammals during
in-water cutting of sheet piles with
shears or an ultrathermic torch.
The marine mammal monitoring and
mitigation program that is planned for
NES1 construction is modeled after the
stipulations outlined in the IHAs for
Phase 1 and Phase 2 PCT construction
(85 FR 19294, April 6, 2020) and the
IHA for SFD construction (86 FR 50057,
September 7, 2021).
Visual Monitoring
Monitoring must be conducted by
qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, in
accordance with the following:
• PSOs must be independent of the
activity contractor (e.g., employed by a
subcontractor) 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 ITA or
Letter of Concurrence. Other PSOs may
substitute other relevant experience
(including relevant Alaska native
traditional knowledge), education
(degree in biological science or related
field), or training for prior experience
performing the duties of a PSO. PSOs
must be approved by NMFS prior to
beginning any activity subject to this
IHA;
• The POA must employ PSO stations
at a minimum of two locations from
which PSOs can effectively monitor the
shutdown zones (table 13). Concerns
about the stability of the NES1 project
area preclude determination of the exact
number and locations of PSO stations
until the Construction Contractor
develops their Construction Work Plan.
PSO stations must be positioned at the
best practical vantage points that are
determined to be safe. Likely locations
include the Anchorage Public Boat Dock
at Ship Creek to the south of the NES1
project site, and a location to the north
of the project site, such as the northern
end of POA property near Cairn Point
(see North Extension area on figure 12–
1 in the POA’s application) or at Port
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
MacKenzie across Knik Arm (see figure
12–1 in the POA’s application for
potential locations of PSO stations). A
location near the construction activity
may not be possible given the risk of
structural collapse as outlined in the
POA’s IHA application. Placing a PSO
on the northernmost portion of
Terminal 3 will also be considered if
deemed safe. Areas near Cairn Point or
Port MacKenzie have safety, security,
and logistical issues, which will need to
be considered. Cairn Point proper is
located on military land and has bear
presence, and restricted access does not
allow for the location of an observation
station at this site. Tidelands along
Cairn Point are accessible only during
low tide conditions and have inherent
safety concerns of being trapped by
rising tides. Port MacKenzie is a secure
port that is relatively remote, creating
safety, logistical, and physical staffing
limitations due to lack of nearby lodging
and other facilities. The roadway travel
time between port sites is approximately
2–3 hours. An adaptive management
measure is planned for a monitoring
location north of the project site, once
the Construction Contractor has been
selected and more detailed discussions
can occur. Temporary staffing of a
northerly monitoring station during
peak marine mammal presence time
periods and/or when shutdown zones
are large will be considered;
• PSOs stations must be elevated
platforms constructed on top of
shipping containers or a similar base
that is at least 8’ 6’’ high (i.e., the
standard height of a shipping container)
that can support up to three PSOs and
their equipment. The platforms must be
stable enough to support use of a
theodolite and must be located to
optimize the PSO’s ability to observe
marine mammals and the harassment
zones;
• Each PSO station must have at least
two PSOs on watch at any given time;
one PSO must be observing, one PSO
must be recording data (and observing
when there are no data to record).
Teams of three PSOs must include at
least one PSO who must be observing
and one PSO who must be recording
data (and observing when there are no
data to record). The third PSO may help
to observe, record data, or rest. In
addition, if POA is conducting nonNES1-related in-water work that
includes PSOs, the NES1 PSOs must be
in real-time contact with those PSOs,
and both sets of PSOs must share all
information regarding marine mammal
sightings with each other;
• A designated lead PSO must always
be on site. The lead observer must have
prior experience performing the duties
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
of a PSO during in-water construction
activities pursuant to a NMFS-issued
ITA or Letter of Concurrence. Each PSO
station must also have a designated lead
PSO specific to that station and shift;
• PSOs will use a combination of
equipment to perform marine mammal
observations and to verify the required
monitoring distance from the project
site, including 7 by 50 binoculars, 20x/
40x tripod mounted binoculars, 25 by
150 ‘‘big eye’’ tripod mounted
binoculars, and theodolites; and
• PSOs must record all observations
of marine mammals, regardless of
distance from the pile being driven.
PSOs shall document any behavioral
responses 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 record
required information 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.
Reporting
NMFS will require the POA to submit
interim weekly and monthly monitoring
reports during the NES1 construction
season. These reports must include a
summary of marine mammal species
and behavioral observations,
construction shutdowns or delays, and
construction work completed. They also
must include an assessment of the
amount of construction remaining to be
completed (i.e., the number of estimated
hours of work remaining), in addition to
the number of CIBWs observed within
estimated harassment zones to date.
A draft summary marine mammal
monitoring report (that includes final
electronic data sheets) must be
submitted to NMFS within 90 days after
the completion of all construction
activities, or 60 days prior to a requested
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
date of issuance of any future ITA for
projects at the same location, whichever
comes first. The report will include an
overall description of work completed,
a narrative regarding marine mammal
sightings, and associated PSO data
sheets. PSO data sheets should be
submitted in a format that can be
queried such as a spreadsheet or
database (i.e., digital images of data
sheets are not sufficient). 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 or vibratory), the total
equipment duration for vibratory
installation and removal, and the total
number of strikes for each pile during
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
(minimum, maximum, and 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; group spread and
formation (for CIBWs only); description
of any marine mammal behavioral
observations (e.g., observed behaviors
such as feeding or traveling), including
an assessment of behavioral responses
that may 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; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
• 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.
If no comments are received from
NMFS within 30 days, the draft final
report will constitute the final report. If
comments are received, a final report
addressing NMFS comments must be
submitted within 30 days after receipt of
comments.
Reporting Injured or Dead Marine
Mammals
In the event that personnel involved
in the construction activities discover
an injured or dead marine mammal, the
IHA-holder must immediately cease the
specified activities and report the
incident to OPR, NMFS
(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov),
and to the Alaska Regional Stranding
Coordinator as soon as feasible. If the
death or injury was clearly caused by
the specified activity, the POA 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 POA must not resume their
activities until notified by NMFS. The
report must include the following
information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude
and longitude) of the first discovery
(and updated location information if
known and applicable);
• Species identification (if known) or
description of the animal(s) involved;
• Condition of the animal(s)
(including carcass condition if the
animal is dead);
• Observed behaviors of the
animal(s), if alive;
• If available, photographs or video
footage of the animal(s); and
• General circumstances under which
the animal was discovered.
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact
as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of takes alone is not enough information
on which to base an impact
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
2867
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 impacts or responses (e.g.,
intensity, duration), the context of any
impacts or responses (e.g., critical
reproductive time or location, foraging
impacts affecting energetics), as well as
effects on habitat, and the likely
effectiveness of the mitigation. We also
assess the number, intensity, and
context of estimated takes by evaluating
this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989
preamble for NMFS’ implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338, September 29,
1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are
incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the 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, this introductory
discussion of our analysis applies to all
the species listed in table 12, except
CIBWs, given that many of the
anticipated effects of this project on
different marine mammal stocks are
expected to be relatively similar in
nature. For CIBWs, there are meaningful
differences in anticipated individual
responses to activities, impact of
expected take on the population, or
impacts on habitat; therefore, we
provide a separate detailed analysis for
CIBWs following the analysis for other
species for which we authorize take.
NMFS has identified key factors
which may be employed to assess the
level of analysis necessary to conclude
whether potential impacts associated
with a specified activity should be
considered negligible. These include
(but are not limited to) the type and
magnitude of taking, the amount and
importance of the available habitat for
the species or stock that is affected, the
duration of the anticipated effect to the
species or stock, and the status of the
species or stock. The potential effects of
the specified actions on gray whales,
humpback whales, killer whales, harbor
porpoises, Steller sea lions, and harbor
seals are discussed below. Some of these
factors also apply to CIBWs; however, a
more detailed analysis for CIBWs is
provided in a separate sub-section
below.
Pile driving associated with the
project, as outlined previously, has 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
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
2868
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
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.
The POA’s planned activities and
associated impacts will occur within a
limited, confined area of the stocks’
range. The work will occur in the
vicinity of the NES1 site and sound
from the planned activities will be
blocked by the coastline along Knik
Arm along the eastern boundaries of the
site, and for those harassment isopleths
that extend more than 3,000-m (i.e., the
vibratory installation of 36-inch (91-cm)
piles and vibratory removal of 24-inch
(61-inch) piles), directly across the Arm
along the western shoreline (see figure
6–4 in the POA’s application)). The
intensity and duration of take by Level
A and Level B harassment will be
minimized through use of mitigation
measures described herein. Further the
amount of take authorized is small
when compared to stock abundance (see
table 12). In addition, NMFS does not
anticipate that serious injury or
mortality will occur as a result of the
POA’s planned activity given the nature
of the activity, even in the absence of
required mitigation.
Exposures to elevated sound levels
produced during pile driving may cause
behavioral disturbance of some
individuals. Behavioral responses of
marine mammals to pile driving at the
NES1 project site are expected to be
mild, short term, and temporary. Effects
on individuals that are taken by Level
B harassment, as enumerated in the
Estimated Take section, on the basis of
reports in the literature as well as
monitoring from other similar activities
at the POA and elsewhere, will likely be
limited to reactions such as increased
swimming speeds, increased surfacing
time, or decreased foraging (if such
activity were occurring; e.g., Ridgway et
al., 1997; Nowacek et al., 2007; Thorson
and Reyff, 2006; Kendall and Cornick,
2015; Goldbogen et al., 2013b; Piwetz et
al., 2021). 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 or increased haul
out time (e.g., Tougaard et al., 2003;
Carstensen et al., 2006; Thorson and
Reyff, 2006; Parks et al., 2007; Brandt et
al., 2011; Graham et al., 2017). However,
as described in the Potential Effects of
Specified Activities on Marine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
Mammals and Their Habitat section of
the Federal Register notice of the
proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November
6, 2023), marine mammals, excepting
CIBWs, observed within Level A and
Level B harassment zones related to
recent POA construction activities have
not shown any acute observable
reactions to pile driving activities that
have occurred during the PCT and SFD
projects (61N Environmental, 2021,
2022a, 2022b).
Some of the species present in the
region will only be present temporarily
based on seasonal patterns or during
transit between other habitats. These
temporarily present species will be
exposed to even smaller periods of
noise-generating activity, further
decreasing the impacts. Most likely,
individual animals will simply move
away from the sound source and be
temporarily displaced from the area.
Takes may also occur during important
feeding times. The project area though
represents a small portion of available
foraging habitat and impacts on marine
mammal feeding for all species should
be minimal.
The activities analyzed here are
similar to numerous other construction
activities conducted in Alaska (e.g., 86
FR 43190, August 6, 2021; 87 FR 15387,
March 18, 2022), including the PCT and
SFD projects within Upper Knik Arm
(85 FR 19294, April 6, 2020; 86 FR
50057, September 7, 2021, respectively)
which have taken place with no known
long-term adverse consequences from
behavioral harassment. Any potential
reactions and behavioral changes are
expected to subside quickly when the
exposures cease and, therefore, no such
long-term adverse consequences should
be expected (e.g., Graham et al., 2017).
For example, harbor porpoises returned
to a construction area between piledriving events within several days
during the construction of offshore wind
turbines near Denmark (Carstensen et
al., 2006). The intensity of Level B
harassment events will be minimized
through use of mitigation measures
described herein, which were not
quantitatively factored into the take
estimates. The POA will use PSOs
stationed strategically to increase
detectability of marine mammals during
in-water construction activities,
enabling a high rate of success in
implementation of shutdowns to avoid
or minimize injury for most species.
Further, given the absence of any major
rookeries and haulouts within the
estimated harassment zones, we assume
that potential takes by Level B
harassment will have an
inconsequential short-term effect on
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
individuals and will not result in
population-level impacts.
As stated in the mitigation section,
the POA will implement shutdown
zones that equal or exceed the Level A
harassment isopleths shown in table 7.
Take by Level A harassment is
authorized for some species (harbor
seals and harbor porpoises) to account
for the potential that an animal could
enter and remain within the Level A
harassment zone for a duration long
enough to incur PTS. Any take by Level
A harassment is expected to arise from,
at most, a small degree of PTS because
animals will 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.
Due to the levels and durations of
likely exposure, animals that experience
PTS will likely only receive slight PTS,
i.e., minor degradation of hearing
capabilities within regions of hearing
that align most completely with the
frequency range of the energy produced
by POA’s in-water construction
activities (i.e., the low-frequency region
below 2 kHz), not severe hearing
impairment or impairment in the ranges
of greatest hearing sensitivity. If hearing
impairment does occur, it is most likely
that the affected animal will lose a few
dBs in its hearing sensitivity, which in
most cases is not likely to meaningfully
affect its ability to forage and
communicate with conspecifics. There
are no data to suggest that a single
instance in which an animal accrues
PTS (or TTS) and is subject to
behavioral disturbance will result in
impacts to reproduction or survival. If
PTS were to occur, it will be at a lower
level likely to accrue to a relatively
small portion of the population by being
a stationary activity in one particular
location. 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 is
not expected to adversely impact
individual fitness, let alone annual rates
of recruitment or survival.
Theoretically, repeated, sequential
exposure to pile driving noise over a
long duration could result in more
severe impacts to individuals that could
affect a population (via sustained or
repeated disruption of important
behaviors such as feeding, resting,
traveling, and socializing; Southall et
al., 2007). Alternatively, marine
mammals exposed to repetitious
construction sounds may become
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
habituated, desensitized, or tolerant
after initial exposure to these sounds
(reviewed by Richardson et al., 1995;
Southall et al., 2007). Given that marine
mammals still frequent and use Knik
Arm despite being exposed to pile
driving activities across many years,
these severe population level impacts
are not anticipated. The absence of any
pinniped haulouts or other known nonCIBW home-ranges in the NES1 action
area further decreases the likelihood of
severe population level impacts.
The NES1 project is also not expected
to have significant adverse effects on
any marine mammal habitat. The project
activities will occur within the same
footprint as existing marine
infrastructure, and when construction is
complete, subtidal and intertidal
habitats previously lost at the project
site will be restored. Impacts to the
immediate substrate are anticipated, but
these will be limited to minor,
temporary suspension of sediments,
which can impact water quality and
visibility for a short amount of time but
which will not be expected to have any
effects on individual marine mammals.
While the area is generally not high
quality habitat, it is expected to be of
higher quality to marine mammals and
fish after NES1 construction is complete
as the site returns to its natural state and
is colonized by marine organisms.
Further, there are no known BIAs near
the project zone, except for CIBWs, that
will be impacted by the POA’s planned
activities.
Impacts to marine mammal prey
species are also expected to be minor
and temporary and to 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. Overall, the area
impacted by the NES1 project is very
small compared to the available
surrounding habitat, and does not
include habitat of particular importance.
The most likely impact to prey will be
temporary behavioral avoidance of the
immediate area. During construction
activities, it is expected that some fish
and marine mammals will temporarily
leave the area of disturbance, thus
impacting marine mammals’ foraging
opportunities in a limited portion of
their foraging range. But, because of the
relatively small area of the habitat that
may be affected, and lack of any habitat
of particular importance, the impacts to
marine mammal habitat are not
expected to cause significant or longterm negative consequences. Further, as
described above, additional habitat for
marine mammal prey will be available
after the completion of the POA’s
construction activities likely providing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
additional foraging, migrating, and
rearing habitats to fish and foraging
habitat to marine mammals.
In summary and as described above,
the following factors support our
negligible impact determinations for the
affected stocks of gray whales,
humpback whales, killer whales, harbor
porpoises, Steller sea lions, and harbor
seals:
• No takes by mortality or serious
injury are anticipated or authorized;
• Any acoustic impacts to marine
mammal habitat from pile driving
(including to prey sources as well as
acoustic habitat, and including resulting
behavioral impacts e.g., from masking)
are expected to be temporary and
minimal;
• Take will not occur in places and/
or times where take will be more likely
to accrue to impacts on reproduction or
survival, such as within ESA-designated
or proposed critical habitat, BIAs, or
other habitats critical to recruitment or
survival (e.g., rookery);
• The project area represents a very
small portion of the available foraging
area for all potentially impacted marine
mammal species;
• Take will only occur within upper
Cook Inlet—a limited, confined area of
any given stock’s home range;
• Monitoring reports from similar
work in Knik Arm have documented
little to no observable effect on
individuals of the same species
impacted by the specified activities;
• The required mitigation measures
(i.e., soft starts, pre-clearance
monitoring, shutdown zones) are
expected to be effective in reducing the
effects of the specified activity by
minimizing the numbers of marine
mammals exposed to injurious levels of
sound, and by ensuring that any take by
Level A harassment is, at most, a small
degree of PTS and of a lower degree that
will not impact the fitness of any
animals; and
• The intensity of anticipated takes
by Level B harassment is low for all
stocks consisting of, at worst, temporary
modifications in behavior, and will not
be of a duration or intensity expected to
result in impacts on reproduction or
survival.
Cook Inlet Beluga Whales. For CIBWs,
we further discuss our negligible impact
findings in the context of potential
impacts to this endangered stock based
on our evaluation of the take authorized
(table 12).
As described in the Recovery Plan for
the CIBW (NMFS, 2016b), NMFS
determined the following physical or
biological features are essential to the
conservation of this species: (1)
Intertidal and subtidal waters of Cook
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
2869
Inlet with depths less than 9-m mean
lower low water and within 8-km of
high and medium flow anadromous fish
streams; (2) Primary prey species
consisting of four species of Pacific
salmon (Chinook, sockeye, chum, and
coho), Pacific eulachon, Pacific cod,
walleye pollock, saffron cod, and
yellowfin sole; (3) Waters free of toxins
or other agents of a type and amount
harmful to CIBWs; (4) Unrestricted
passage within or between the critical
habitat areas; and (5) Waters with inwater noise below levels resulting in the
abandonment of critical habitat areas by
CIBWs. The NES1 project will not
impact essential features 1–3 listed
above. All construction will be done in
a manner implementing best
management practices to preserve water
quality, and no work will occur around
creek mouths or river systems leading to
prey abundance reductions. In addition,
no physical structures will restrict
passage; however, impacts to the
acoustic habitat are relevant and
discussed here.
Monitoring data from the POA suggest
pile driving does not discourage CIBWs
from entering Knik Arm and traveling to
critical foraging grounds such as those
around Eagle Bay (e.g., 61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b;
Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022).
As described in the Potential Effects of
Specified Activities on Marine
Mammals and Their Habitat section of
the Federal Register notice of the
proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November
6, 2023), sighting rates were not
different in the presence or absence of
pile driving (Kendall and Cornick,
2015). In addition, large numbers of
CIBWs have continued to use Knik Arm
and pass through the area during pile
driving projects that have taken place at
the POA during the past two decades
(Funk et al., 2005; Prevel-Ramos et al.,
2006; Markowitz and McGuire, 2007;
Cornick and Saxon-Kendall, 2008, 2009;
ICRC, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012; Cornick
et al., 2010, 2011; Cornick and Pinney,
2011; Cornick and Seagars, 2016; POA,
2019), including during the recent PCT
and SFD construction projects (61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b;
Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022).
These findings are not surprising as
food is a strong motivation for marine
mammals. As described in Forney et al.
(2017), animals typically favor
particular areas because of their
importance for survival (e.g., feeding or
breeding), and leaving may have
significant costs to fitness (reduced
foraging success, increased predation
risk, increased exposure to other
anthropogenic threats). Consequently,
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
2870
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
animals may be highly motivated to
maintain foraging behavior in historical
foraging areas despite negative impacts
(e.g., Rolland et al., 2012). Previous
monitoring data indicates CIBWs are
responding to pile driving noise, but not
through abandonment of critical habitat,
including primary foraging areas north
of the port. Instead, they travel more
often and faster past the POA, more
quietly, and in tighter groups (Kendall
and Cornick, 2015; 61N Environmental,
2021, 2022a, 2022b).
While the habitat near the POA is not
typically considered high quality
foraging habitat for CIBWs and feeding
is not a predominant behavior observed
in CIBWs near the POA (61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b;
Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022),
CIBWs have been observed exhibiting
foraging behaviors during pile driving
activities in the action area. For
example, Saxon-Kendall et al. (2013)
recorded echolocation clicks (which can
be indicative of feeding behavior)
during the MTRP both while pile
driving was occurring and when it was
not. While the action area is located
within designated essential fish habitat
(EFH) for chum, coho, Chinook,
sockeye, and pink salmon; there are no
designated areas of particular concern in
the vicinity of the POA. Still, increased
turbidity, elevation in noise levels
during pile driving, and small spills
have the potential to impact fish,
including preferred prey of CIBWs
including Pacific salmon (Chinook,
sockeye, chum, and coho), Pacific
eulachon, Pacific cod, walleye pollock,
saffron cod, and yellowfin sole.
However, CIBWs are known to typically
forage in or near river mouths (e.g., Six
Mile Creek, Eagle River, Eklutna River)
from late spring through summer, which
contain predictable salmon runs, and in
nearshore bays and estuaries in the fall,
when anadromous fish runs decline.
Further, there is no evidence to suggest
that CIBWs are restricted in transiting
between preferred feeding areas during
pile driving activities (e.g., 61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b,
2022c; Easley-Appleyard and Leonard,
2022). Thus, while there may be some
impacts to CIBW prey and CIBW
foraging behaviors in the action area,
NMFS anticipates that these impacts
would be temporary, and most likely
related to fish avoiding the action area.
NMFS does not anticipate that these
impacts would rise to the level of
adversely impacting annual rates of
recruitment or survival.
During PCT and SFD construction
monitoring, little variability was evident
in CIBW behaviors recorded from month
to month, or between sightings that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
coincided with in-water pile installation
and removal and those that did not (61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b;
Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022).
Of the 386 CIBWs groups sighted during
PCT and SFD construction monitoring,
10 groups were observed during or
within minutes of in-water impact pile
installation and 56 groups were
observed during or within minutes of
vibratory pile installation or removal
(61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a,
2022b). In general, CIBWs were more
likely to display no reaction or to
continue to move towards the PCT or
SFD during pile installation and
removal. In the situations during which
CIBWs showed a possible reaction (6
groups during impact driving and 13
groups during vibratory driving), CIBWs
were observed either moving away
immediately after the pile driving
activities started or were observed
increasing their rate of travel.
NMFS funded a visual marine
mammal monitoring project in 2021
(described in the Potential Effects of
Specified Activities on Marine
Mammals and Their Habitat of the
Federal Register notice of the proposed
IHA; 88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023)
to supplement sighting data collected by
the POA monitoring program during
non-pile driving days in order to further
evaluate the impacts of anthropogenic
activities on CIBWs (Easley-Appleyard
and Leonard, 2022). Preliminary results
suggest that group size ranged from 1 to
34 whales, with an average of 3 to 5.6,
depending on the month. September
had the highest sighting rate with 4.08
whales per hour, followed by October
and August (3.46 and 3.41,
respectively). Traveling was recorded as
the primary behavior for 80 percent of
the group sightings and milling was the
secondary behavior most often recorded.
Sighting duration varied from a single
surfacing lasting less than 1 minute to
380 minutes. Preliminary findings
suggest these results are consistent with
the results from the POA’s PCT and SFD
monitoring efforts. For example, group
sizes ranged from 2.38 to 4.32
depending on the month and the highest
sighting rate was observed in September
(1.75). In addition, traveling was the
predominant behavior observed for all
months and categories of construction
activity (i.e., no pile driving, before pile
driving, during pile driving, between
pile driving, or after pile driving), being
recorded as the primary behavior for 86
percent of all sightings, and either the
primary or secondary behavior for 95
percent of sightings.
Easley-Appleyard and Leonard (2022)
also asked PSOs to complete a
questionnaire post-monitoring that
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
provided NMFS with qualitative data
regarding CIBW behavior during
observations. Specifically during pile
driving events, the PSOs noted that
CIBW behaviors varied; however,
multiple PSOs noted seeing behavioral
changes specifically during impact pile
driving (which will only be used when
necessary to loosen piles for vibratory
removal or direct pulling during the
NES1 project) and not during vibratory
pile driving. CIBWs were observed
sometimes changing direction, turning
around, or changing speed during
impact pile driving. There were
numerous instances where CIBWs were
seen traveling directly towards the POA
during vibratory pile driving before
entering the Level B harassment zone
(POA was required to shutdown prior to
CIBWs entering the Level B harassment
zone), which is consistent with findings
during the POA’s PCT and SFD
monitoring efforts (61N Environmental,
2021, 2022a, 2022b). The PSOs also
reported that it seemed more likely for
CIBWs to show more cryptic behavior
during pile driving (e.g., surfacing
infrequently and without clear
direction), though this seemed to vary
across months (Easley-Appleyard and
Leonard, 2022).
We anticipate that disturbance to
CIBWs will manifest in the same
manner when they are exposed to noise
during the NES1 project: whales will
move quickly and silently through the
area in more cohesive groups. We do not
believe exposure to elevated noise levels
during transit past the POA has adverse
effects on reproduction or survival as
the whales continue to access critical
foraging grounds north of the POA, even
if having shown a potential reaction
during pile driving, and tight
associations help to mitigate the
potential for any contraction of
communication space for a group. We
also do not anticipate that CIBWs will
abandon entering or exiting Knik Arm,
as this is not evident based on previous
years of monitoring data (e.g., Kendall
and Cornick, 2015; 61N Environmental,
2021, 2022a, 2022b; Easley-Appleyard
and Leonard, 2022), and the pre-pile
driving clearance mitigation measure is
designed to further avoid any potential
abandonment. Finally, as described in
the Potential Effects of Specified
Activities on Marine Mammals and
Their Habitat of the Federal Register
notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR
76576, November 6, 2023), both
telemetry (tagging) and acoustic data
suggest CIBWs likely stay in upper Knik
Arm (i.e., north of the NES1 project site)
for several days or weeks before exiting
Knik Arm. Specifically, a CIBW
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
instrumented with a satellite link time/
depth recorder entered Knik Arm on
August 18, 1999 and remained in Eagle
Bay until September 12, 1999 (Ferrero et
al., 2000). Further, a recent detailed reanalysis of the satellite telemetry data
confirms how several tagged whales
exhibited this same movement pattern:
whales entered Knik Arm and remained
there for several days before exiting
through lower Knik Arm (Shelden et al.,
2018). This longer-term use of upper
Knik Arm will avoid repetitive
exposures from pile driving noise.
There is concern that exposure to pile
driving at the POA could result in
CIBWs avoiding Knik Arm and thereby
not accessing the productive foraging
grounds north of POA such as Eagle
River flats thus, impacting essential
feature number five above. Although the
data previously presented demonstrate
CIBWs are not abandoning the area (i.e.,
no significant difference in sighting rate
with and without pile driving), results
of an expert elicitation (EE) at a 2016
workshop, which predicted the impacts
of noise on CIBW survival and
reproduction given lost foraging
opportunities, helped to inform our
assessment of impacts on this stock. The
2016 EE workshop used conceptual
models of an interim population
consequences of disturbance (PCoD) for
marine mammals (NRC, 2005; New et
al., 2014; Tollit et al., 2016) to help in
understanding how noise-related
stressors might affect vital rates
(survival, birth rate and growth) for
CIBW (King et al., 2015). NMFS (2016b)
suggests that the main direct effects of
noise on CIBW are likely to be through
masking of vocalizations used for
communication and prey location and
habitat degradation. The 2016 workshop
on CIBWs was specifically designed to
provide regulators with a tool to help
understand whether chronic and acute
anthropogenic noise from various
sources and projects are likely to be
limiting recovery of the CIBW
population. The full report can be found
at https://www.smruconsulting.com/
publications/ with a summary of the EE
portion of the workshop below.
For each of the noise effect
mechanisms chosen for EE, the experts
provided a set of parameters and values
that determined the forms of a
relationship between the number of
days of disturbance a female CIBW
experiences in a particular period and
the effect of that disturbance on her
energy reserves. Examples included the
number of days of disturbance during
the period April, May, and June that
would be predicted to reduce the energy
reserves of a pregnant CIBW to such a
level that she is certain to terminate the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
pregnancy or abandon the calf soon after
birth, the number of days of disturbance
in the period April–September required
to reduce the energy reserves of a
lactating CIBW to a level where she is
certain to abandon her calf, and the
number of days of disturbance where a
female fails to gain sufficient energy by
the end of summer to maintain
themselves and their calves during the
subsequent winter. Overall, median
values ranged from 16 to 69 days of
disturbance depending on the question.
However, for this elicitation, a ‘‘day of
disturbance’’ was defined as any day on
which an animal loses the ability to
forage for at least one tidal cycle (i.e., it
forgoes 50–100 percent of its energy
intake on that day). The day of
disturbance considered in the context of
the report is notably more severe than
the Level B harassment expected to
result from these activities, which as
described is expected to be comprised
predominantly of temporary
modifications in the behavior of
individual CIBWs (e.g., faster swim
speeds, more cohesive group structure,
decreased sighting durations, cessation
of vocalizations). Also, NMFS
authorized 72 instances of takes, with
the instances representing disturbance
events within a day—this means that
either 72 different individual CIBWs are
disturbed on no more than 1 day each,
or some lesser number of individuals
may be disturbed on more than 1 day,
but with the product of individuals and
days not exceeding 72. Given the overall
anticipated take, it is unlikely that any
one CIBW will be disturbed on more
than a few days. Further, the mitigation
measures NMFS has prescribed for the
NES1 project are designed to avoid the
potential that any animal will lose the
ability to forage for one or more tidal
cycles should they be foraging in the
NES1 project area, which is not known
to be a particularly important feeding
area for CIBWs. While Level B
harassment (behavioral disturbance)
will be authorized, the POA’s mitigation
measures will limit the severity of the
effects of that Level B harassment to
behavioral changes such as increased
swim speeds, tighter group formations,
and cessation of vocalizations, not the
loss of foraging capabilities. Regardless,
this elicitation recognized that pregnant
or lactating females and calves are
inherently more at risk than other
animals, such as males. NMFS has
determined all CIBWs warrant pile
driving shutdown to be protective of
potential vulnerable life stages, such as
pregnancy, that cannot be determined
from observations, and to avoid more
severe behavioral reaction.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
2871
NMFS has prescribed mitigation
measures to minimize exposure to
CIBWs, specifically, shutting down pile
driving should a CIBW approach or
enter the Level B harassment zone.
These measures are designed to ensure
CIBWs will not abandon critical habitat
and exposure to pile driving noise will
not result in adverse impacts on the
reproduction or survival of any
individuals. The location of the PSOs
will allow for detection of CIBWs and
behavioral observations prior to CIBWs
entering the Level B harassment zone.
Further, impact driving appeared to
cause behavioral reactions more readily
than vibratory hammering (61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b),
which will only be used in situations
where sheet piles remain seized in the
sediments and cannot be loosened or
broken free with a vibratory hammer,
which is expected to be uncommon
during the NES1 project. If impact
driving does occur, the POA must
implement soft starts, which ideally
allows animals to leave a disturbed area
before the full-power driving
commences (Tougaard et al., 2012).
Although NMFS does not anticipate
CIBWs will abandon entering Knik Arm
in the presence of pile driving with the
required mitigation measures, PSOs will
be integral to identifying if CIBWs are
potentially altering pathways they
would otherwise take in the absence of
pile driving. Finally, take by mortality,
serious injury, or Level A harassment of
CIBWs is not anticipated or authorized.
In summary and as described above,
the following factors primarily support
our determination that the impacts
resulting from this activity are not
expected to adversely affect the CIBWs
through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival:
• No mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
• The area of exposure will be limited
to habitat primarily used as a travel
corridor. Data demonstrates Level B
harassment of CIBWs typically
manifests as increased swim speeds past
the POA, tighter group formations, and
cessation of vocalizations, rather than
through habitat abandonment;
• No critical foraging grounds (e.g.,
Eagle Bay, Eagle River, Susitna Delta)
will be impacted by pile driving; and
• While animals may be harassed
more than once, exposures are not likely
to exceed more than a few per year for
any given individual and are not
expected to occur on sequential days;
thereby decreasing the likelihood of
physiological impacts caused by chronic
stress or masking.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
2872
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
required monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS finds that the total
marine mammal take from the specified
activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Small Numbers
As noted previously, only take of
small numbers of marine mammals 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.
For all stocks, except for the MexicoNorth Pacific stock of humpback whales
whose abundance estimate is unknown,
the amount of taking is less than onethird of the best available population
abundance estimate (in fact it is less
than 2 percent for all stocks, except for
CIBWs whose authorized take is 22
percent of the stock; table 12). The
number of animals authorized to be
taken from these stocks would be
considered small relative to the relevant
stock’s abundances even if each
estimated take occurred to a new
individual. The amount of take
authorized likely represents smaller
numbers of individual harbor seals and
Steller sea lions. Harbor seals tend to
concentrate near Ship Creek and have
small home ranges. It is possible that a
single individual harbor seal may linger
near the POA, especially near Ship
Creek, and be counted multiple times
each day as it moves around and
resurfaces in different locations.
Previous Steller sea lion sightings
identified that if a Steller sea lion is
within Knik Arm, it is likely lingering
to forage on salmon or eulachon runs
and may be present for several days.
Therefore, the amount of take
authorized likely represents repeat
exposures to the same animals. For all
species, PSOs will count individuals as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
separate unless they cannot be
individually identified.
Abundance estimates for the MexicoNorth Pacific stock of humpback whales
are based upon data collected more than
8 years ago and, therefore, current
estimates are considered unknown
(Young et al., 2023). The most recent
minimum population estimates (NMIN)
for this population include an estimate
of 2,241 individuals between 2003 and
2006 (Martinez-Aguilar, 2011) and 766
individuals between 2004 and 2006
(Wade, 2021). NMFS’ Guidelines for
Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks
suggest that the NMIN estimate of the
stock should be adjusted to account for
potential abundance changes that may
have occurred since the last survey and
provide reasonable assurance that the
stock size is at least as large as the
estimate (NMFS, 2023b). The abundance
trend for this stock is unclear; therefore,
there is no basis for adjusting these
estimates (Young et al., 2023).
Assuming the population has been
stable, the 4 takes of this stock
authorized represents small numbers of
this stock (0.18 percent of the stock
assuming a NMIN of 2,241 individuals
and 0.52 percent of the stock assuming
an NMIN of 766 individuals).
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the planned activity (including
the required mitigation and monitoring
measures) and the anticipated take of
marine mammals, NMFS finds that
small numbers of marine mammals will
be taken relative to the population size
of the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis
and Determination
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must
find that the specified activity will not
have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’
on the subsistence uses of the affected
marine mammal species or stocks by
Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined
‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR
216.103 as an impact resulting from the
specified activity: (1) That is likely to
reduce the availability of the species to
a level insufficient for a harvest to meet
subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the
marine mammals to abandon or avoid
hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing
subsistence users; or (iii) Placing
physical barriers between the marine
mammals and the subsistence hunters;
and (2) That cannot be sufficiently
mitigated by other measures to increase
the availability of marine mammals to
allow subsistence needs to be met.
While no significant subsistence
activity currently occurs within or near
the POA, Alaska Natives have
traditionally harvested subsistence
resources, including marine mammals,
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
in upper Cook Inlet for millennia.
CIBWs are more than a food source; they
are important to the cultural and
spiritual practices of Cook Inlet Native
communities (NMFS, 2008b). Dena’ina
Athabascans, currently living in the
communities of Eklutna, Knik, Tyonek,
and elsewhere, occupied settlements in
Cook Inlet for the last 1,500 years and
have been the primary traditional users
of this area into the present.
NMFS estimated that 65 CIBWs per
year (range 21–123) were killed between
1994 and 1998, including those
successfully harvested and those struck
and lost. NMFS concluded that this
number was high enough to account for
the estimated 14 percent annual decline
in population during this time (Hobbs et
al., 2008); however, given the difficulty
of estimating the number of whales
struck and lost during the hunts, actual
mortality may have been higher. During
this same period, population abundance
surveys indicated a population decline
of 47 percent, although the reason for
this decline should not be associated
solely with subsistence hunting and
likely began well before 1994 (Rugh et
al., 2000).
In 1999, a moratorium was enacted
(Pub. L. 106–31) prohibiting the
subsistence harvest of CIBWs except
through a cooperative agreement
between NMFS and the affected Alaska
Native organizations. NMFS began
working cooperatively with the Cook
Inlet Marine Mammal Council (CIMMC),
a group of tribes that traditionally
hunted CIBWs, to establish sustainable
harvests. CIMMC voluntarily curtailed
its harvests in 1999. In 2000, NMFS
designated the Cook Inlet stock of
beluga whales as depleted under the
MMPA (65 FR 34590, May 31, 2000).
NMFS and CIMMC signed CoManagement of the Cook Inlet Stock of
Beluga Whales agreements in 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006. CIBW
harvests between 1999 and 2006
resulted in the strike and harvest of five
whales, including one whale each in
2001, 2002, and 2003, and two whales
in 2005 (NMFS, 2008b). No hunt
occurred in 2004 due to higher-thannormal mortality of CIBWs in 2003, and
the Native Village of Tyonek agreed to
not hunt in 2007. Since 2008, NMFS has
examined how many CIBWs could be
harvested during 5-year intervals based
on estimates of population size and
growth rate and determined that no
harvests would occur between 2008 and
2012 and between 2013 and 2017
(NMFS, 2008b). The CIMMC was
disbanded by unanimous vote of the
CIMMC member Tribes’ representatives
in June 2012, and a replacement group
of Tribal members has not been formed
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices
to date. There has been no subsistence
harvest of CIBWs since 2005 (NMFS,
2022d).
Subsistence harvest of other marine
mammals in upper Cook Inlet is limited
to harbor seals. Steller sea lions are rare
in upper Cook Inlet; therefore,
subsistence use of this species is not
common. However, Steller sea lions are
taken for subsistence use in lower Cook
Inlet. Residents of the Native Village of
Tyonek are the primary subsistence
users in the upper Cook Inlet area.
While harbor seals are hunted for
subsistence purposes, harvests of this
for traditional and subsistence uses by
Native peoples have been low in upper
Cook Inlet (e.g., 33 harbor seals were
harvested in Tyonek between 1983 and
2013; see table 8–1 in the POA’s
application), although these data are not
currently being collected and
summarized. As the POA’s planned
project activities will take place within
the immediate vicinity of the POA, no
activities will occur in or near Tyonek’s
identified traditional subsistence
hunting areas. As the harvest of marine
mammals in upper Cook Inlet is
historically a small portion of the total
subsistence harvest, and the number of
marine mammals using upper Cook
Inlet is proportionately small, the
number of marine mammals harvested
in upper Cook Inlet is expected to
remain low.
The potential impacts from
harassment on stocks that are harvested
in Cook Inlet will be limited to minor
behavioral changes (e.g., increased swim
speeds, changes in dive time, temporary
avoidance near the POA, etc.) within the
vicinity of the POA. Some PTS may
occur; however, the shift is likely to be
slight due to the implementation of
mitigation measures (e.g., shutdown
zones, pre-clearance monitoring, soft
starts) and the shift will be limited to
lower pile driving frequencies, which
are on the lower end of phocid and
otariid hearing ranges. In summary, any
impacts to harbor seals will be limited
to those seals within Knik Arm (outside
of any hunting area) and the very few
takes of Steller sea lions in Knik Arm
will be far removed in time and space
from any hunting in lower Cook Inlet.
The POA will communicate with
representative Alaska Native
subsistence users and Tribal members to
identify and explain the measures that
have been taken or will be taken to
minimize any adverse effects of NES1
on the availability of marine mammals
for subsistence uses. In addition, the
POA will adhere to the following
procedures during Tribal consultation
regarding marine mammal subsistence
use within the Project area:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:51 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
(1) Send letters to the Kenaitze,
Tyonek, Knik, Eklutna, Ninilchik,
Salamatof, and Chickaloon Tribes
informing them of the planned project
(i.e., timing, location, and features).
Include a map of the planned project
area; identify potential impacts to
marine mammals and mitigation efforts,
if needed, to avoid or minimize impacts;
and inquire about possible marine
mammal subsistence concerns they
have;
(2) Follow up with a phone call to the
environmental departments of the seven
Tribal entities to ensure that they
received the letter, understand the
project, and have a chance to ask
questions. Inquire about any concerns
they might have about potential impacts
to subsistence hunting of marine
mammals;
(3) Document all communication
between the POA and Tribes; and
(4) If any Tribes express concerns
regarding project impacts to subsistence
hunting of marine mammals, propose a
Plan of Cooperation between the POA
and the concerned Tribe(s).
The NES1 project features and
activities, in combination with a
number of actions to be taken by the
POA during project implementation,
should avoid or mitigate any potential
adverse effects on the availability of
marine mammals for subsistence uses.
Furthermore, although construction will
occur within the traditional area for
hunting marine mammals, the project
area is not currently used for
subsistence activities. In-water pile
installation and removal will follow
mitigation procedures to minimize
effects on the behavior of marine
mammals, and impacts will be
temporary.
The POA has expressed, if desired,
regional subsistence representatives
may support project marine mammal
biologists during the monitoring
program by assisting with collection of
marine mammal observations and may
request copies of marine mammal
monitoring reports.
Based on the description of the
specified activity, the measures
described to minimize adverse effects
on the availability of marine mammals
for subsistence purposes, and the
required mitigation and monitoring
measures, NMFS has determined that
there will not be an unmitigable adverse
impact on subsistence uses from the
POA’s planned 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
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
2873
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 OPR consults internally
whenever we propose to authorize take
for endangered or threatened species, in
this case with the NMFS Alaska
Regional Office.
There are three marine mammal
species (the Mexico DPS and Western
North Pacific DPS of humpback whale,
CIBWs, and western DPS Steller sea
lion) with confirmed occurrence in the
project area that are listed as
endangered or threatened under the
ESA. The NMFS Alaska Regional Office
issued a BiOp on December 15, 2023,
under section 7 of the ESA, on the
issuance of an IHA to the POA under
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the
NMFS OPR. The BiOp concluded that
the specified action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the Mexico DPS and Western North
Pacific DPS of humpback whale, CIBWs,
or western DPS Steller sea lions, and is
not likely to destroy or adversely modify
CIBW critical habitat. There is no
critical habitat designated for humpback
whales or Steller sea lions in the action
area.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 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.
Accordingly, NMFS prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA). The
EA supported a FONSI. A copy of the
EA and FONSI is available at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to the POA
for the potential harassment of small
numbers of seven marine mammal
species incidental to the NES1 project in
Anchorage, Alaska, that includes the
previously explained mitigation,
monitoring and reporting requirements.
Dated: January 8, 2024.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2024–00511 Filed 1–12–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\16JAN2.SGM
16JAN2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2832-2873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00511]
[[Page 2831]]
Vol. 89
Tuesday,
No. 10
January 16, 2024
Part III
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking
Marine Mammals Incidental to the Port of Alaska's North Extension
Stabilization Step 1 Project in Anchorage, Alaska; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 /
Notices
[[Page 2832]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XD572]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Port of Alaska's North
Extension Stabilization Step 1 Project in Anchorage, Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to
the Port of Alaska (POA) to incidentally harass marine mammals during
construction activities associated with the North Extension
Stabilization Step 1 (NES1) Project in Anchorage, Alaska.
DATES: This authorization is effective from April 1, 2024, through
March 31, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the application and supporting
documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document,
may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call
the contact listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reny Tyson Moore, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
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 proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions
of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the
relevant sections below.
Summary of Request
On July 19, 2022, NMFS received a request from the POA for an IHA
to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities related to
the NES1 project in Anchorage, Alaska. Following NMFS' review of the
application, the POA submitted revised versions on December 27, 2022,
July 28, 2023, and August 31, 2023. The application was deemed adequate
and complete on September 7, 2023. The POA submitted a final version
addressing additional minor corrections on September 21, 2023. The
Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA and request for comments
was published on November 6, 2023 (88 FR 76576). The POA's request is
for take of seven species of marine mammals by Level B harassment and,
for a subset of these species (i.e., harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) and
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)), Level A harassment. Neither the
POA nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this
activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously issued IHAs to the POA for similar work (85 FR
19294, April 6, 2020; 86 FR 50057, September 7, 2021). The POA 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 Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine
Mammals and their Habitat section of the Federal Register notice of the
proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023), the Estimated Take
section in this notice of issuance, and online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities.
This IHA will cover 1-year of the ongoing Port of Alaska
Modernization Program (PAMP) for which the POA obtained prior IHAs and
intends to request additional take authorization for subsequent facets
of the program. The PAMP involves construction activities related to
the modernization of the POA's marine terminals.
Description of Specified Activity
The POA, located on Knik Arm in upper Cook Inlet, provides critical
infrastructure for the citizens of Anchorage and a majority of the
citizens of Alaska. The North Extension at the POA is a failed bulkhead
structure that was constructed between 2005 and 2011. Parts of the
North Extension bulkhead structure and the surrounding upland area are
unstable and collapsing, and some of the sheet piles are visibly
twisted and buckled. The structure presents safety hazards and
logistical impediments to ongoing Port operations, and much of the
upland area is currently unusable. The North Extension Stabilization
(NES) project will result in removal of the failed sheet pile structure
and reconfiguration and realignment of the shoreline within the North
Extension, including the conversion of approximately 0.05 square
kilometers (km\2\; 13 acres) of developed land back to intertidal and
subtidal habitat within Knik Arm. The NES project will be completed in
two distinct steps, NES1 and NES2, separated by multiple years and
separate permitting efforts. This notice is applicable to an IHA for
the incidental take of marine mammals during in-water construction
associated with NES1.
The NES1 project will involve the removal of portions of the failed
sheet pile structure to stabilize the North Extension. The NES1 project
will remove approximately half of the North Extension structure
extending approximately 274-meters (m) north from the southern end of
the North Extension. This project will also stabilize the remaining
portion of the North Extension by creating an end-state embankment.
While the majority of the Project will be demolition work, the term
``construction'' as used herein refers to both construction and
demolition work.
In-water construction associated with this project includes
vibratory installation and removal of 81 24-inch (61-centimeter (cm))
or 36-inch (91-cm) temporary steel pipe stability template piles as
well as vibratory removal, splitting (via a sheet pile splitter used in
[[Page 2833]]
conjunction with a vibratory hammer), pile cutting (via hydraulic
shears or underwater ultrathermic cutting) and possible impact removal
of approximately 4,216 sheet piles from the structure tailwalls, cell
faces (bulkhead), and closure walls. Demolition of the failed sheet
pile structure will be accomplished through excavation and dredging of
impounded soils (fill material), and cutting and removal of the
existing sheet piles, most likely through use of a pile splitter and
vibratory hammer. It is assumed that pile splitting will produce the
same or similar sound levels to a vibratory hammer used without the
splitter attachment. Therefore, the use of a vibratory hammer to remove
sheet piles and the use of a splitter is combined into a single
category (i.e., vibratory hammer removal) and treated the same in our
analysis.
The first attempt to extract the sheet piles will be with direct
vertical pulling or with a vibratory hammer; however, there may be
complications with the sheet pile interlocks, which could become
seized, and other means of pile removal may be required (i.e., impact
removal, shearing, or torching). In addition, to minimize potential
impacts on marine mammals from in-water sheet pile removal, removal in
the dry would be maximized as feasible. The demolition plan also
includes stabilization of the face sheets through installation of
temporary piles and dredging back into the cell to relieve pressure on
the sheet piles and to eliminate any release of material into Cook
Inlet beyond natural tidal forces. It is anticipated that 3 sets of 27
temporary piles would be required for a total of 81 installations and
81 removals (table 1). Temporary piles would be installed and removed
with a vibratory hammer. Sound produced by vibratory pile installation
and removal and impact pile removal may result in the take of marine
mammals, by harassment only. Sound produced by all other NES1 project
activities (e.g., hydraulic shearing, ultrathermic cutting) are not
expected to result in the take of marine mammals and, therefore, are
not discussed further.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 2834]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JA24.031
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
A detailed description of the planned NES1 project is provided in
the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November
6, 2023). Since that time, no changes have been made to the planned
activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here.
Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the description of the
specific activity.
Dates and Duration
The POA anticipates that NES1 in-water construction activities will
begin on April 1, 2024 and extend through November 2024. In-water pile
[[Page 2835]]
installation and removal associated with the NES1 project is
anticipated to take place over approximately 246.5 hours on 110
nonconsecutive days between these dates. While the exact sequence of
demolition and construction is uncertain, an estimated schedule of
sheet pile removal and temporary stability template pile installation
and removal is shown in table 1.
A detailed description of the timing and sequencing of the NES1
project is provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA
(88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023). Since that time, no changes have been
made to the dates or duration. Therefore, a detailed description is not
provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for more
information regarding the dates and duration of the NES1 project.
Specific Geographic Region
The Municipality of Anchorage is located in the lower reaches of
Knik Arm of upper Cook Inlet (see figure 2-1 in the POA's application).
The POA sits on the industrial waterfront of Anchorage, just south of
Cairn Point and north of Ship Creek (lat. 61[deg]15' N, long.
149[deg]52' W; Seward Meridian). Knik Arm and Turnagain Arm are the two
branches of upper Cook Inlet, and Anchorage is located where the two
arms join. The POA's boundaries currently occupy an area of
approximately 0.52 km\2\.
A detailed description of the specific geographic region of the
NES1 project is provided in the Federal Register notice for the
proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023). Since that time, no
changes have been made to the specific geographic region. Therefore, a
detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal
Register notice for more information regarding the specific geographic
region of the NES1 project.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to the POA was published
in the Federal Register on November 6, 2023 (88 FR 76576). That notice
described, in detail, the POA's activity, the marine mammal species
that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on
marine mammals. In that notice, we requested public input on the
request for authorization described therein, our analyses, the proposed
authorization, and any other aspect of the notice of proposed IHA, and
requested that interested persons submit relevant information,
suggestions, and comments.
During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments
from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Eklutna, Inc. NMFS
also received a letter from United States Geological Survey stating
that they had no comment. All relevant, substantive comments, and NMFS'
responses, are provided below. The comments and recommendations are
available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. Please see the comment submissions for full details
regarding the recommendations and supporting rationale.
Comment 1: The CBD opposed NMFS' issuance of an IHA for
construction and associated activities related to the NES1 project,
stating that the proposed actions would further imperil the already
critically endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale (CIBW) and that ``most of
the proposed activities should not be authorized until and unless
[NMFS] can ensure that take will not impede the survival and recovery
of the [CIBW] population.''
Response: NMFS shares CBD's concern regarding the impacts of human
activities on CIBWs and is committed to supporting the conservation and
recovery of the species. Under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS
considers the at risk status of CIBWs (and other species) in both the
negligible impact analysis and through our consideration of impact
minimization measures that support the least practicable adverse impact
on those species. For example, the IHA for the NES1 project includes a
requirement to implement shutdown zones for CIBWs that encompass the
estimated Level B harassment zones. However, section 101(a)(5)(D) also
mandates that NMFS ``shall issue'' an IHA if we are able to make the
necessary findings for any specified activity for which incidental take
is requested.
In accordance with our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
216.104(c), we use the best available scientific evidence to determine
whether the taking by the specified activity within the specified
geographic region will have a negligible impact on the species or stock
and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of
such species or stock for subsistence uses. Based on the best
scientific evidence available, NMFS determined that the take incidental
to POA's NES1 project would have no more than a negligible impact on
the affected species and stocks, including CIBW, and no unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence
uses. Moreover, NMFS has required through the IHA implementation of
mitigation and monitoring measures that balances the safety needs of
this demolition project with reducing potential impacts to CIBWs and
other marine mammals to the lowest level practicable, thereby providing
the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the
affected species and stocks of marine mammals.
Further, as described in the Federal Register notice of the
proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023), data from several years
of scientific monitoring at the POA during previous work involving pile
driving (occurring April through November) demonstrate there is no
significant difference in beluga whale sightings during and in absence
of pile driving (Kendell and Cornick, 2016). While we do anticipate
some behavioral modifications to occur, these will likely be limited to
increased travel speeds, reduced vocalizations, and potentially
traveling in more cohesive groups (Kendell and Cornick, 2016). However,
we anticipate behavior will return to normal after the whales move past
the POA (e.g., when they reach productive foraging grounds north of the
POA) as these areas would not be ensonified by pile driving noise.
There is no evidence CIBWs have abandoned foraging in Knik Arm due to
pile driving noise or that exposure to pile driving noise has resulted
in more than a negligible impact to the CIBW population (e.g., 61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c; Easley-Appleyard and Leonard,
2022). In light of the mitigation and monitoring measures and
scientific data to date, we anticipate the impacts of any Level B
harassment to CIBWs will be limited to short-term, mild to moderate
behavioral changes and will not affect the fitness of any individuals.
Therefore, NMFS' negligible impact determination is well supported and
the authorized take for the NES1 project is neither reasonably expected
nor likely to adversely affect the stock through effects on annual
rates of recruitment or survival and thus, will not contribute to or
exacerbate the stock's decline. Additionally, the NMFS Alaska Regional
Office issued a Biological Opinion (BiOp) on December 15, 2023, under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), on the issuance of an
IHA to the POA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the NMFS
Office of Protected Resources (OPR) that determined that the issuance
of the IHA is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
CIBWs.
CBD cited a letter from the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC)
submitted to NMFS in response to the issuance of an IHA for the POA's
Petroleum and Cement Terminal (PCT) project (MMC, 2020) that
specifically recommended for
[[Page 2836]]
POA construction activities, that the Service ``defer issuance of the
final incidental harassment authorizations to [the POA] or any other
applicant proposing to conduct sound-producing activities in Cook Inlet
until [it] has a reasonable basis for determining that authorizing any
additional incidental harassment takes of Cook Inlet beluga whales
would not contribute to or exacerbate the stock's decline.'' NMFS
responded to this recommendation in the Federal Register notice of the
final IHA for the PCT project (e.g., 85 FR 19294, April 1, 2020) and we
incorporate that response by reference. In summary, that notice
describes how there is no evidence that exposure to pile driving noise
in Knik Arm has resulted in more than a negligible impact to the CIBW
population. Therefore, NMFS negligible impact determination was well
supported and the authorized take for the PCT project was neither
reasonably expected nor likely to adversely affect the stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Thus NMFS had a
reasonable basis for determining that authorizing take incidental to
the PCT project would not contribute to or exacerbate the stock's
decline. Since the publication of this notice, no new information has
become available that would suggest that determination was incorrect.
Similarly, NMFS' independent evaluation of the best scientific evidence
in this case supports our negligible impact determination and our
finding that the authorized take for the NES1 project is neither
reasonably expected nor likely to adversely affect the stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Thus, NMFS has a
reasonable basis for determining that authorizing take incidental to
the NES1 project would not contribute to or exacerbate the stock's
decline. NMFS did not receive any recommendations from the MMC
regarding the proposed IHA for the NES1 project.
Finally, we also note CBD's suggestion that this IHA authorizes the
subject construction activities. We note that NMFS does not have
authority under the MMPA or other statute to authorize the specified
activity. NMFS' authority pertains only to the authorization of marine
mammal take incidental to that activity and to the prescription of
appropriate mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
Comment 2: The CBD expressed concern regarding uncertainty in the
trends of the CIBW population status. They stated that ``changes in
survey methods bring into question the approach of determining any
trend in population status.'' They cited scientific studies that
confirm a negative trend in the population status of CIBWs.
Response: CBD is incorrect in that survey methods for detecting
trends in CIBW population have changed; the survey field methods are
essentially unchanged since 2004 (Paul Wade, personal communication,
December 11, 2023). The analysis methods used to detect trends in the
CIBW population have been updated and implemented in recent studies
examining the CIBW population, notably Sheldon and Wade (2019) and
Goetz et al. (2023).
Results of recent studies, including those cited by CBD, provide
evidence that the CIBW population increased between 2004 and 2010,
declined after 2010, and increased again from 2016 to 2022 (Jacobsen et
al., 2020; Shelden and Wade, 2019; Warlick et al., 2023; Goetz et al.,
2023). While there is some uncertainty around CIBW population trend
analyses, the results of these four studies are consistent in showing
general trends. Thus, while the CBD were correct that some studies
confirm a negative trend in beluga whale abundance, recent studies,
which NMFS considers the best scientific information available, suggest
this trend may now be increasing. Additional data in the coming years
will help to inform whether the recent positive trend in the CIBW
population will continue.
Comment 3: The CBD states that NMFS must conduct a comprehensive
analysis of all CIBW take and asserts that NMFS should place an overall
cap on authorizations for CIBW incidental take. They state that the
various construction, vessel traffic, oil and gas, and other activities
are cumulatively threatening the conservation and recovery of CIBWs.
CBD also provides examples for the number of takes authorized by NMFS
for various time periods, citing Migura and Bollini (2021) and recent
authorizations to the POA.
Response: We note first that the Migura and Bollini (2021) paper
cited by CBD seems to have led to a misunderstanding of the takes
authorized or permitted by NMFS. In summary, CBD asserts that NMFS
authorized nearly 120,000 takes of CIBWs from 2017 to 2025 and that in
2020 alone, NMFS authorized the equivalent of 50 percent of the entire
CIBW population to be ``incidentally'' harassed by industrial projects
in the Inlet, such as oil and gas development and pile driving
activities.
The vast majority of the asserted ~120,000 total takes (99
percent), including all of the very small amount of take by Level A
harassment, were authorized under directed research or enhancement
permits, which directly support research or actions identified in the
Recovery Plan to address CIBW recovery goals. Further, the vast
majority (~99 percent) of the total permitted research or enhancement
take numbers cited by CBD are low-level MMPA Level B harassment from
remote or non-invasive procedures that are considered not likely to
adversely affect listed species pursuant to the ESA (i.e., no
associated take under the ESA is either expected to occur or exempted
for those specific activities).
Regarding the comprehensive evaluation and minimization of
permitted takes, we reference the analysis that has already been
completed through NMFS' 2019 Biological and Conference Opinion on the
Proposed Implementation of a Program for the Issuance of Permits for
Research and Enhancement Activities on Cetaceans in the Arctic,
Atlantic, Indian, Pacific, and Southern Oceans (NMFS, 2019), which
determined that the research and enhancement takes permitted by the
program would not jeopardize the existence of any of the affected
species. As part of our programmatic framework for permitting directed
take of ESA species, the Permits and Conservation Division will
continue to closely evaluate the number and manner of CIBW takes
requested by each applicant, how the proposed research ties to recovery
plan goals, and the collective number of authorized and requested takes
to consider the potential cumulative impact of the activities to the
population. Each directed take annual report is reviewed to understand
how authorized takes were actually used and to closely monitor the
impacts that permitted research methods are having on the target
animals.
Regarding the incidental takes authorized for 2020, those takes
represent instances of exposure above the Level B harassment threshold
that could occur within a day. In other words, if those approximately
130 takes were assumed to be 130 separate individual whales, it would
mean that those individual whales were each behaviorally disturbed on
one day in that year. The more likely scenario is that some of those
130 exposures were takes of the same whale on a few different days, and
in fact a lesser number of individuals were taken, but still on only a
few days within a year. In all cases, the necessary findings under MMPA
and ESA were made prior to the authorization of the take.
Neither the MMPA nor NMFS' codified implementing regulations call
for consideration of the take resulting from other activities in the
negligible
[[Page 2837]]
impact analysis. The preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations (54 FR
40338, September 29, 1989) states, in response to comments, that the
impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are to be
incorporated into the negligible impact analysis via their impacts on
the baseline. Consistent with that direction, NMFS has factored into
its negligible impact analysis the impacts of other past and ongoing
anthropogenic activities via their impacts on the baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the density/distribution and status of the species,
population size and growth rate, and other relevant stressors (such as
incidental mortality in commercial fisheries, Unusual Mortality Events
(UMEs), and subsistence hunting); see the Negligible Impact Analyses
and Determinations section of this notice of issuance). The 1989 final
rule for the MMPA implementing regulations also addressed public
comments regarding cumulative effects from future, unrelated
activities. There, NMFS stated that such effects are not considered in
making findings under section 101(a)(5) concerning negligible impact.
In this case, this ITA as well as other ITAs currently in effect or
proposed within the specified geographic region, are appropriately
considered an unrelated activity relative to the others. The ITAs are
unrelated in the sense that they are discrete actions under section
101(a)(5)(D) issued to discrete applicants.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA requires NMFS to make a
determination that the take incidental to a ``specified activity'' will
have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine
mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses.
NMFS' implementing regulations require applicants to include in their
request a detailed description of the specified activity or class of
activities that can be expected to result in incidental taking of
marine mammals (see 50 CFR 216.104(a)(1)). Thus, the ``specified
activity'' for which incidental take coverage is being sought under
section 101(a)(5)(D) is generally defined and described by the
applicant. Here, the POA was the applicant for the IHA, and we are
responding to the specified activity as described in that application
(and making the necessary findings on that basis). Therefore, setting
limits on the number and types of CIBW takes across all activities in
Cook Inlet would not be an appropriate requirement of an MMPA ITA. The
take estimates NMFS authorizes represent the upper limits for
individuals and some instances of take may represent multiple exposures
to a single individual.
Separately, setting blanket take limits may not be meaningful, as
the nature and intensity of impacts from a given activity can vary
widely. For example, an animal exposed to noise levels just above our
harassment threshold in a non-critical area may experience a small
behavioral change with no biological consequence while an animal
exposed to very loud noise levels (but lower than levels that would
result in a permanent threshold shift (PTS)) in an area where active
critical foraging occurs could result in behavioral changes that may be
more likely to impact fitness. While both of these examples would be
characterized as Level B harassment, the resulting impact on the
population could be different. Context differences such as these are
analyzed in our negligible impact analysis for each application under
the MMPA.
Through the response to public comments in the 1989 implementing
regulations, NMFS also indicated (1) that we would consider cumulative
effects that are reasonably foreseeable when preparing a National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, and (2) that reasonably
foreseeable cumulative effects would also be considered under section 7
of the ESA for ESA-listed species, as appropriate. Accordingly, NMFS
has written an Environmental Assessment (EA) that addressed cumulative
impacts of the NES1 project and all past, present and reasonably
foreseeable future actions. Additionally, the NMFS Alaska Regional
Office issued a BiOp on December 15, 2023, under section 7 of the ESA,
on the issuance of an IHA to the POA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA by the NMFS OPR that independently considered the reasonably
foreseeable cumulative effects of activities on ESA-listed species.
Comment 4: The CBD asserts that NMFS's negligible impact
determination is arbitrary and capricious and that the specified
activities would have greater than a negligible impact on CIBWs. The
CBD claims that NMFS failed to substantiate its assumption that impacts
are negligible because CIBWs remained in the area during similar
construction activities and that NMFS underestimated the impacts of
pile driving on CIBWs. They state that pile driving threatens marine
mammals by potentially displacing them from key foraging habitat,
causing hearing loss, masking communications, and interfering with
natural behaviors. They cite several studies regarding behavioral
responses of marine mammals to pile driving.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the CBD's claim that NMFS failed to
substantiate our assumptions that impacts to CIBWs are negligible in
our determination. In the Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
section of the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR
76576, November 6, 2023) and this notice of issuance, we describe how
the take estimated and authorized for the NES1 project will have a
negligible impact on all of the affected species, including CIBWs (as
discussed above). We discussed how this determination is based upon the
authorized number of CIBWs that might be exposed briefly during the 110
nonconsecutive days of activity, the low level of behavioral harassment
that might result from an instance of take that could occur within a
year, and the likelihood that the mitigation measures required further
lessen the likelihood of exposures. NMFS has considered the status of
CIBWs in its analysis, as well as the importance of reducing impacts
from anthropogenic noise, but nonetheless, there is no evidence that
brief exposure to low level noise causing Level B harassment would have
a greater than negligible impact on CIBWs.
NMFS' negligible impact finding considers a number of parameters
including, but not limited to, the nature of the activities (e.g.,
duration, sound source), effects/intensity of the taking, the context
of takes, and mitigation. For CIBWs, NMFS' finding did account for data
demonstrating that CIBWs are not discouraged from entering Knik Arm and
traveling to critical foraging grounds to the north when pile driving
activities, such as those proposed by NES1, are occurring (e.g., 61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022),
but it also relied on other data that show at most, low-level
behavioral responses of CIBWs to pile driving activities. For example,
during the POA's PCT and South Floating Dock (SFD) pile driving
activities, CIBWs were more likely to display no reaction or to
continue to move towards the POA during pile installation and removal
(61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b). In situations during which
CIBWs showed a possible reaction to pile driving, individuals were
observed either moving away from the pile driving activities or
increasing their rate of travel (61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a,
2022b). Other behavioral responses observed in relation to pile driving
activities include moving silently
[[Page 2838]]
through the area, decreased sighting durations, and the formation of
more cohesive groups (Kendall and Cornick, 2015).
NMFS understands that marine mammals will have varying responses to
elevated noise levels resulting from pile driving activities such as
masking of communication and foraging signals, avoidance behaviors, and
more. However, NMFS disagrees with CBD that we have underestimated the
impacts of pile driving on beluga whales. Marine mammal data collected
at the POA during pile driving activities, as described above, provides
evidence that effects of pile driving on CIBWs will be limited to
temporary modifications in behavior such as increased swim speeds,
tighter group formations, and cessation of vocalizations, but not
through the loss of foraging capabilities or abandonment of habitat.
Further, while masking of CIBW signals can have a profound impact on
the communication of CIBWs (e.g., Brewer et al., 2023), the short-term
duration and limited areas affected by the NES1 project make it very
unlikely that the fitness of individual marine mammals would be
impacted. In addition, the frequency range of pile driving activities
is typically below 1 kHz (Richardson et al., 1995), which is below the
peak frequencies for many CIBW communication signals (Brewer et al.,
2023). Therefore, while expected impacts to CIBWs from the NES1 project
are considered Level B harassment events, they are events with
relatively little consequence for individuals in terms of energetic
effects or foregone opportunities to engage in important foraging or
social behaviors.
While exposure to elevated noise levels associated with the NES1
project may result in low-level behavioral changes in CIBWs, NMFS'
review of the best available scientific evidence, as summarized and
cited herein, demonstrates that these responses do not rise to the
level of having adverse effects on the reproduction or survival of
CIBWs. CBD provides no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, NMFS has
appropriately concluded that the activity will have a negligible impact
on the CIBW population.
Comment 5: The CBD expressed concern regarding the take estimates
for CIBWs proposed by NMFS. They state that the take estimates fail to
explain how pods of animals are accounted for and improperly discounts
the estimated CIBW take with a 59 percent adjustment. They suggest that
this supposed failure may result in a higher take than anticipated.
They believe that take should be estimated without considering the
demonstrated efficacy of the proposed mitigation requirements, with
expected benefits of the mitigation requirements being described only
separately.
Response: CBD is concerned that exposure of one pod of whales to
harassment by the construction could exceed the take authorized. They
cite McGuire et al. (2020) which suggests CIBW groups can be between 61
and 313 whales. CBD is correct that there have been large observations
of CIBW pods, and that if one very large pod appeared near the POA
during pile driving activities, it could result in the POA meeting or
exceeding authorized take for this species. However, such large pods
are not expected to be observed near the POA based on the best
scientific information available, including recent marine mammal
monitoring efforts. The mean (median, standard deviation) CIBW group
size observed during the 2020 through 2022 POA and NMFS marine mammal
monitoring efforts in Knik Arm were 4.28 (3, 4.86) whales (61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022).
Further, the 95 percentile group size of CIBWs observed during these
years was 12.30 individuals. This means that of the 495 documented CIBW
groups in these data sets, 95 percent consisted of fewer than 12.3
whales; 5 percent of the groups consisted of more than 12.3 whales.
Lastly, the largest group observed during these efforts was 53
individuals. Therefore, NMFS believes that the 72 takes by Level B
harassment authorized for CIBW during the authorized one-year period
adequately accounts for the possibility of the POA taking multiple pods
(or groups) of CIBWs.
The CBD stated that the 59 percent adjustment is ``based on one
data point'' from the PCT project monitoring program. This is
incorrect. As described in the Estimated Take sections of the Federal
Register notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023) and
this notice of issuance, this adjustment was calculated by including
data from all observations from April to November for each year of the
PCT project, the same time frame over which the POA will be conducting
the NES1 project. Between the two phases of the PCT project, 90 total
Level B harassment takes were authorized and 53 were potentially
realized (i.e., 53 CIBWs were observed within estimated Level B
harassment zones), equating to an overall percentage of 59 percent
(Note that simple occurrence within the estimated harassment zone in
and of itself does not demonstrate that a take has occurred). In our
calculations for estimating CIBW take in the Estimated Take sections of
the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November
6, 2023) and this notice of issuance, NMFS did preliminarily calculate
take for CIBWs without the 59% adjustment (i.e., 122 instances of
take). However, we disagree with the CBD that the adjustment for
mitigation requirements should be described separately and not be
considered in the take estimation. This 59% adjustment is based on the
effectiveness of monitoring during the PCT Phase 1 and PCT Phase 2
projects, which most accurately reflect the current POA marine mammal
monitoring program, the current program's effectiveness, and CIBW
occurrence in the proposed project area. It is anticipated that the POA
monitoring program during the NES1 project will be similar to that of
the program implemented during the PCT project. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that it is appropriate to include the adjustment in our
calculation of authorized take.
Comment 6: The CBD assert that the root mean square (RMS)
thresholds of 120-decibels (dB) referenced to 1 micropascal (re
1[mu]Pa) for continuous and 160 dB re 1[mu]Pa for impulsive or
intermittent sources are insufficiently conservative to protect CIBWs.
They cite Mooney et al. (2018), which suggests that wild beluga whales
have highly sensitive hearing. They state that, at a minimum, NMFS
should use a 120-dB threshold for all sound sources.
Response: NMFS disagrees that we should apply a 120-dB threshold
for Level B harassment from all sound sources based on beluga hearing
sensitivity. First, we provide here some necessary background on
implementation of acoustic thresholds. NMFS has historically used
generalized acoustic thresholds based on received levels to predict the
occurrence of behavioral disturbance rising to the level of Level B
harassment, given the practical need to use a relatively simple
threshold based on information that is available for most activities.
Thresholds were selected largely in consideration of measured avoidance
responses of mysticete whales to airgun signals and to industrial noise
sources, such as drilling. The selected thresholds of 160-dB RMS sound
pressure level (SPL) and 120-dB RMS SPL, respectively, have been
extended for use for estimation of behavioral disturbance rising to the
level of Level B harassment associated with noise exposure from sources
associated with other common activities.
[[Page 2839]]
Sound sources can be divided into broad categories based on various
criteria or for various purposes. As discussed by Richardson et al.
(1995), source characteristics include strength of signal amplitude,
distribution of sound frequency and, importantly in context of these
thresholds, variability over time. With regard to temporal properties,
sounds are generally considered to be either continuous or transient
(i.e., intermittent). Continuous sounds, which are produced by the
industrial noise sources (such as vibratory pile driving) for which the
120-dB behavioral threshold was selected, are simply those for which
sound pressure levels remain above background sound during the
observation period (ANSI, 2005). Intermittent sounds are defined as
sounds with interrupted levels of low or no sound (NIOSH, 1998). Simply
put, a continuous noise source produces a signal that continues over
time, while an intermittent source produces signals of relatively short
duration having an obvious start and end with predictable patterns of
bursts of sound and silent periods (i.e., duty cycle) (Richardson and
Malme, 1993). It is this fundamental temporal distinction that is most
important for categorizing sound types in terms of their potential to
cause a behavioral response. For example, Gomez et al. (2016) found a
significant relationship between source type and marine mammal
behavioral response when sources were split into continuous (e.g.,
shipping, icebreaking, drilling) versus intermittent (e.g., sonar,
seismic, explosives) types. In addition, there have been various
studies noting differences in responses to intermittent and continuous
sound sources for other species (e.g., Neo et al., 2014; Radford et
al., 2016; Nichols et al., 2015).
Given the existing paradigm--dichotomous thresholds appropriate for
generic use in evaluating the potential for behavioral disturbance
rising to the level of Level B harassment resulting from exposure to
continuous or intermittent sound sources--the CBD does not explain why
potential harassment from an intermittent sound source (i.e., impact
pile driving) should be evaluated using a threshold developed for use
with continuous sound sources. As we have stated in prior responses to
this recommendation, consideration of the preceding factors leads to a
conclusion that the 160-dB threshold is more appropriate for use for
intermittent sources such as impact pile driving than the 120-dB
threshold.
Further, any dB-based threshold itself is a step-function approach
(i.e., animals exposed to received levels above the threshold are
considered to be ``taken'' and those exposed to levels below the
threshold are not); but, in reality, it is in fact intended as a sort
of mid-point of likely behavioral responses (which are extremely
complex depending on many factors including species, noise source,
individual experience, and behavioral context). What this means is
that, conceptually, the function recognizes that some animals exposed
to levels below the threshold will in fact react in ways that are
appropriately considered take, while others that are exposed to levels
above the threshold will not. Use of a specific dB threshold allows for
a simplistic quantitative estimate of take, while we can qualitatively
address the variation in responses across different received levels in
our discussion and analysis.
Lastly, NMFS has acknowledged that the scientific evidence
indicates that certain species are, in general, more acoustically
sensitive than others. In particular, harbor porpoise and beaked whales
are considered to be behaviorally sensitive, and it may be appropriate
to consider use of lower Level B harassment thresholds for these
species. Beluga whales have been observed to have sensitive hearing
(<80 dB) in the frequency range of 16 to 100 kilohertz (kHz) (Mooney et
al., 2018). However, noise from pile driving activities is typically
below 1 kHz (Richardson et al., 1995), well outside this sensitive
hearing range. Therefore, based on the best available science (i.e.,
Mooney et al., 2018), sensitivity in CIBW hearing does not support the
application of a 120-dB threshold for Level B harassment from all pile
driving sound sources. NMFS is currently engaged in an ongoing effort
to develop updated guidance regarding the effects of anthropogenic
sound on marine mammal behavior, and in this effort NMFS is considering
this issue for assessing Level B harassment. However, until this work
is completed and new guidelines are identified (if appropriate), NMFS
will continue using the historical Level B harassment thresholds (or
derivations thereof) and will appropriately evaluate behavioral
disturbance rising to the level of Level B harassment due to
intermittent sound sources relative to the 160-dB threshold.
Comment 7: CBD states that NMFS should undertake the analysis using
the framework provided by Southall et al. (2023) to determine the
vulnerability of marine mammals to noise disturbance.
Response: Southall et al. (2023) present an analytical framework
for assessing the relative risk of anthropogenic disturbances, such as
those resulting from noise, on marine vertebrates. This framework is
based on both species-specific `vulnerability' (which accounts for
population, life history, auditory communication systems, and
environmental factors) and species-specific and scenario-specific
`severity' (which includes population modeling methods for acute
(short-term, project specific) exposure events) and a spatial-temporal-
spectral algorithm for estimating a disturbance magnitude metric from
aggregate events (long-term, multiple years, and or multiple projects).
For each species and exposure scenario, a vulnerability and severity
risk rating are computed, which allows for the assessment of the
overall risk of each scenario for each species. Lastly, in this
framework a subjective consideration of confidence in the risk
assessment scores is provided. The Southall et al. (2023) framework has
been used to model results from the construction and operation of wind
farms and seismic surveys.
While the framework presented by Southall et al. (2023) is a useful
tool for evaluating risk of marine mammals to exposure events, such as
pile driving activities, it is intended to be used as a complementary
tool to use when implementing marine policies. It is ``not intended to
replicate or supersede current regulatory guidelines for auditory or
behavioral impact'' (Southall et al., 2023). Furthermore, the framework
presented by Southall et al. (2023) does not estimate defined impacts
such as injury (equivalent to Level A harassment) or behavioral
disturbance (equivalent to Level B harassment) that would inform take
estimates. In the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR
76576, November 6, 2023) and this notice of issuance, NMFS discusses
the anticipated impacts of the NES1 project activities in the context
of species status, which included an assessment of species population
trends, life history traits, auditory communication systems, and
environmental factors as well as estimated impacts of project
activities. Thus, for this action, NMFS has determined that the
application of the framework proposed by Southall et al. (2023) would
not provide meaningful additive information in our assessment of take
or in our negligible impact determination, and therefore, we do not
apply it here.
Comment 8: The CBD states that NMFS' negligible impact
determination fails to adequately consider adverse impacts to CIBW
critical habitat and biologically important areas (BIAs). In addition,
they assert that the proposed NES1 project does not avoid or impose
[[Page 2840]]
any specific mitigation for the year-round CIBW BIA.
Response: In our analysis, NMFS considered the potential for
impacts to CIBWs and their habitat in general (see the Potential
Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their Habitat
section of the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR
76576, November 6, 2023). The CIBW Recovery Plan (NMFS, 2016b)
determined that CIBWs having waters that do not restrict passage within
or between critical habitat areas and having waters with in-water noise
levels below levels resulting in abandonment of critical habitat were
essential for the conservation of this species. While some marine
mammals--largely harbor porpoise, which are generally considered as one
of the most behaviorally sensitive marine mammal species--have been
observed to abandon or reduce time spent in preferred habitat during
periods of increased anthropogenic noise (e.g., Wartzok et al., 2003;
Carstensen et al., 2006; D[auml]hne et al., 2012; Forney et al., 2017),
CIBW presence in the project area has persisted during numerous periods
of pile driving, dredging, and other construction activities at the
POA. Previous monitoring data indicates that CIBWs are not abandoning
critical habitat and are able to transit through the project area to
primary foraging areas north of the Port. Instead, they travel more
often and faster past the POA, more quietly, and in tighter groups
(Kendall and Cornick, 2015; 61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b).
Moreover, marine mammal monitoring results from the POA and NMFS (e.g.,
61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Easley-Appleyard and Leonard,
2022) suggest that the areas that are expected to be impacted by noise
during the NES1 project are not particularly important feeding or
calving areas for CIBWs. Rather CIBWs typically transit through the
area adjacent to the POA to foraging areas located to the north (e.g.,
Six Mile Creek, Eagle River, Eklutna River). For these reasons, NMFS
expects the effects that sounds from the NES1 project will have on
these essential features will be small (see NMFS, 2023a).
Concerning BIAs, CBD improperly cited Ferguson et al. (2015) when
referring to the CIBW BIA. This BIA was updated by Wild et al. (2023)
as part of the BIA II effort, which built upon the 2015 study but used
new methodology and structured expert elicitation principles to update
existing BIAs, and identify and delineate new BIAs (see Harrison et
al., 2023). In this new effort, Wild et al. (2023) defined a static,
year-round, small and resident BIA for CIBWs whose boundary is
consistent with NMFS' critical habitat designation, (including
excluding the area adjacent to POA, illustrating that the area is of
low value) (Wild et al., 2023).
In regards to specific mitigation requirements for this year-round
BIA, the proposed IHA does include a measure that requires the POA to
make all practicable efforts to complete construction activities
between April and July when CIBWs are typically found in lower numbers
near the POA. However, due to the design of the existing sheet pile
wall, the need for demolition to occur in a sequential manner to
prevent structural failure, and uncertainty regarding construction
progress until work is initiated, the POA cannot commit to restricting
pile driving to these months. Given that the location and sequencing of
the activity cannot be changed, NMFS has prescribed mitigation measures
that affect the least practicable adverse impact on the stock. CBD did
not provide a specific recommendation for NMFS to consider.
Comment 9: The CBD stresses that NMFS should have analyzed the
potential impact on feeding of preferred prey in making its negligible
impact determination.
Response: NMFS provided this information in the Acoustic Impacts
section of the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR
76576, November 6, 2023), and provides additional discussion in the
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section for CIBWs of this
notice. In summary, the habitat near the POA is not typically
considered high quality foraging habitat for CIBWs and feeding is not a
predominant behavior observed in CIBWs near the POA. Further, there is
no evidence to suggest that CIBWs are restricted in transiting between
preferred feeding areas during pile driving activities (e.g., 61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c; Easley-Appleyard and Leonard,
2022). Lastly, any impacts to preferred prey are anticipated to be
temporary, and most likely limited to fish avoiding the action area.
Comment 10: The CBD postulates that NMFS' small numbers
determination is flawed because the amount of take proposed to be
authorized is greater than 12 percent of the CIBW population and that
NMFS' definition of small numbers ``conflates this criterion with the
negligible impact requirement.'' CBD claims the incidental harassment
authorization here violates the MMPA because it does not guarantee that
only small numbers of CIBWs and other marine mammals impacted by the
POA's activities will be taken.
Response: CBD suggests that by defining small numbers to be
relative to the overall population the criterion ends up being similar
to the negligible impact finding and that Congress's intent was that
the MMPA protect not only populations, but individual marine mammals.
We disagree that our small numbers finding is conflated with our
negligible impact finding. While ``small numbers'' is simply a percent
of the population, our negligible impact finding considers a number of
parameters including, but not limited to, the nature of the activities
(e.g., duration, sound source), effects/intensity of the taking, the
context of takes, and mitigation.
The reference to a take limit of 12 percent for small numbers comes
from a 2003 district court opinion (Natural Resources Defense Council
v. Evans, 279 F.Supp.2d 1129 (N.D. Cal. 2003)). However, given the
particular administrative record and circumstances in that case,
including the fact that our small numbers finding for the challenged
incidental take rule was based on an invalid regulatory definition of
small numbers, we view the district court's opinion regarding 12
percent as dicta.
In NMFS' Final Rule for taking of marine mammals incidental to
geophysical surveys in the Gulf of Mexico (86 FR 5322, January 19,
2021), NMFS fully describes its interpretation and implementation of
``small numbers''. Included as part of that discussion, NMFS explains
the concept of ``small numbers'' in recognition that there could also
be quantities of individuals taken that would correspond with
``medium'' and ``large'' numbers. As such, NMFS has established that
one-third of the most appropriate population abundance number--as
compared with the assumed number of individuals taken--is an
appropriate limit with regard to ``small numbers.'' This relative
approach is consistent with the statement from the legislative history
that ``[small numbers] is not capable of being expressed in absolute
numerical limits'' (H.R. Rep. No. 97-228, at 19 (September 16, 1981)),
and relevant case law (Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 695
F.3d 893, 907 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service reasonably interpreted ``small numbers'' by analyzing take in
relative or proportional terms)).
As described in the Small Numbers section of the Federal Register
notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023) and this
notice of
[[Page 2841]]
issuance, NMFS is authorizing take of less than 2 percent for eight
stocks and 22 percent for one stock (i.e., CIBWs) and based on this
analysis, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken
relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
Comment 11: CBD asserts that NMFS relies on visual monitoring
measures that it claims are ``known to be ineffective and inadequate''
to protect marine mammals.
Response: NMFS disagrees the mitigation and monitoring measures
included in this authorization are ineffective and inadequate and CBD
does not provide additional information to support their claim. The IHA
requires a minimum of two Protected Species Observer (PSO) stations,
and that at each station, at least two PSOs must be on watch at any
given time. Further, the PSO stations must be located so that the PSOs
can fully monitor the shutdown zones and call for activities to be
delayed when CIBWs are entering or observed within the Level B
harassment zones. The POA has a demonstrated history of successfully
implementing a rigorous monitoring program during recent construction
projects in Knik Arm (i.e., PCT and SFD), and monitoring data from
these projects provides evidence that their PSOs are capable of
observing belugas out to 11,057-m from the NES1 project site. This
distance is dependent on several factors such as visual acuity, sea
state, glare, animal behavior/body type, speed of travel for vessel and
animal, etc.; but this demonstrates that it is possible for PSOs to
detect and identify marine mammals to the species level several km from
the source, including CIBWs. In addition, Easley-Appleyard and Leonard
(2022) reported that PSOs who worked for the PCT monitoring program
expressed that they were effective at detecting CIBWs from two
monitoring stations despite occasional challenges related to the timing
of the detection and the ability to track multiple CIBW groups.
The majority of the work for this project will be the vibratory
removal of sheet piles, which has an estimated Level B harassment
distance of 1,954-m. The largest zones will be associated with the
installation and removal of the temporary steel pipe piles, which could
have estimated Level B harassment zones up to 6,861-m. These distances
are well within the distances that PSOs at the POA have effectively
detected CIBWs as described above. Further, there are mitigation
measures preventing pile driving from occurring if visibility in any
portion of the shutdown zone (i.e., the Level B harassment zone for
CIBWs) is obscured by weather or sea state. Therefore, we find the
visual monitoring plan can reasonably be expected to be an effective
tool at detecting marine mammals, ensuring the mitigation measures are
adhered to.
Comment 12: CBD suggests that construction should be restricted
from August through October, and further states that NMFS ``should also
consider time area restrictions that would further mitigate impacts to
beluga whales and other marine mammals,'' though it provides no
recommendations.
Response: Time-area restrictions were considered for this project,
in addition to the PSO requirements. We note that August through
November are months with high CIBW abundance, and NMFS expects that the
POA will likely have to shut down pile driving activities more
frequently during that time period due to the increased presence of
CIBWs in Knik Arm. NMFS is requiring the POA to complete in-water work
as early in the construction season as is practicable. However, the
design of the existing sheet pile wall, the safety requirements of the
demolition sequencing, and the likely highly adaptive nature of the
field work once construction commences do not allow NMFS to practicably
restrict pile driving to any specific time periods or areas (e.g., only
allowing pile driving April through July). Furthermore, there are
potential consequences of pausing or delaying the construction season,
including de-rating the structural capacity of the existing docks, a
shutdown of dock operations due to deteriorated conditions, or an
actual collapse of one or more dock structures. The potential for
collapse increases with schedule delays, due to both worsening
deterioration and the higher probability of a significant seismic event
occurring. Any of these scenarios could have dire consequences for the
populations of Anchorage and Alaska who are served by the POA. In this
context, NMFS has determined that the current mitigation and monitoring
measures affect the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal
species and stocks.
Comment 13: CDB states that NMFS failed to consider other
mitigation measures to reduce the proposed activities' impacts to the
least practicable level such as bubble curtains placement
configurations, pile caps, physical barrier technologies, such as
dewatered cofferdams, passive acoustic monitoring (PAM), and sound
source verification (SSV) studies.
Response: CBD does not provide any specific information
contradicting NMFS' determinations concerning whether these measures
should be included in the suite of mitigation requirements determined
to provide the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact
on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals. CBD states that
bubble curtains were required for previous POA pile driving activities,
and recommends that one could be placed beyond the construction area
for the NES1 site due to spacing and safety concerns. They also state
that NMFS could consider other noise mitigation technologies such as
pile caps, dewatered cofferdams, and other physical barrier mitigation.
CBD is correct that NMFS has required the POA to use bubble curtains
for other POA pile driving activities. During construction of the PCT,
two different types of bubble curtain systems were utilized, confined
bubble curtain systems and unconfined bubble curtain systems. Both
bubble curtain systems were expensive to construct, maintain, and
repair. It was necessary to build several versions of each model for
each pile size in case of damage and so that two or more piles could be
simultaneously staged and prepared for installation, which was done in
an effort to save time. Both bubble curtain systems were time-consuming
to deploy and retrieve, adding an average of 6 hours (confined) and 4
hours (unconfined) of deployment and retrieval time to each pile. Thus,
as described in the Proposed Mitigation section of the Federal Register
notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023), adding a
requirement for a bubble curtain may hinder production of the NES1
project, which could push the in-water construction schedule further
into the late summer months, which are known for higher CIBW abundance
in lower Knik Arm, thus lengthening the duration of potential
interactions between CIBW and in-water works. Lastly, data from prior
SSV studies conducted during the PCT project (i.e., Illingworth &
Rodkin (I&R), 2021a, 2022b), yielded mixed results regarding the
efficacy of bubble curtains for use with vibratory hammers (which makes
up the majority of the NES1 project). Therefore, a requirement to use
bubble curtains in this case (aside from the cost and safety concerns)
would likely have a detrimental impact over the full scope of the
project.
Further, dredging associated with the NES1 project will frequently
require barges and vessels to maneuver through the area between the
sheet pile face and the disposal area located in the middle of Knik
Arm. Additional barges to stage
[[Page 2842]]
air compressors for a bubble curtain would add multiple anchor lines
that would present a logistical challenge to the frequent vessel
transit and increase the risk of a safety incident, particularly if
there were to be an uncontrolled release of sediments from a structure
collapse. Additional vessels, air compressors, and crew also increase
the cost and potential negative impacts of the project. The POA
believes this combination of logistical challenges, time requirements,
and safety considerations make it impractical for the POA to use a
bubble curtain for this project. NMFS has considered input from the
POA, as well as other information, and concurs that use of bubble
curtains is not practicable in this case. Additional information
regarding practicability and efficacy concerns with using bubble
curtains during the NES1 project were included in the Proposed
Mitigation section of the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA
(88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023) and the Mitigation section of this
notice.
Pile cap cushions are commonly used in conjunction with an impact
hammer to reduce stress on a pile during hammer blows. Their efficacy
as an underwater sound attenuation measure during pile installation
remains uncertain. There are safety and logistical concerns with the
use of a pile cap cushion as they have been known to combust from the
friction created during impact pile driving. The NES1 project does not
involve the installation of piles using an impact hammer. Pile cap
cushions are not compatible with vibratory pile installation or
removal, or with sheet pile installation or removal. Therefore, the
inclusion of pile caps is not a feasible option for this project.
Other physical barrier technologies, such as dewatered cofferdams,
would substantially increase project risks, construction schedule and
costs. Cofferdams are typically sheet pile structures supported by
cylindrical steel piles that would require installation and removal of
temporary sheet and cylindrical piles along the entire length of the
NES1 face sheets, which would increase potential impacts on CIBWs and
other marine species. Other physical barriers installed into Knik Arm
would also need to be engineered to a level to resist the tidal forces
of Knik Arm, and would likely require pile supports, increasing
impacts, duration, and cost. Thus, NMFS has determined that the
recommendation of applying other physical barriers to mitigate noise
from construction activities is not an appropriate addition to the
required suite of mitigation measures for the NES1 project.
In addition, the CBD states that NMFS should require PAM for marine
mammals. The use of PAM for real-time mitigation purposes has been used
in Cook Inlet for some studies. These efforts have generally not
resulted in successful deployment of PAM or useful detections of marine
mammals to inform mitigation and monitoring during the activities due
to the environmental conditions of the region. For example, a real-time
PAM system implemented as part of the 2012 Apache 3D seismic survey
program in lower- and mid-Cook Inlet only yielded six confirmed marine
mammal detections. One of these detections was of a CIBW, however, it
did not result in a shutdown procedure (Lomac-MacNair et al., 2013).
Similarly, a real-time PAM program was required in the IHA for the 2015
SAExploration 3D seismic program. This program only detected 15 marine
mammal detections (including 2 from CIBWs) over 310 hours. For these
reasons, we have determined PAM is not likely to be sufficiently
effective at detection for real-time mitigation for the POA's
construction activities and, therefore, is not included in the IHA.
Researchers have begun to implement more effective passive acoustic
monitors for research purposes at several places in Cook Inlet (e.g.,
Castellote et al., 2020). However, the framework used by those
researchers is impractical, particularly for the POA's planned
activity. An article on NOAA's website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/science-blog/beluga-whale-acoustic-monitoring-survey-post-3)
illustrates the level of customization, expertise, and difficulty
required to assemble a passive acoustic mooring to then deploy in the
Inlet. Additionally, these instruments are stationary, which means to
effectively use these monitors as a means of avoiding harassment of
marine mammals during the POA's, the POA would need to build and
successfully deploy dozens (or more) of stationary monitors along a
route of travel that is subject to change depending upon weather or
other environmental and shipping restrictions. Additionally, the data
stored on these types of moorings is not accessible until they are
retrieved by the researcher who deployed them. In the future, if an
established network of passive acoustic monitors with shared access to
the data is available, this could be a useful tool for implementing
mitigation measures, but is currently not practicable. NMFS looks
forward to advances in technology that could make real-time PAM a
practicable mitigation measure in these areas in the future.
Lastly, CBD recommends that NMFS should require that in-situ SSV
studies be conducted to ensure that the Level A and Level B harassment
zones are sufficient. Lessons learned from prior SSV studies carried
out at the POA (e.g., I&R, 2021a, 2022b) indicate that Knik Arm is a
very challenging environment to collect high quality acoustic data
usable by NMFS, the POA, and others due to the presence of strong tidal
currents, which can create substantial flow noise in recordings, and
prevalent anthropogenic noise, which can mask acoustic signals of
interest. Specifically during the NES1 project, multiple barges, tugs,
and other support vessels, which can obscure signals of interest, will
be within the action area at all times during the project. Further,
active dredging and removal of above-water soils, and vessels with
generators running will be present at all times. While both the POA and
NMFS believe sound source data would be valuable, this measure is not
practicable given the known challenges of the area.
Comment 14: CBD asserts that NMFS should require larger exclusion
zones.
Response: CBD did not provide any additional information for NMFS
to consider to support this recommendation. The exclusion zones
proposed in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR
76576, November 6, 2023) (referred to as shutdown zones) are equivalent
to the estimated Level B harassment zone for CIBWs. This is consistent
with shutdown zones required in other recent ITAs issued to the POA for
construction activities at the Port including the PCT (85 FR 19284,
April 6, 2020) and SFD (86 FR 50057, September 7, 2021) projects, which
resulted in the number of CIBWs occurring within estimated harassment
zones being 59 percent and 7 percent of the authorized take for each
project, respectively. Therefore, NMFS disagrees that the final IHA
should include larger exclusion zones and requires the exclusion zones
proposed in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR
76576, November 6, 2023) in the final IHA.
Comment 15: The CBD asserts that a 1-year renewal should require
new permitting and programmatic analysis of impacts.
Response: NMFS disagrees with this assertion. NMFS' IHA Renewal
process meets all statutory requirements. All IHAs issued, whether an
initial IHA or a Renewal IHA, are valid for a period of not more than
1-year. Renewal IHAs are limited to another year of identical or nearly
identical activities in the same location or the same activities that
were not completed within the 1-year period
[[Page 2843]]
of the initial IHA. Should a Renewal request be made, additional
documentation would be required from the POA that NMFS would make
publicly available and would use to verify that the activities are
identical to those in the initial IHA, are nearly identical such that
the changes would have either no effect on impacts to marine mammals or
decrease those impacts, or are a subset of activities already analyzed
and authorized but not completed under the initial IHA. NMFS would also
confirm, among other things, that the activities would occur in the
same location; involve the same species and stocks; provide for
continuation of the same mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements; and that no new information had been received that would
alter the prior analysis. If new information has been received that
would alter the prior analysis, that information would be analyzed in
the notice of the proposed Renewal IHA. A Renewal request would also
contain a preliminary monitoring report, specifically to verify that
effects from the activities do not indicate impacts of a scale or
nature not previously analyzed. Any Renewal request is subject to an
additional 15-day public comment period that provides the public an
opportunity to review these few documents, provide any additional
pertinent information and comment on whether they think the criteria
for a Renewal have been met. Between the initial 30-day comment period
on these same activities and the additional 15 days, the total comment
period for a Renewal is 45 days.
In addition to the IHA Renewal process being consistent with all
requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D), it is also consistent with
Congress' intent for issuance of IHAs to the extent reflected in
statements in the legislative history of the MMPA. Through the
provision for Renewals in the regulations, description of the process
and express invitation to comment on specific potential Renewals in the
Request for Public Comments section of each proposed IHA, the
description of the process on NMFS' website, further elaboration on the
process through responses to comments such as these, posting of
substantive documents on the agency's website, and provision of 30 or
45 days for public review and comment on all proposed initial IHAs and
Renewals respectively, NMFS has ensured that the public ``is invited
and encouraged to participate fully in the agency decision-making
process.''
Regarding a programmatic analysis, we refer to our response to
Comment 3.
Comment 16: CBD asserts that the proposed activities will have an
unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses. CBD states that the
proposed activities may have an adverse impact on the availability of
beluga whales, harbor seals, and Steller sea lions for Native Alaskan
subsistence harvest. They also state that the IHA should require
consultation with Native Alaskan communities to ensure adequate
mitigation for subsistence harvest for harbor seals and Steller sea
lions.
Response: The POA sent letters to and conducted follow-up calls
with the Kenaitze, Tyonek, Knik, Eklutna, Ninilchik, Salamatof, and
Chickaloon Tribes informing them of the proposed project (i.e., timing,
location, and features), the availability of the notice of proposed IHA
for public comment, and inquiring about any marine mammal subsistence
concerns they have. The POA also explained the measures that have been
taken or will be taken to minimize any adverse effects of NES1 on the
availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses. No Tribes or
affected subsistence communities/users expressed concern over
subsistence use during the 30-day public comment period for the
proposed IHA. One letter was received from Eklutna Inc. requesting that
Alaska Native residents with traditional knowledge about marine mammals
and the local marine environment be involved in the monitoring and
support roles related to the project (i.e., as PSOs) (see Comment 22
Response), but it did not suggest concerns regarding unmitigable
adverse impact on subsistence uses. The POA adequately communicated
with representative Alaska Native subsistence users and Tribal members
to ensure any concerns they had regarding marine mammal subsistence
uses would be addressed, hence fulfilling any requirements provided by
the MMPA.
Overall, there is little subsistence use of marine mammals near the
project area. There has been no subsistence harvest of CIBWs since 2005
(NMFS, 2022d) and subsistence harvest of other marine mammals in upper
Cook Inlet is limited to harbor seals. Steller sea lions are rare in
upper Cook Inlet; therefore, subsistence use of this species is not
common. Residents of the Native Village of Tyonek are the primary
subsistence users in the upper Cook Inlet area, however no NES1
activities will take place in or near Tyonek's identified traditional
subsistence hunting areas. Additionally, the harvest of marine mammals
in upper Cook Inlet is historically a small portion of the total
subsistence harvest, and the number of marine mammals harvested in
upper Cook Inlet is expected to remain low. The potential impacts from
harassment on stocks that are harvested in Cook Inlet would be limited
to minor behavioral changes (e.g., increased swim speeds, changes in
dive time, temporary avoidance near the POA) within the vicinity of the
POA or slight PTS. NMFS has found that the taking of marine mammals
incidental to the NES1 project would have a negligible impact on the
population, meaning we do not anticipate there to be adverse impacts on
the annual rates of recruitment or survival. Therefore, the taking
would not impede recovery of CIBW for potential future subsistence use.
The full explanation and support for this finding is described further
in the Unmitigable Adverse Impact Determination section of this notice.
NMFS has required rigorous mitigation and monitoring measures in
the IHA to reduce impacts to CIBWs, Steller sea lions, and harbor seals
including shutdown measures at the Level B harassment zone for CIBWs
and Level A harassment zone for harbor seals and Steller sea lions if
pile driving is occurring and an animal enters the zone. These measures
are expected to reduce both the scope and severity of potential
harassment takes by reducing the potential for exposure above
harassment thresholds. In addition to the mitigation measures, the POA
will monitor from elevated platforms at a minimum of two locations
dispersed throughout lower Knik Arm. All stations will have at least
two NMFS-approved observers on-watch at any given time. Therefore,
marine mammal detection effectiveness is expected to be high. In
accordance with our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(c), we
use the best available scientific evidence to determine whether the
taking by the specified activity within the specified geographic region
will have a negligible impact on the species or stock and will not have
an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or
stock for subsistence uses. Based on the scientific evidence available,
NMFS determined that the impacts of the authorized take incidental to
pile driving would result in a negligible impact and no unmitigable
adverse impact on availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses.
Comment 17: CBD states that NMFS must prepare a programmatic
environmental impact statement (EIS) for its CIBW take authorizations.
They state that at a minimum, NMFS should analyze the PAMP in a single
NEPA review that considers all cumulative,
[[Page 2844]]
indirect, and direct environmental effects.
Response: For clarity, NMFS' authorization does not ``approve
activities''; that permitting responsibility lies with the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Rather, NMFS authorizes
unintentional take of marine mammals incidental to specified
activities. Therefore, under NEPA, NMFS must evaluate the impacts of
our issuance of the ITA to the POA for the NES1 activities.
NMFS originally declared its intent to prepare an EIS for oil and
gas activities in Cook Inlet, Alaska (79 FR 61616, October 14, 2014).
However, in a 2017 Federal Register notice (82 FR 41939, September 5,
2017), NMFS indicated that due to a reduced number of ITA requests in
the region, combined with funding constraints at that time, we were
postponing any potential preparation of an EIS for oil and gas
activities in Cook Inlet. As stated in the 2017 Federal Register
notice, should the number of ITA requests, or anticipated requests,
noticeably increase, NMFS will re-evaluate whether preparation of an
EIS is necessary. Currently, the number of ITA requests for activities
that may affect marine mammals in Cook Inlet is at such a level that
preparation of an EIS is not yet necessary. Nonetheless, under NEPA,
NMFS is required to consider cumulative effects of other potential
activities in the same geographic area, and these are discussed in
greater detail in the Final EA prepared for this issuance of an IHA to
the POA for the NES1 project, which supports our finding that NMFS'
issuance of the POA IHA will not have a significant impact on the human
environment.
CBD assert that NMFS should analyze the PAMP in a single NEPA
review and comment that ``[NMFS] has already segmented analysis of the
[PCT] and [SFD] and, here, the NES1 construction''. NMFS has
appropriately analyzed and captured all past, present and reasonably
foreseeable future actions under NEPA. This includes the projects
associated with the PAMP, which each have independent utility and
require separate authorizations and NEPA analyses. The EAs for each
PAMP activity appropriately analyze the cumulative, indirect, and
direct environmental effects of each specified action. They include an
evaluation of each action's affected area, the scale and geographic
extent of each action, and the degree of cumulative effects on
resources (including the duration of impact, and whether the impacts
were adverse and/or beneficial and their magnitude) under NEPA.
CBD is correct that Federal agencies generally prepare an EIS for a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. While CBD acknowledges that significance is determined by
considering the potential affected environment and the degree of the
action (40 CFR 1501.3(b)), CBD argues that if this factor is met, then
the agency must prepare an EIS. CBD further argues that, ``the impacts
on an endangered species like the environmentally and culturally
significant Cook Inlet beluga and its designated critical habitat is
sufficient to trigger a full EIS.'' NMFS disagrees. NMFS can prepare an
EA so long as the record supports the conclusion that potential impacts
are not ``significant'' per 40 CFR 1501.3(b) for the purposes of NEPA.
Based on the information presented in the application and NMFS' Policy
and Procedures for Compliance with the NEPA and Related Authorities
(Companion Manual (CM) for NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A)
(NOAA 2017), sections 3 and 7, NMFS' determination to prepare an EA is
appropriate and in compliance with NEPA and 40 CFR 1501.3. NMFS
appropriately signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the
issuance of the IHA for incidental take associated with the POA's NES1
project in support of this determination. The FONSI concluded that
NMFS' proposed action, the issuance of an IHA to the POA, will not
meaningfully contribute to significant impacts to specific resources,
given the limited scope of NMFS' action and required mitigation
measures. Accordingly, preparation of an EIS for this action is not
necessary.
Comment 18: CBD believes the draft EA for the NES1 project fails to
comply with the requirements of NEPA. They stipulate that the draft EA
fails to consider a reasonable range of alternatives and lacks a
meaningful environmental and cumulative impacts analysis.
Response: In accordance with the NEPA and the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations, NMFS is required to consider a
reasonable range of alternatives to a Proposed Action, as well as a No
Action Alternative. Reasonable alternatives are viable options for
meeting the purpose and need for the proposed action. The evaluation of
alternatives under NEPA assists NMFS with understanding, and as
appropriate, minimizing impacts through an assessment of alternative
ways to achieve the purpose and need for our Proposed Action.
Reasonable alternatives are carried forward for detailed evaluation
under NEPA while alternatives considered but determined not to meet the
purpose and need are not carried forward. For the purposes of this EA,
an alternative will only meet the purpose and need if it satisfies the
requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA.
In accordance with NOAA's implementing procedures, the CM for NAO
216-6A, Section 6.B.i, NMFS is defining the No Action alternative as
not authorizing the requested incidental take of marine mammals under
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. This is consistent with our statutory
obligation under the MMPA to either: (1) Deny the requested
authorization; or (2) grant the requested authorization and prescribe
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. The Preferred
Alternative (i.e., issuance of the IHA) includes mandatory mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements for POA to achieve the MMPA
standard of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on each
species or stock of marine mammal and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and other areas of similar
significance. Since NMFS is required to prescribe mitigation to effect
the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals, mitigation that
reduces impacts on marine mammals is inherently included in Alternative
2 (the proposed action) and is included as part of the analysis of
alternative(s) in the Environmental Consequences chapter in the EA.
NMFS described both the No Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative
in the EA. We have also included an ``Alternatives Considered but
Eliminated from Further Consideration'' section in the final EA that
considered whether other alternatives could meet the purpose and need
while supporting this applicant's proposal to demolish the NES. There
is no requirement under NEPA to consider more than two alternatives, or
to consider alternatives that are substantially similar to other
alternatives or which have substantially similar consequences. NMFS'
range of alternatives is based on the proposed action and the purpose
and need, which are linked to NMFS' authorities under the MMPA. For the
purposes of analysis under NEPA in the EA, an alternative will only
meet the purpose and need if it satisfies the requirements under
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. Therefore, NMFS determined that,
based on our authorities and criteria under the MMPA, which included
criteria regarding mitigation measures, appropriate considerations were
applied
[[Page 2845]]
to identify which alternatives to carry forward for analysis.
CBD comments that the environmental and cumulative impacts section
of the EA is not sufficient. CBD asserts that NMFS does not evaluate
what the level of take will have on individual whales or the
population, and fails to take into account any impact to CIBW pods. In
addition, they state that NMFS does not include the most recent
available information regarding the impacts of noise on marine mammals,
and new information about CIBWs. In the draft EA, NMFS described both
the general effects to marine mammals from exposure to noise (e.g.,
pile driving) and scientific literature identifying responses of CIBWs
to pile driving at the POA in Chapter 4 of the EA. This includes, as
described in the Federal Register notice of proposed IHA (88 FR 76576,
November 6, 2023) and in our response to Comment 1, data from several
years of recent scientific monitoring at the POA during previous work
involving pile driving (e.g., Kendall and Cornick, 2016; 61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c; Easley-Appleyard and Leonard,
2022). In Chapter 3 of the EA we also describe anticipated impacts on
marine mammal habitat and their prey. We believe these descriptions are
sufficient with regard to the requirements of NEPA and the CEQ
regulations.
NMFS disagrees that we did not include the most recent available
information about noise on marine mammals or new information about
CIBWs. As described above, the EA includes an analysis of CIBW
observations directly in relation to in-water construction, including
pile driving activities from 2020 through 2021 that took place at the
POA (61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c; Easley-Appleyard and
Leonard, 2022). Chapter 4 of the EA also includes an assessment on the
impacts on marine mammals to noise that includes recent information on
permanent and temporary threshold shifts, avoidance or abandonment
behaviors, changes in vocalizations, and the masking of communication
and foraging signals. The impacts of the NES1 project on marine
mammals, including CIBWs, are expected to represent short-term,
localized, negligible, adverse, direct impacts. For CIBWs, NMFS
anticipates these impacts will manifest as whales moving more quickly
and silently through the area, in more cohesive groups, but not by
habitat abandonment or ceasing traveling through Knik Arm.
CBD also states that the draft EA fails to evaluate the cumulative
impacts of other proposed projects and ongoing activities in Cook
Inlet. In Chapter 4 of the draft EA, NMFS evaluated the cumulative
impacts of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
in the action area, including projects associated with PAMP and the
Alaska LNG project, which the CBD mentioned should be included, and
research activities. These instances do not change NMFS' overall
determination regarding the cumulative impacts of the NES1 project on
marine mammals or marine mammal habitat. As stated in the draft EA,
while consideration of activities in sum suggests an increase in
industrialization of Cook Inlet, many of the past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions are spatially and temporally
limited and do not permanently reduce or degrade the habitat available
to marine mammals or their prey species. While the NES1 project would
add an incremental contribution to the combined environmental impacts
of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions;
those direct and indirect adverse impacts are expected to be mainly
short-term, localized, and minor, as described in the draft EA. None of
the harassment authorized by NMFS in other ITAs would overlap in time
or space with impacts from the NES1 Project.
The CBD postulates that NMFS' consideration of climate change is
inadequate. However, CBD improperly states that the proposed project is
for cement and petroleum. That is incorrect as the proposed project is
for the demolition of portions of the failed NES sheet pile structure
and reconfiguration and realignment of the shoreline within the North
Extension. NMFS considers climate change in its EA. However, as
mentioned above NMFS does not authorize any of the POA's activities but
rather take of marine mammals incidental to the POA's activities. While
changes in environmental conditions due to climate change could result
in prey distribution changes or loss for beluga whales or other marine
mammals, the NES1 project is planned to occur during a 1-year period,
during which time the impacts of climate change on marine mammals are
likely to remain at baseline levels.
Comment 19: CBD states that NMFS must comply with the ESA but
asserts that NMFS should not issue take authorization under the ESA
because such taking would jeopardize the continued existence of CIBWs.
Response: In the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR
76576, November 6, 2023), NMFS indicated that we requested section 7
consultation under the ESA. CBD indicates they believe the proposed
taking would jeopardize the recovery and survival of CIBWs but did not
further explain how they reached this conclusion. NMFS has fully
complied with the ESA. NMFS Alaska Region issued a BiOp on December 15,
2023 concluding that issuance of take, by harassment, of CIBW, humpback
whales (Mexico Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and Western DPS), and
Steller sea lions would not jeopardize the continued existence of those
stocks and the takings would not adversely modify critical habitat. The
full analysis supporting these conclusions can be found in the BiOp
(NMFS, 2023a).
Comment 20: In their letter, CBD stated they did not believe NMFS
should authorize take of CIBWs and other marine mammals but, if NMFS
did take action to do so, we must impose stringent mitigation measures
to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on protected species.
Response: The proposed IHA included a suite of mitigation measures,
which have been carried forward into the final IHA, which NMFS
determined to effect the least practicable adverse impact on marine
mammals, in accordance with the MMPA (see the Mitigation section).
Comment 21: A commenter from Eklutna, Inc. representing the
indigenous Dena'ina people of the Anchorage, Alaska area requested that
Dena'ina individuals from the local area be trained and employed as
NMFS-approved PSOs. They stated that the Dena'ina people possess a
deep-seated knowledge and understanding of the local marine ecosystem,
particularly concerning the marine mammals that NMFS aims to protect
through its monitoring efforts. Given the significance of these species
to their way of life and the potential impacts of the NES1 project, the
commenter proposed that members of their community be actively involved
in the monitoring and support roles related to the project. They
stressed that this initiative would not only ensure effective
monitoring of marine mammals, but also foster a sense of ownership and
participation among the indigenous community in the conservation
efforts.
Response: NMFS agrees that Alaska Native residents with traditional
knowledge about marine mammals and the local marine environment hold
valuable knowledge and skills that are critical to the effectiveness of
a PSO. In the final IHA, NMFS requires at least one PSO to have at
least 1-year of prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during
construction activity
[[Page 2846]]
pursuant to a NMFS-issued ITA or Letter of Concurrence. 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 ITA. For this project, in consideration of valuable traditional
ecological knowledge that many community members hold, PSOs may also
substitute relevant Alaska native traditional knowledge for experience.
Regarding hiring preference for regional residents with traditional
ecological knowledge, NMFS cannot require an IHA-holder to employ
certain individuals, though it does require that an applicant request
NMFS approval for all PSOs so that NMFS can confirm that they meet the
requirements outlined in the IHA. NMFS has passed this recommendation
on to the POA for its consideration and has suggested that the POA send
letters to the Kenaitze, Tyonek, Knik, Eklutna, Ninilchik, Salamatof,
and Chickaloon Tribes informing them of the hiring process when known.
Changes From the Proposed IHA to Final IHA
As a result of the public comments received from CBD and Eklutna,
Inc. (and summarized above), provisions were added to the final IHA and
this Federal Register notice of issuance that incorporates additional
discussion regarding impacts to CIBW preferred prey, and our
clarification of requirements related to PSO qualifications (i.e.,
making clear that relevant Alaska native traditional knowledge can be
considered as a substitute for relevant experience when considering
prospective PSOs for the NES1 project).
Since the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA was published
(88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023), NMFS became aware of an error in the
calculation of the RMS SPLs that were used as proxies for unattenuated
vibratory pile removal of steel pipe piles for this project. NMFS has
recalculated these levels and has revised the Estimated Take section
accordingly. Specifically, the RMS SPL proxy for the vibratory removal
of 24-inch (61-cm) piles changed from 168-dB to 169-dB. The RMS SPL for
the vibratory removal of 36-inch (91-cm) piles did not change (i.e., it
remains 159-dB RMS). As a result of the change to the 24-inch (61-cm)
RMS SPL, the Level B harassment zone for this activity increased from
5,967-m to 6,861-m, and the Level A harassment zones for low-frequency
cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, high-frequency cetaceans, and
phocid pinniped increased slightly (i.e., between 1-m to 7-m
increases). Given the shutdown zone for CIBWs is equivalent to the
Level B harassment zone (see the Mitigation section of this Federal
Register notice of issuance), the shutdown zone for this activity has
increased from 6,000-m to 6,900-m (6,861-m rounded up) for this
species. The shutdown zone for low-frequency cetaceans also increased
from 40-m to 50-m due to this change.
In the proposed IHA, NMFS proposed to require the POA to submit
interim weekly and monthly monitoring reports (that include raw
electronic data sheets) during the NES1 construction season. Since the
Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA published (88 FR 76576,
November 6, 2023), the POA has expressed concern that the inclusion of
raw electronic data sheets with weekly and monthly reports will not be
feasible for their monitoring program. In addition, the raw data will
need to be reviewed and corrected for any errors. Rather, the POA has
agreed to submit the final electronic data sheets with the final draft
summary report. NMFS has accepted this request and has revised the
final IHA to indicate that the final electronic data sheets must be
submitted with the final draft summary report instead of with the
required weekly and monthly monitoring reports. This is consistent with
reporting requirements for the PCT and SFD IHAs.
Typographical errors identified in tables 2 and 13 in the Federal
Register notice of the proposed IHA have been corrected in this Federal
Register notice of issuance (see tables 1 and 10, respectively). In
addition, some clarifying language regarding source levels proposed for
impact pile removal and pile splitting has been added to the Estimated
Take section. Lastly, in the Endangered Species Act section of the
Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA, NMFS omitted reference to
the Western North Pacific DPS of humpback whales as a listed species
under the ESA for which NMFS OPR was requesting ESA section 7
consultation. However, this species was considered in the formal
consultation and is assessed in the BiOp issued by the NMFS Alaska
Regional Office on December 15, 2023. No other changes have been made
from the proposed IHA to the final IHA.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
There are seven species of marine mammals that may be found in
upper Cook Inlet during the planned construction and demolition
activities. Sections 3 and 4 of the IHA application summarize available
information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat
preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected
species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer
the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the
information. Additional information regarding population trends and
threats may be found in NMFS' 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'
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Additional information on CIBWs may be found in NMFS' 2016 Recovery
Plan for the CIBW, available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/recovery-plan-cook-inlet-beluga-whale-delphinapterus-leucas, and NMFS' 2023 report on the abundance and trend of CIBWs in
Cook Inlet in June 2021 and June 2022, available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/abundance-and-trend-belugas-delphinapterus-leucas-cook-inlet-alaska-june-2021-and.
Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
authorized for this activity, and summarizes information related to the
population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA
and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by
the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while
allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or
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 or stocks and other
threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS' U.S. Alaska and Pacific SARs (e.g., Carretta, et al., 2023; Young
et al.,
[[Page 2847]]
2023). Values presented in table 2 are the most recent available at the
time of publication and are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. The most recent abundance estimate for CIBWs,
however, is available from Goetz et al. (2023) and available online at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/new-abundance-estimate-endangered-cook-inlet-beluga-whales.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JA24.032
[[Page 2848]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JA24.033
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
On June 15, 2023, NMFS released an updated abundance estimate for
endangered CIBWs in Alaska (Goetz et al., 2023) that incorporates
aerial survey data from June 2021 and 2022, but which is not included
in the most recent SAR (Young et al., 2023). Data collected during NMFS
recent aerial survey effort suggest that the whale population is stable
or may be increasing slightly. Goetz et al. (2023) estimated that the
population size is currently between 290 and 386, with a median best
estimate of 331. In accordance with the MMPA, this population estimate
will be incorporated into the next draft CIBW SAR, which will be
reviewed by an independent panel of experts, the Alaska Scientific
Review Group. After this review, the SAR will be made available as a
draft for public review before being finalized. We have determined that
it is appropriate to consider the CIBW estimate of abundance reported
by Goetz et al. (2023) in our analysis rather than the older estimate
currently available from the Alaska SAR (Young et al., 2023) because it
is based on the most recent and best available science.
As indicated above, all seven species (with nine managed stocks) in
table 2 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the
degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. Minke whales
(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) and Dall's porpoises (Phocoenoides dalli)
also occur in Cook Inlet; however, the spatial occurrence of these
species is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not
discussed further beyond the explanation provided here. Data from the
Alaska Marine Mammal Stranding Network database (NMFS, unpublished
data) provide additional support for these determinations. From 2011 to
2020, only one minke whale and one Dall's porpoise were documented as
stranded in the portion of Cook Inlet north of Point Possession. Both
were dead upon discovery; it is unknown if they were alive upon their
entry into upper Cook Inlet or drifted into the area with the tides.
With very few exceptions, minke whales and Dall's porpoises do not
occur in upper Cook Inlet, and therefore take of these species is
considered unlikely.
In addition, sea otters (Enhydra lutris) may be found in Cook
Inlet. However, sea otters are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and are not considered further in this document.
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the
NES1 project, including a brief introduction to the affected stock as
well as available information regarding population trends
[[Page 2849]]
and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided
in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR 76576,
November 6, 2023). Since that time, we are not aware of any changes in
the status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed
descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal
Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS'
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for generalized
species accounts.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. 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, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing
groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked
potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response
data, anatomical modeling, etc.). Note that no direct measurements of
hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (i.e.,
low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65-dB
threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception
for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was
deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall
et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing groups and their
associated hearing ranges are provided in table 3. Specific to this
action, gray whales and humpback whales are considered low-frequency
(LF) cetaceans, CIBWs, and killer whales are considered mid-frequency
(MF) cetaceans, harbor porpoises are considered high-frequency (HF)
cetaceans, Steller sea lions are otariid pinnipeds, and harbor seals
are phocid pinnipeds.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JA24.034
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
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). This division between phocid and otariid pinnipeds is now
reflected in the updated hearing groups proposed in Southall et al.
(2019).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
The effects of underwater noise from the POA's construction
activities have the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals
in the vicinity of the POA. The Federal Register notice of the proposed
IHA (88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023) included a discussion of the
[[Page 2850]]
effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential
effects of underwater noise from the POA's construction activities on
marine mammals and their habitat. That information and analysis is
referenced in this notice of issuance of the final IHA and is not
repeated here; please refer to the notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR
76576, November 6, 2023).
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized through the IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration
of ``small numbers,'' and the negligible impact determinations.
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 will primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of
the acoustic sources (i.e., vibratory and impact pile driving) has the
potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual
marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level
A harassment) to result, primarily for HF cetaceans and phocids because
predicted auditory injury zones are larger than for MF cetaceans and
otariids. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mysticetes, MF
cetaceans, and otariids due to measures described in the Mitigation
section. The mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to
minimize the severity of the taking to the extent practicable. As
described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or
authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take numbers
were estimated.
For acoustic impacts, 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) the number of days of activities. We note
that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to
provide an initial prediction of potential 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 take estimates.
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--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 or exposure context (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty
cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the
source), the environment (e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area,
predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to
predict (e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021; Ellison et al., 2012).
Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to
use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized
acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of
behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above RMS SPL
of 120-dB re 1 [mu]Pa for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile driving,
drilling) and above RMS SPL 160-dB re 1 [mu]Pa for non-explosive
impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific
sonar) sources. Generally speaking, Level B harassment take estimates
based on these behavioral harassment thresholds are expected to include
any likely takes by temporary threshold shift (TTS) as, in most cases,
the likelihood of TTS occurs at distances from the source less than
those at which behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of a sufficient
degree can manifest as behavioral harassment, as reduced hearing
sensitivity and the potential reduced opportunities to detect important
signals (conspecific communication, predators, prey) may result in
changes in behavior patterns that would not otherwise occur.
The POA's planned activity includes the use of continuous
(vibratory pile driving) and intermittent (impact pile driving) noise
sources, and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120- and 160-dB re 1
[mu]Pa are applicable.
Level A Harassment. NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0;
NMFS, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A
harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing
sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types
of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). The POA's planned activity
includes the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive
(vibratory driving) sources.
These thresholds are provided in the table 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.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 2851]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JA24.035
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss (TL)
coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the planned project.
Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the
primary components of the project (i.e., impact pile removal and
vibratory pile installation and removal). Calculation of the area
ensonified by the specified action is dependent on the background sound
levels at the project site, the source levels of the planned
activities, and the estimated transmission loss coefficients for the
planned activities at the site. These factors are addressed in order,
below.
Background Sound Levels at the Port of Alaska. As noted in the
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat section of the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (88
FR 76576, November 6, 2023), the POA is an industrial facility in a
location with high levels of commercial vessel traffic, port operations
(including dredging), and extreme tidal flow. Previous measurements of
background noise at the POA have recorded a background SPL of 122.2-dB
RMS (Austin et al., 2016). NMFS concurred that this SPL reasonably
represents background noise near the project area, and therefore we
have used 122.2-dB RMS as the threshold for Level B harassment (instead
of 120-dB RMS).
[[Page 2852]]
Sound Source Levels of Specified Activities. The intensity of pile
driving sounds is greatly influenced by factors such as the type of
piles (material and diameter), hammer type, and the physical
environment (e.g., sediment type) in which the activity takes place. In
order to calculate the distances to the Level A harassment and the
Level B harassment sound thresholds for the methods and piles being
used in this project, the POA used acoustic monitoring data from sound
source verification studies to develop proxy source levels for the
various pile types, sizes and methods (table 5). While site-specific
sound source verification studies have been conducted at the POA, the
vast majority of the measurements recorded in those studies were made
when bubble curtains were deployed around the sound source, which act
to attenuate sound levels (Austin et al., 2016; I&R, 2021a, 2021b).
Bubble curtains are not a feasible mitigation measure for the NES1
project due to the demolition and sequencing nature of the project (see
the Mitigation section of this notice for additional discussion), and
therefore the majority of the proxy values for this project are based
on measurements recorded from locations other than the POA.
Underwater sound was measured in 2008 at the POA for the Marine
Terminal Redevelopment Project (MTRP) during installation of sheet
piles to assess potential impacts of sound on marine species. Sound
levels for installation of sheet piles measured at 10-m typically
ranged from 147- to 161-dB RMS, with a mean of approximately 155-dB RMS
(James Reyff, unpublished data). An SPL of 162-dB RMS was reported in
(California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), 2020) summary
tables for 24-inch (61-cm) steel sheet piles. This is a more rigid type
of sheet pile that requires a large vibratory driver (James Reyff,
personal communication, August 26, 2020). Based on the 2008
measurements at the POA and the CALTRANS data, a value of 160-dB RMS
was assumed for vibratory removal of sheet piles.
NMFS concurred that the source levels proposed by the POA for all
pile sizes during impact removal and vibratory installation of all pile
types are appropriate to use for calculating harassment isopleths for
the POA's planned NES1 activities (table 5). Impact removal is the
process of hitting a pile with an impact hammer with a small number of
strikes (up to 50 per pile) to loosen it from the soil so that it can
be removed via other means such as direct pulling or with a vibratory
hammer. There are no data to our knowledge available on impact removal
of this nature. The POA proposed to use SPL values measured during the
impact installation of 24-inch (61-cm) AZ steel sheet piles from the
Berth 23, Port of Oakland Project (CALTRANS, 2020) for this activity.
Given this is the best available information, NMFS has accepted the
POA's proposed SPLs for this activity.
However, the source levels proposed by the POA for vibratory pile
removal were based on limited data collected at the POA. Therefore,
NMFS considered and evaluated all data related to unattenuated
vibratory removal of 24-inch (61-cm) and 36-inch (91-cm) steel pipe
piles available, including sound source verification data measured at
the POA during the PCT project (Reyff et al., 2021a) and elsewhere
(i.e., Coleman, 2011; U.S. Navy, 2012; I&R, 2017). NMFS gathered data
from publicly available reports that reported driving conditions and
specified vibratory removal for certain piles. If vibratory removal was
not specifically noted for a given pile, we excluded that data from the
analysis. Mean RMS SPLs reported by these studies were converted into
pressure values, and pressure values for piles from each project were
averaged to give a single SPL for each project. The calculated project
means were then averaged and converted back into dBs to give a single
recommended SPL (rounded to the nearest whole dB) for each pile type.
Ten measurements were available for unattenuated vibratory removal
of 24-inch (61-cm) piles: 3 from Columbia River Crossing in Oregon
(mean RMS SPL of 173-dB; Coleman, 2011), 5 from Joint Expeditionary
Base Little Creek in Norfolk, Virginia (mean RMS SPL of 148-dB; I&R,
2017), and 2 from the PCT project at the POA (mean RMS SPL of 169-dB;
I&R, 2021a, 2023). The calculated average SPL for unattenuated
vibratory removal of 24-inch (61-cm) steel pipe piles from these
studies was 169-dB RMS (table 5). Forty measurements were available for
unattenuated vibratory removal of 36-inch (91-cm) piles: 38 from the
U.S. Navy Test Pile Program at Naval Base Kitsap in Bangor, Washington
(mean RMS SPL of 160-dB; U.S. Navy, 2012), and 2 from the PCT project
at the POA (mean RMS SPL of 159-dB; I&R, 2021, 2023). The calculated
average SPL for unattenuated vibratory removal of 36-inch (91-cm) steel
pipe piles from these studies was 159-dB RMS (table 5). Note that the
proxy values in table 5 represent SPL referenced at a distance of 10- m
from the source.
Interestingly, the RMS SPLs for the unattenuated vibratory removal
of 24-inch (61-cm) piles were much louder than the unattenuated
vibratory removal of 36-inch (91-cm) piles, and even louder than the
unattenuated vibratory installation of 24-inch piles. I&R (2023)
suggest that at least for data recorded at the POA, the higher 24-inch
(61-cm) removal levels are likely due to the piles being removed at
rates of 1,600 to 1,700 revolutions per minute (rpm), while 36-inch
(91-cm) piles, which are significantly heavier than 24-inch (61-cm)
piles), were removed at a rate of 1,900 rpm. The slower rates combined
with the lighter piles would cause the hammer to easily ``jerk'' or
excite the 24-inch (61-cm) piles as they were extracted, resulting in a
louder rattling sound and louder sound levels. This did not occur for
the 36-inch (91-cm) piles, which were considerably heavier due to
increased diameter, longer length, and greater thickness.
[[Page 2853]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JA24.036
A splitter will be used in conjunction with a vibratory hammer to
make vertical cuts in sheet piles as necessary to help with their
removal. The POA assumes that a pile splitter will produce the same or
similar sound levels as a vibratory hammer without the splitter
attachment; therefore, the POA combined use of a vibratory hammer to
remove sheet pile and use of a splitter into a single category (i.e.,
vibratory hammer removal). NMFS is currently unaware of any
hydroacoustic measurements of pile splitting with a vibratory hammer.
NMFS specifically requested comments on the proposed SPL values for
vibratory pile splitting in the Federal Register notice of the proposed
IHA (88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023). No additional data or
recommendations for proxy SPLs for these activities were received
during the public comment period. Given this is the best available
information, NMFS has accepted the POA's proposed SPLs and assessments.
Transmission Loss. For unattenuated impact pile driving, the POA
proposed to use 15 as the TL coefficient, meaning they assumed
practical spreading loss (i.e., the POA assumes TL =
15*Log10(range)); NMFS concurred with this value and has
used the practical spreading loss model for impact driving in this
analysis.
The TL coefficient that the POA proposed for unattenuated vibratory
installation and removal of piles is 16.5 (i.e., TL =
16.5*Log10(range)). This value is an average of measurements
obtained from two 48-inch (122-cm) piles installed via an unattenuated
vibratory hammer in 2016 (Austin et al., 2016). To assess the
appropriateness of this TL coefficient to be used for the NES1 project,
NMFS examined and analyzed additional TL measurements recorded at the
POA. This included a TL coefficient of 22 (deep hydrophone measurement)
from the 2004 unattenuated vibratory installation of one 36-inch (91-
cm) pile in Knik Arm (Blackwell, 2004), as well as TL coefficients
ranging from 10.3 to 18.2 from the unattenuated vibratory removal of
24-inch (61 cm) and 36-inch (91-cm) piles and the unattenuated
vibratory installation of one 48-inch (122-cm) pile at the POA in 2021
(I&R 2021, 2023). To account for statistical interdependence due to
temporal correlations and equipment issues across projects, values were
averaged first within each individual project, and then across
projects. The mean and median value of the measured TL coefficients for
unattenuated vibratory piles in Knik Arm by project were equal to 18.9
and 16.5, respectively. NMFS used the project median TL coefficient of
16.5 during unattenuated vibratory installation and removal of all
piles during the NES1 project. This value is representative of all
unattenuated vibratory measurements in the Knik Arm. Further, 16.5 is
the mean of the 2016 measurements, which were made closer to the NES1
project area than other measurements and were composed of measurements
from multiple directions (both north and south/southwest).
Estimated Harassment Isopleths. All estimated Level B harassment
isopleths are reported in table 6. At POA, Level B harassment isopleths
from the NES1 project will be limited by the coastline along Knik Arm
along and across from the project site. The maximum predicted isopleth
distance is 6,861-m during vibratory removal of 24-inch (61-cm) steel
pipe piles.
The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more
technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a
duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User
Spreadsheet tool to accompany the Technical Guidance that can be used
to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in
conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict
potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions
included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate
that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be
overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of
potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool
offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more
sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For
stationary sources such as pile driving, the optional User Spreadsheet
tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at
that distance for the duration of the activity, it would be
[[Page 2854]]
expected to incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet are reported
in table 6 and the resulting isopleths and ensonified areas are
reported in table 7.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JA24.037
[[Page 2855]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JA24.038
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Estimation
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of
marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which
informed the take calculation. We also describe how the information
provided above was synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of
the take that is reasonably likely to occur and is authorized.
Gray Whale
Sightings of gray whales in the project area are rare. Few, if any,
gray whales are expected to approach the project area. However, based
on three separate sightings of single gray whales near the POA in 2020
and 2021 (61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a; Easley-Appleyard and Leonard,
2022), the POA anticipates that up to six individuals could be within
estimated harassment zones during NES1 project activities. Therefore,
NMFS authorized six takes by Level B harassment for gray whales during
the NES1 project. Take by Level A harassment is not anticipated or
authorized. The Level A harassment zones (table 7) are smaller than the
required shutdown zones (see the Mitigation section). It is unlikely
that a gray whale will enter and remain within the Level A harassment
zone long enough to incur PTS.
Humpback Whale
Sightings of humpback whales in the project area are rare, and few,
if any, humpback whales are expected to approach the project area.
However, there have been a few observations of humpback whales near the
POA as described in the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of
Specified Activities section of the Federal Register notice of the
proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023). Based on the two
sightings in 2017 of what was likely a single individual at the
Anchorage Public Boat Dock at Ship Creek (ABR, Inc., 2017) south of the
project area, the POA requested authorization of six takes of humpback
whales. However, given the maximum number of humpback whales observed
within a single construction season was two (in 2017), NMFS instead
anticipates that only up to four humpback whales could be exposed to
project-related underwater noise during the NES1 project. Therefore,
NMFS authorized four takes by Level B harassment for humpback whales
during the NES1 project. Take by Level A harassment is not anticipated
or authorized. The Level A harassment zones (table 7) are smaller than
the required shutdown zones (see the Mitigation section), therefore, it
is unlikely that a humpback whale will enter and remain within the
Level A harassment zone long enough to incur PTS.
Killer Whale
Few, if any, killer whales are expected to approach the NES1
project area. No killer whales were sighted during previous monitoring
programs for POA construction projects, including the 2016 TPP, 2020
PCT, and 2022 SFD projects (Prevel-Ramos et al., 2006; Markowitz and
McGuire, 2007; Cornick and Saxon-Kendall, 2008, 2009; Cornick et al.,
2010, 2011; ICRC, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012; Cornick and Pinney, 2011;
Cornick and Seagars, 2016; 61N Environmental, 2021, 2022b), until PCT
construction in 2021, when two killer whales were sighted (61N
Environmental, 2022a). Previous sightings of transient killer whales
have documented pod sizes in upper Cook Inlet between one and six
individuals (Shelden et al., 2003). Therefore, the POA conservatively
estimated that no more than one small pod (assumed to be six
individuals) could be within estimated harassment zones during NES1
project activities.
Take by Level A harassment is not anticipated or authorized due to
the implementation of shutdown zones, which will be larger than the
Level A harassment zones (described below in the Mitigation section),
and the low likelihood that killer whales will approach this distance
for sufficient duration to incur PTS. Therefore, NMFS authorized six
takes by Level B harassment for killer whales.
[[Page 2856]]
Harbor Porpoise
Monitoring data recorded from 2005 through 2022 were used to
evaluate hourly sighting rates for harbor porpoises in the NES1 project
area (see table 4-3 in the POA's application). During most years of
monitoring, no harbor porpoises were observed. However, there has been
an increase in harbor porpoise sightings in upper Cook Inlet in recent
decades (e.g., 61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a; Shelden et al., 2014).
The highest sighting rate for any recorded year during in-water pile
installation and removal was an average of 0.037 harbor porpoises per
hour during PCT construction in 2021, when observations occurred across
most months. Given the uncertainty around harbor porpoise occurrence at
the POA and potential that occurrence is increasing, it is estimated
that approximately 0.07 harbor porpoises per hour (the 2021 rate of
0.037 harbor porpoises per hour doubled) may be observed near the NES1
project area per hour of hammer use. With 246.5 hours of in-water pile
installation and removal, the POA estimated that there could be 18
instances where harbor porpoises (0.07 harbor porpoises per hour *
246.5 hours = 17.3 harbor porpoises rounded up to 18 harbor porpoises)
could be within estimated harassment zones during NES1 project
activities.
Harbor porpoises are small, lack a visible blow, have low dorsal
fins, an overall low profile, and a short surfacing time, making them
difficult to observe (Dahlheim et al., 2015). To account for the
possibility that a harbor porpoise could enter a Level A harassment
zone and remain there for sufficient duration to incur PTS before
activities were shut down, the POA assumed that 5 percent of estimated
harbor porpoise takes (1 take of harbor porpoise; 5 percent of 18 =
0.9, rounded up to 1) could be taken by Level A harassment. In its
request, the POA rounded this estimate up to two to account for the
average group size of this species, However, NMFS has determined such
adjustments are generally unnecessary for purposes of estimating
potential incidents of Level A harassment and did not concur with the
request. At relatively close distances, NMFS believes it unlikely that
groups will necessarily adhere to each other for sufficient duration
for the entire group to incur PTS. While it is unlikely that a harbor
porpoise could enter a Level A harassment zone for sufficient duration
to incur PTS given the required shutdown measures (see the Mitigation
section for more information) and potential for avoidance behavior,
this species moves quickly and can be difficult to detect and track,
therefore, NMFS authorized 1 take by Level A harassment and 17 takes by
Level B harassment for harbor porpoises, for a total of 18 instances of
take.
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lions are anticipated to occur in low numbers within
the NES1 project area as summarized in the Description of Marine
Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities section of the Federal
Register of the proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023). Similar
to the approach used above for harbor porpoises, the POA used
previously recorded sighting rates of Steller sea lions near the POA to
estimate requested take for this species. During SFD construction in
May and June of 2022, the hourly sighting rate for Steller sea lions
was 0.028. The hourly sighting rate for Steller sea lions in 2021, the
most recent year with observations across most months, was
approximately 0.01. Given the uncertainty around Steller sea lion
occurrence at the POA and potential that occurrence is increasing, the
POA estimated that approximately 0.06 Steller sea lions per hour (the
May and June 2022 rate of 0.028 Steller sea lions per hour doubled) may
be observed near the NES1 project areas per hour of hammer use. With
246.5 hours of in-water pile installation and removal, the POA
estimates that 15 Steller sea lions (0.06 sea lions per hour * 246.5
hours = 14.79 sea lions rounded up to 15) could be within estimated
harassment zones during NES1 project activities. However, the highest
number of Steller sea lions that have been observed during the 2020-
2022 monitoring efforts at the POA was nine individuals (eight during
PCT Phase 1 monitoring and one during NMFS 2021 monitoring). Given the
POA's estimate assumes a higher Steller sea lion sighting rate (0.06)
than has been observed at the POA and results in an estimate that is
much larger than the number of Steller sea lions observed in a year,
NMFS believed that the 15 estimated takes requested by the POA
overestimated potential exposures of this species. NMFS instead
authorized nine takes by Level B harassment for Steller sea lions
during the NES1 project.
The largest Level A harassment zone for Steller sea lions is 6-m.
While it is unlikely that a Steller sea lion will enter a Level A
harassment zone for sufficient duration to incur PTS, the POA is aware
of a Steller sea lion that popped up next to a work skiff during the
TPP in 2016, which was documented as a potential take by Level A
harassment by the PSOs on duty at the time. Pile driving, however, was
not occurring at the time the event was recorded and a brief
observation of an animal within a Level A harassment zone does not
necessarily mean the animal experienced Level A harassment (other
factors such as duration within the harassment zone need to be taken
into consideration). However, as a result of the aforementioned event,
the POA requested authorization of an additional two takes of Steller
sea lions by Level A harassment. Given the small Level A harassment
zone (6-m), and shutdown zones of >= 10-m (see the Mitigation section),
NMFS believes that it is unlikely that a Steller sea lion will be
within the Level A harassment zone for sufficient duration to incur
PTS. Therefore, NMFS did not authorize take by Level A harassment for
Steller sea lions. Rather, all nine estimated takes are authorized as
Level B harassment.
Harbor Seal
No known harbor seal haulout or pupping sites occur in the vicinity
of the POA. In addition, harbor seals are not known to reside in the
NES1 project area, but they are seen regularly near the mouth of Ship
Creek when salmon are running, from July through September. With the
exception of newborn pups, all ages and sexes of harbor seals may occur
in the NES1 project area. Any harassment of harbor seals during in-
water pile installation and removal will involve a limited number of
individuals that may potentially swim through the NES1 project area or
linger near Ship Creek.
The POA evaluated marine mammal monitoring data to calculate hourly
sighting rates for harbor seals in the NES1 project area (see table 4-1
in the POA's application). Of the 524 harbor seal sightings in 2020 and
2021, 93.7 percent of the sightings were of single individuals; only
5.7 percent of sightings were of 2 individual harbor seals, and only
0.6 percent of sightings reported 3 harbor seals. Sighting rates of
harbor seals were highly variable and appeared to have increased during
monitoring between 2005 and 2022. It is unknown whether any potential
increase was due to local population increases or habituation to
ongoing construction activities. The highest individual hourly sighting
rate recorded for a previous year was used to quantify take of harbor
seals for in-water pile installation and removal associated with NES1.
This occurred in 2021 during PCT Phase 2 construction, when harbor
seals were observed from May through September. A total of 220 harbor
seal
[[Page 2857]]
sightings were observed over 734.9 hours of monitoring, at an average
rate of 0.30 harbor seal sightings per hour. The maximum monthly
sighting rate occurred in September 2020 and was 0.51 harbor seal
sightings per hour. Based on these data, the POA estimated that
approximately one harbor seal (the maximum monthly sighting rate (0.51)
rounded up) may be observed near the NES1 project per hour of hammer
use. This approximate sighting rate of one harbor seal per hour was
also used to calculate potential exposures of harbor seals for the SFD
project (86 FR 50057, September 7, 2021). Therefore, the POA estimated
that during the 246.5 hours of anticipated in-water pile installation
and removal, up to 247 harbor seals (1 harbor seal per hour * 246.5
hours = 246.5 harbor seals, rounded up to 247) could be within
estimated harassment zones.
Harbor seals often appear curious about onshore activities and may
approach closely. The mouth of Ship Creek, where harbor seals linger,
is about 2,500-m from the southern end of the NES1 and is therefore
outside of the Level A harassment zones calculated for harbor seals
(table 7). However, given the potential difficulty of tracking
individual harbor seals along the face of the NES1 site and their
consistent low-level use of the POA area, NMFS anticipates the
potential for some take by Level A harassment for harbor seals. For the
SFD project, NMFS authorized 8.6 percent of estimated harbor seal takes
as potential Level A harassment based on the proportion of previous
harbor seal sightings within the estimated Level A harassment zones for
that project (86 FR 50057, September 7, 2021), but the NES1 Project is
more distant from Ship Creek than SFD. NMFS therefore anticipated that
a smaller proportion of takes by Level A harassment may occur during
the NES1 project, and reduced this percentage to 5 percent. Therefore,
NMFS authorized 13 harbor seal takes (5 percent of 247 exposures) by
Level A harassment and 234 takes (247 exposures minus 13) by Level B
harassment, for a total of 247 takes.
Beluga Whale
For the POA's PCT and SFD projects, NMFS used a sighting rate
methodology to calculate potential exposure (equated to take) of CIBWs
to sound levels above harassment criteria produced by the POA's
construction activities (85 FR 19294, April 6, 2020; 86 FR 50057,
September 7, 2021, respectively). For the PCT project, NMFS used data
collected during marine mammal observations from 2005 to 2009 (Kendall
and Cornick, 2015) and the total number of monthly observation hours
during these efforts to derive hourly sighting rates of CIBWs per month
of observation (April through November) (85 FR 19294, April 6, 2020).
For the SFD project, observation data from 2020 PCT construction were
also incorporated into the analysis (86 FR 50057, September 7, 2021;
61N Environmental, 2021).
The marine mammal monitoring programs for the PCT and SFD projects
produced a unique and comprehensive data set of CIBW locations and
movements (table 8; 61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Easley-
Appleyard and Leonard, 2022) that is the most current data set
available for Knik Arm. During the PCT and SFD projects, the POA's
marine mammal monitoring programs included 11 PSOs working from 4
elevated, specially designed monitoring stations located along a 9-km
stretch of coastline surrounding the POA. The number of days data was
collected varied among years and project, with 128 days during PCT
Phase 1 in 2020, 74 days during PCT Phase 2 in 2021, and 13 days during
SFD in 2022 (see table 6-7 in the POA's application for additional
information regarding CIBW monitoring data). PSOs during these projects
used 25-power ``big-eye'' and hand-held binoculars to detect and
identify marine mammals, and theodolites to track movements of CIBW
groups over time and collect location data while they remained in view.
These POA monitoring programs were supplemented in 2021 with a
NMFS-funded visual marine mammal monitoring project that collected data
during non-pile driving days during PCT Phase 2 (table 8; Easley-
Appleyard and Leonard, 2022). NMFS replicated the POA monitoring
efforts, as feasible, including use of 2 of the POA's monitoring
platforms, equipment (Big Eye binoculars, theodolite, 7x50 reticle
binoculars), data collection software, monitoring and data collection
protocol, and observers; however, the NMFS-funded program utilized only
4 PSOs and 2 observation stations along with shorter (4- to 8-hour)
observation periods compared to PCT or SFD data collection, which
included 11 PSOs, 4 observation stations, and most observation days
lasting close to 10 hours. Despite the differences in effort, the NMFS
dataset fills in gaps during the 2021 season when CIBW presence began
to increase from low presence in July and is thus valuable in this
analysis. NMFS' PSO's monitored for 231.6 hours on 47 non-consecutive
days in July, August, September, and October.
Distances from CIBW sightings to the project site from the POA and
NMFS-funded monitoring programs ranged from less than 10-m up to nearly
15-km during these monitoring programs. These robust marine mammal
monitoring programs in place from 2020 through 2022 located,
identified, and tracked CIBWs at greater distances from the NES1
project site than previous monitoring programs (i.e., Kendall and
Cornick, 2015), and contributed to a better understanding of CIBW
movements in upper Cook Inlet (e.g., Easley-Appleyard and Leonard,
2022).
Given the evolution of the best available data of CIBW presence in
upper Cook Inlet, particularly regarding the distances at which CIBWs
were being observed and documented (which increased during the PCT and
SFD compared to earlier monitoring efforts), the POA proposed, and NMFS
concurred, that the original sighting rate methodology used for the PCT
and SFD projects was no longer the best approach for calculating
potential take of CIBWs for the NES1 project. The recent and
comprehensive data set of CIBW locations and movements from the PCT and
SFD projects (61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Easley-Appleyard
and Leonard, 2022) provided the opportunity for refinement of the
previously used sighting rate methodology with updated data. Data for
2020, 2021, and 2022 were selected for the updated sighting rate
analysis for the NES1 project because they are the most current data
available and are therefore most likely to accurately represent future
CIBW occurrence at the project site, which may be affected by CIBW
population size, CIBW movement patterns through Knik Arm, environmental
change (including climate change), differences in salmon and other prey
abundance among years, and other factors (table 8). The data from 2005
to 2009 (Kendall and Cornick, 2015), which were used by NMFS for the
sighting rate analyses for the PCT and SFD IHAs, were not included in
this analysis due to the changes in observation programs and age of the
data collected. Monitoring data from the 2016 TPP (Cornick and Seagars,
2016) were also not included in the analysis because of limited hours
observed, limited seasonal coverage, and differences in the observation
programs.
[[Page 2858]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JA24.039
The sighting rate methodology used for the PCT (85 FR 19294, April
6, 2020) and SFD (86 FR 50057, September 7, 2021) projects used
observations of CIBWs recorded in Knik Arm, regardless of observation
distance to the POA, to produce a single monthly sighting rate that was
then used to calculate potential CIBW take for all activities,
regardless of the size of the ensonified areas for the project
activities (i.e., take was calculated solely based on the monthly
sighting rates and the estimated hours of planned activities, and did
not consider the estimated sizes of the ensonified areas). This method
may have overestimated potential CIBW takes when harassment zones were
small because distant CIBWs will have been included in the sighting
rate. This method also resulted in takes estimates that were identical
for installation and removal of all pile sizes, regardless of pile
driving method used (e.g., vibratory, impact) or implementation of
attenuation systems, since the calculation did not consider the size of
the ensonified areas.
NMFS and the POA collaboratively developed a new sighting rate
methodology for the NES1 project that incorporated a spatial component
for CIBW observations, which allows for more accurate estimation of
potential take of CIBWs for this project. NMFS proposes to use this
approach to estimate potential takes of CIBW for authorization. During
the POA's and NMFS' marine mammal monitoring programs for the PCT and
SFD projects, PSOs had an increased ability to detect, identify, and
track CIBWs groups at greater distances from the project work site when
compared with previous years because of the POA's expanded monitoring
program as described above. This meant that observations of CIBWs in
the 2020-2022 dataset (table 8) include sightings of individuals at
distances far outside the ensonified areas estimated for the NES1
project (table 7). Therefore, it is not appropriate to group all CIBW
observations from these datasets into a single sighting rate as was
done for the PCT and SFD projects. Rather, CIBW observations should be
considered in relation to their distance to the NES1 project site when
determining appropriate sighting rates to use when estimating take for
this project. This helps to ensure that the sighting rates used to
estimate take are representative of CIBW presence in the NES1
ensonified areas.
To incorporate a spatial component into the sighting rate
methodology, the POA calculated each CIBW group's closest point of
approach (CPOA) relative to the NES1 project site. The 2020-2022 marine
mammal monitoring programs (table 8) enabled the collection, in many
cases, of multiple locations of CIBW groups as they transited through
Knik Arm, which allowed for track lines to be interpolated for many
groups. The POA used these track lines, or single recorded locations in
instances where only one sighting location was available, to calculate
each group's CPOA. CPOAs were calculated in ArcGIS software using the
Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates provided for documented
sightings of each group (for details on data collection methods, see
61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Easley-Appleyard and Leonard,
2022) and the NES1 location midpoint, centered on the project site. A
CIBW group was defined as a sighting of one or more CIBWs as determined
during data collection. The most distant CPOA location to NES1 was
11,057-m and the closest CPOA location was 15-m.
The cumulative density distribution of CPOA values represents the
percentage of CIBW observations that were within various distances to
the NES1 action site (figure 1). This distribution shows how CIBW
observations differed with distances to the NES1 site and was used to
infer appropriate distances within which to estimate spatially-derived
CIBW sighting rates (figure 1). The POA
[[Page 2859]]
implemented a piecewise regression model that detected breakpoints
(i.e., points within the CPOA data at which statistical properties of
the sequence of observational distances changed) in the cumulative
density distribution of the CPOA locations, which they proposed to
represent spatially-based sighting rate bins for use in calculating
CIBW sighting rates. The POA used the ``Segmented'' package (Muggeo,
2020) in the R Statistical Software Package (R Core Team, 2022) to
determine statistically significant breakpoints in the linear distances
of the CIBW data using this regression method (see section 6.5.5.3 of
the POA's application for more details regarding this statistical
analysis). This analysis identified breakpoints in the CPOA locations
at 74-, 1,651-, 2,808-, and 7,368-m (figure 1).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JA24.040
Piecewise regression is a common tool for modeling ecological
thresholds (Lopez et al., 2020; Whitehead et al., 2016; Atwood et al.,
2016). In a similar scenario to the one outlined above, Mayette et al.
(2022) used piecewise regression methods to model the distances between
two individual CIBWs in a group in a nearshore and a far shore
environment. For the POA's analysis, the breakpoints (i.e., 74-, 1,651-
, 2,808-, and 7,368-m) detect a change in the frequency of CIBW groups
sighted and the slope of the line between two points indicates the
magnitude of change. A greater positive slope indicates a greater
accumulation of sightings over the linear distance (x-axis) between the
defining breakpoints, whereas a more level slope (i.e., closer to zero)
indicates a lower accumulation of sightings over that linear distance
(x-axis) between those defining breakpoints (figure 1; see table 6-8 in
the POA's application for the slope estimates for the empirical
cumulative distribution function).
The breakpoints identified by the piecewise regression analysis are
in agreement with what is known about CIBW behavior in Knik Arm based
on recent monitoring efforts (61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b;
Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022). Observation location data
collected during POA monitoring programs indicate that CIBWs were
consistently found in higher numbers in the nearshore areas, along both
shorelines, and were found in lower numbers in the center of the Arm.
Tracklines of CIBW group movements collected from 2020 to 2022 show
that CIBWs displayed a variety of movement patterns that included
swimming close to shore past the POA on the east side of Knik Arm
(defined by breakpoint 1 at 74-m), with fewer CIBWs swimming in the
center of Knik Arm (breakpoints 1 to 2, at 74- to 1,651-m). CIBWs
commonly swam past the POA close to shore on the west side of Knik Arm,
with no CIBWs able to swim farther from the POA in that area than the
far shore (breakpoints 2 to 3, at 1,651- to 2,808-m). Behaviors and
locations beyond breakpoint 4 (7,368-m) include swimming past the mouth
of Knik Arm between the Susitna River area and Turnagain Arm; milling
at the mouth of Knik Arm but not entering the Arm; and milling to the
northwest of the POA without exiting Knik Arm. The shallowness of slope
5, at distances greater than 7,368-m, could be due to detection falloff
from a proximity (distance) bias, which occurs when PSOs are less
likely to detect CIBW groups that are farther away than groups that are
closer.
The POA, in collaboration with NMFS, used the distances detected by
the breakpoint analysis to define five sighting rate distance bins for
CIBWs in the NES1 project area. Each breakpoint (74-, 1,651-, 2,808-,
and 7,368-m, and the complete data set of observations [>7,368-m]) was
rounded to the nearest meter and considered the outermost limit of each
sighting rate bin, resulting in five identified bins (table 9). All
CIBW observations less than or equal to
[[Page 2860]]
each bin's breakpoint distance were used to calculated that bin's
respective monthly sighting rates (e.g., all sightings from 0- to 74-m
are included in the sighting rates calculated for bin number 1, all
sightings from 0 to 1,651-m are included in the sighting rates
calculated for bin number 2, and so on). NES1 construction is
anticipated to take place from April through November 2024, therefore
monthly sighting rates were only derived for these months (table 9).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JA24.041
Potential exposures (equated with takes) of CIBWs were calculated
by multiplying the total number of vibratory installation or removal
hours per month for each sized/shaped pile based on the anticipated
construction schedule (table 1) with the corresponding sighting rate
month and sighting rate distance bin (table 10). For example, the Level
B harassment isopleth distance for the vibratory installation of 24-
inch (61-cm) piles is 2,245-m, which falls within bin number 3 (table
9). Therefore, take for this activity was calculated by multiplying the
total number of hours estimated each month to install 24-inch (61-cm)
piles via a vibratory hammer by the monthly CIBW sighting rates
calculated for bin number 3 (table 10). The resulting estimated CIBW
exposures were totaled for all activities in each month (table 11).
In their calculation of CIBW take, the POA assumed that only 24-
inch (61-cm) template piles will be installed (rather than 36-inch (91-
cm)) and removed during the project. If 36-inch (91-cm) piles are used
for temporary stability template piles, it is assumed that the
potential impacts of this alternate construction scenario and method on
marine mammals are fungible (i.e., that potential impacts of
installation and removal of 36-inch (91-cm) steel pipe piles will be
similar to the potential impacts of installation and removal of 24-inch
(61-cm) steel pipe piles based on the estimated ensonified areas and
relevant sighting rate bins). Using the monthly activity estimates in
hours (table 1) and monthly calculated sighting rates (CIBWs/hour) for
the spatially derived distance bins (table 10), the POA estimated that
there could be up to 122 (121.1 rounded up to 122) instances of CIBW
take where during the NES1 project (table 11).
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 2861]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JA24.042
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
For the PCT (85 FR 19294, April 6, 2020) and SFD (86 FR 50057,
September 7, 2021) projects, NMFS accounted for the implementation of
mitigation measures (e.g., shutdown procedures implemented when CIBWs
entered or approached the estimated Level B harassment zone) by
applying an
[[Page 2862]]
adjustment factor to CIBW take estimates. This was based on the
assumption that some Level B harassment takes will likely be avoided
based on required shutdowns for CIBWs at the Level B harassment zones
(see the Mitigation section of those notices for more information). For
the PCT project, NMFS compared the number of realized takes at the POA
to the number of authorized takes for previous projects from 2008 to
2017 and found the percentage of realized takes ranged from 12 to 59
percent with an average of 36 percent (85 FR 19294, April 6, 2020).
NMFS then applied the highest percentage of previous realized takes (59
percent during the 2009-2010 season) to ensure potential takes of CIBWs
were fully evaluated. In doing so, NMFS assumed that approximately 59
percent of the takes calculated would be realized during PCT and SFD
construction (85 FR 19294, April 6, 2020; 86 FR 50057, September 7,
2021) and that 41 percent of the calculated CIBW Level B harassment
takes would be avoided by successful implementation of required
mitigation measures.
The POA calculated the adjustment for successful implementation of
mitigation measures for NES1 using the percentage of realized takes for
the PCT project (see table 6-12 in the POA's application). The recent
data from PCT Phase 1 and PCT Phase 2 most accurately reflected the
current marine mammal monitoring program, the current program's
effectiveness, and CIBW occurrence in the NES1 project area. Between
the 2 phases of the PCT project, 90 total Level B harassment takes were
authorized and 53 were potentially realized (i.e., number of CIBWs
observed within estimated Level B harassment zones), equating to an
overall percentage of 59 percent. The SFD Project, during which only 7
percent of authorized take was potentially realized, represented
installation of only 12 piles during a limited time period and does not
represent the much higher number of piles and longer construction
season anticipated for NES1.
NMFS has determined that the 59-percent adjustment accurately
accounts for the efficacy of the POA's marine mammal monitoring program
and required shutdown protocols. NMFS therefore assumes that
approximately 59 percent of the takes calculated for NES1 may actually
be realized. This adjusts the potential takes by Level B harassment of
CIBWs authorized from 122 to 72 (table 11). Take by Level A harassment
is not anticipated or authorized because the POA will be required to
shutdown activities when CIBWs approach and or enter the Level B
harassment zone (see the Mitigation section for more information).
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JA24.043
In summary, the total amount of Level A harassment and Level B
harassment authorized for each marine mammal stock is presented in
table 12.
[[Page 2863]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JA24.044
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
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 (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for ITAs 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, NMFS
considers 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, and impact on
operations.
The POA presented mitigation measures in section 11 of their
application that were modeled after the requirements included in the
IHAs issued for Phase 1 and Phase 2 PCT construction (85 FR 19294,
April 6, 2020) and for SFD construction (86 FR 50057, September 7,
2021), which were designed to minimize the total number, intensity, and
duration of harassment events for CIBWs and other marine mammal species
during those projects (61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b). NMFS
concurred that these proposed measures reduce the potential for CIBWs,
and other marine mammals, to be adversely impacted by the planned
activity.
The POA must employ the following mitigation measures:
Ensure that construction supervisors, crews, contractors,
other personnel operating at the site, the monitoring team, and
relevant POA staff are trained on all mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements, and all implementing protocols or procedures,
as relevant to their respective role or position prior to the start of
all pile installation and removal activities, so that responsibilities,
communication procedures, monitoring protocols, and operational
procedures
[[Page 2864]]
are clearly understood. New personnel joining during the project must
be trained prior to commencing work;
Employ PSOs and establish monitoring locations as
described in section 5 of the IHA and the POA's Marine Mammal
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (see appendix B of the POA's
application). The POA must monitor the project area to the maximum
extent possible based on the required number of PSOs, required
monitoring locations, and environmental conditions;
The POA, construction supervisors and crews, PSOs, and
relevant POA staff must avoid direct physical interaction with marine
mammals during construction activities. If a marine mammal comes within
10-m of such activity, operations shall cease and vessels must reduce
speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe
working conditions, as necessary to avoid direct physical interaction;
Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to
initiation of pile driving (i.e., pre-start clearance monitoring)
through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving;
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 13 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 or when the mitigation measures required specifically for CIBWs
(below) are satisfied;
For all construction activities, shutdown zones must be
established following table 13. The purpose of a shutdown zone is
generally to define an area within which shutdown of activity will
occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal
entering the defined area). In addition to the shutdown zones specified
in table 13 and the minimum shutdown zone of 10-m described above,
requirements included in NMFS' IHA, the POA will implement a minimum
100-m shutdown zone around the active NES1 project work site, including
around activities other than pile installation or removal that NMFS has
determined do not present a reasonable potential to cause take of
marine mammals. Shutdown zones for pile installation and removal will
vary based on the type of construction activity and by marine mammal
hearing group (table 13). Here, shutdown zones are larger than or equal
to the calculated Level A harassment isopleths shown in table 6 for
species other than CIBW and are equal to the estimated Level B
harassment isopleths for CIBWs;
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JA24.045
Marine mammals observed anywhere within visual range of
the PSO must be tracked relative to construction activities. If a
marine mammal is observed entering or within the shutdown zones
indicated in table 13, 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 13, or 15 minutes (non-CIBWs) or 30 minutes (CIBWs) have passed
without re-detection of the animal;
The POA 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. PSOs shall begin observing for marine mammals 30
minutes before ``soft start'' or in-water pile installation or removal
begins; and
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.
The following additional mitigation measures are required for
CIBWs:
The POA must make all practicable efforts to complete
construction activities between April and July, when CIBWs are
typically found in lower numbers near the NES1 site;
[[Page 2865]]
Prior to the onset of pile driving or removal, should a
CIBW be observed within the estimated Level B harassment zone (table 7)
(i.e. the CIBWs shutdown zone column in table 13), pile driving must
not commence until the whale(s) has voluntarily traveled at least 100-m
beyond the estimated Level B harassment zone and is on a path away from
such zone, or the whale has not been re-sighted within 30 minutes;
If pile installation or removal has commenced, and a
CIBW(s) is observed within or likely to enter the estimated Level B
harassment zone, pile installation or removal must be delayed. Pile
driving may not commence until the whale has voluntarily traveled at
least 100-m beyond the Level B harassment zone and is on a path away
from such zone, or until no CIBW has been observed in the Level B
harassment zone for 30 minutes; and
If during installation and removal of piles, PSOs can no
longer effectively monitor the entirety of the CIBW Level B harassment
zone due to environmental conditions (e.g., fog, rain, wind), pile
driving may continue only until the current segment of the pile is
driven; no additional sections of pile or additional piles may be
driven until conditions improve such that the Level B harassment zone
can be effectively monitored. If the Level B harassment zone cannot be
monitored for more than 15 minutes, the entire Level B harassment zone
will be cleared again for 30 minutes prior to pile driving.
In addition to these additional mitigation measures, NMFS had
requested that the POA restrict all pile driving and removal work to
April to July, when CIBWs are typically found in lower numbers.
However, given the safety and environmental concerns of collapse of the
Northern Extension once removal work commences, required sequencing of
pile installation and removal and fill removal, and uncertainties and
adaptive nature of the work, the POA stated that it cannot commit to
restricting pile driving and removal to April to July. Instead, as
required in the mitigation measures, NMFS will require the POA to
complete as much work as is practicable in April to July to reduce the
amount of pile driving and removal activities needed in August through
November.
For previous IHAs issued to the POA (PCT: 85 FR 19294, April 6,
2020; SFD: 86 FR 50057, September 7, 2021), the use of a bubble curtain
to reduce noise has been required as a mitigation measure for certain
pile driving scenarios. The POA did not propose to use a bubble curtain
system during the NES1 project, stating that it is not a practicable
mitigation measure for this demolition project. NMFS concurred with
this determination. Practicability concerns include the following:
NES1 construction activities include installation of
round, temporary, stability template piles to shore up the filled NES1
structure while fill material and sheet piles are removed. Stability
template piles that will be required for demolition of the sheet pile
structure are located in proximity of the sheet piles. A bubble curtain
will not physically fit between the sheet piles and the template piles;
Bubble curtains cannot be installed around the sheet piles
as they are removed because the structure consists of sheet piles that
are connected to one another and used to support fill-material. It will
not be possible to place a bubble curtain system along the sheet pile
face for similar reasons, including lack of space for the bubble
curtain and the structures and equipment that will be needed to install
and operate it, and the high likelihood that it could not function or
be retrieved; and
NES1 is a failed structure, and has been deemed ``globally
unstable'' and poses significant risk for continued deterioration and
structural collapse. If the existing structure were to collapse during
deconstruction and sheet pile removal, there is risk of a significant
release of impounded fill material into CIBW habitat, the POA's vessel
operating and mooring areas, and the USACE Anchorage Harbor Project.
Due to the stability risk of the existing impounded material, it is
expected that construction and demolition means and methods will be
highly adaptive once actual field work commences, and use of a bubble
curtain with deconstruction will limit operations in the field and
create significant health and safety issues.
The POA also has efficacy concerns about requiring a bubble curtain
for NES1 construction activities. Adding a requirement for a bubble
curtain may hinder production, due to the time required to install and
remove the bubble curtain itself. This has the potential to drive the
in-water construction schedule further into the late summer months,
which are known for higher CIBW abundance in lower Knik Arm, thus
lengthening the duration of potential interactions between CIBW and in-
water work. Therefore, NMFS is concerned that use of a bubble curtain
may not be an effective measure, given the potential that bubble
curtain use could ultimately result in increased impacts to CIBW, in
addition to the aforementioned practicability issues.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's planned measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the
mitigation measures required herein provide the means of effecting the
least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and
areas of similar significance.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while
conducting the activities. 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 activity; 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,
[[Page 2866]]
acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of marine
mammal habitat); and
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The POA will implement a marine mammal monitoring and mitigation
strategy intended to avoid and minimize impacts to marine mammals (see
appendix B of the POA's application for their Marine Mammal Monitoring
and Mitigation Plan). Marine mammal monitoring will be conducted at all
times when in-water pile installation and removal is taking place.
Additionally, PSOs will be on-site monitoring for marine mammals during
in-water cutting of sheet piles with shears or an ultrathermic torch.
The marine mammal monitoring and mitigation program that is planned
for NES1 construction is modeled after the stipulations outlined in the
IHAs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 PCT construction (85 FR 19294, April 6,
2020) and the IHA for SFD construction (86 FR 50057, September 7,
2021).
Visual Monitoring
Monitoring must be conducted by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, in
accordance with the following:
PSOs must be independent of the activity contractor (e.g.,
employed by a subcontractor) 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 ITA or Letter of Concurrence. Other PSOs may substitute
other relevant experience (including relevant Alaska native traditional
knowledge), education (degree in biological science or related field),
or training for prior experience performing the duties of a PSO. PSOs
must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any activity subject to
this IHA;
The POA must employ PSO stations at a minimum of two
locations from which PSOs can effectively monitor the shutdown zones
(table 13). Concerns about the stability of the NES1 project area
preclude determination of the exact number and locations of PSO
stations until the Construction Contractor develops their Construction
Work Plan. PSO stations must be positioned at the best practical
vantage points that are determined to be safe. Likely locations include
the Anchorage Public Boat Dock at Ship Creek to the south of the NES1
project site, and a location to the north of the project site, such as
the northern end of POA property near Cairn Point (see North Extension
area on figure 12-1 in the POA's application) or at Port MacKenzie
across Knik Arm (see figure 12-1 in the POA's application for potential
locations of PSO stations). A location near the construction activity
may not be possible given the risk of structural collapse as outlined
in the POA's IHA application. Placing a PSO on the northernmost portion
of Terminal 3 will also be considered if deemed safe. Areas near Cairn
Point or Port MacKenzie have safety, security, and logistical issues,
which will need to be considered. Cairn Point proper is located on
military land and has bear presence, and restricted access does not
allow for the location of an observation station at this site.
Tidelands along Cairn Point are accessible only during low tide
conditions and have inherent safety concerns of being trapped by rising
tides. Port MacKenzie is a secure port that is relatively remote,
creating safety, logistical, and physical staffing limitations due to
lack of nearby lodging and other facilities. The roadway travel time
between port sites is approximately 2-3 hours. An adaptive management
measure is planned for a monitoring location north of the project site,
once the Construction Contractor has been selected and more detailed
discussions can occur. Temporary staffing of a northerly monitoring
station during peak marine mammal presence time periods and/or when
shutdown zones are large will be considered;
PSOs stations must be elevated platforms constructed on
top of shipping containers or a similar base that is at least 8' 6''
high (i.e., the standard height of a shipping container) that can
support up to three PSOs and their equipment. The platforms must be
stable enough to support use of a theodolite and must be located to
optimize the PSO's ability to observe marine mammals and the harassment
zones;
Each PSO station must have at least two PSOs on watch at
any given time; one PSO must be observing, one PSO must be recording
data (and observing when there are no data to record). Teams of three
PSOs must include at least one PSO who must be observing and one PSO
who must be recording data (and observing when there are no data to
record). The third PSO may help to observe, record data, or rest. In
addition, if POA is conducting non-NES1-related in-water work that
includes PSOs, the NES1 PSOs must be in real-time contact with those
PSOs, and both sets of PSOs must share all information regarding marine
mammal sightings with each other;
A designated lead PSO must always be on site. The lead
observer must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO
during in-water construction activities pursuant to a NMFS-issued ITA
or Letter of Concurrence. Each PSO station must also have a designated
lead PSO specific to that station and shift;
PSOs will use a combination of equipment to perform marine
mammal observations and to verify the required monitoring distance from
the project site, including 7 by 50 binoculars, 20x/40x tripod mounted
binoculars, 25 by 150 ``big eye'' tripod mounted binoculars, and
theodolites; and
PSOs must record all observations of marine mammals,
regardless of distance from the pile being driven. PSOs shall document
any behavioral responses 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 record required information
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.
Reporting
NMFS will require the POA to submit interim weekly and monthly
monitoring reports during the NES1 construction season. These reports
must include a summary of marine mammal species and behavioral
observations, construction shutdowns or delays, and construction work
completed. They also must include an assessment of the amount of
construction remaining to be completed (i.e., the number of estimated
hours of work remaining), in addition to the number of CIBWs observed
within estimated harassment zones to date.
A draft summary marine mammal monitoring report (that includes
final electronic data sheets) must be submitted to NMFS within 90 days
after the completion of all construction activities, or 60 days prior
to a requested
[[Page 2867]]
date of issuance of any future ITA for projects at the same location,
whichever comes first. The report will include an overall description
of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and
associated PSO data sheets. PSO data sheets should be submitted in a
format that can be queried such as a spreadsheet or database (i.e.,
digital images of data sheets are not sufficient). 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 or vibratory), the total
equipment duration for vibratory installation and removal, and the
total number of strikes for each pile during 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 (minimum, maximum, and 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; group spread and
formation (for CIBWs only); description of any marine mammal behavioral
observations (e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling),
including an assessment of behavioral responses that may 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; and
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.
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft
final report will constitute the final report. If comments are
received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted
within 30 days after receipt of comments.
Reporting Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the IHA-holder must
immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to
OPR, NMFS ([email protected]), and to the Alaska
Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. If the death or
injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, the POA 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 POA must not resume their activities until notified by
NMFS. The report must include the following information:
Time, date, and location (latitude and longitude) of the
first discovery (and updated location information if known and
applicable);
Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if
the animal is dead);
Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
If available, photographs or video footage of the
animal(s); and
General circumstances under which the animal was
discovered.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any impacts or responses (e.g., intensity, duration),
the context of any impacts or responses (e.g., critical reproductive
time or location, foraging impacts affecting energetics), as well as
effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We
also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by
evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent
with the 1989 preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations (54 FR 40338,
September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing
anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the 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, this introductory discussion of our analysis
applies to all the species listed in table 12, except CIBWs, given that
many of the anticipated effects of this project on different marine
mammal stocks are expected to be relatively similar in nature. For
CIBWs, there are meaningful differences in anticipated individual
responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population, or
impacts on habitat; therefore, we provide a separate detailed analysis
for CIBWs following the analysis for other species for which we
authorize take.
NMFS has identified key factors which may be employed to assess the
level of analysis necessary to conclude whether potential impacts
associated with a specified activity should be considered negligible.
These include (but are not limited to) the type and magnitude of
taking, the amount and importance of the available habitat for the
species or stock that is affected, the duration of the anticipated
effect to the species or stock, and the status of the species or stock.
The potential effects of the specified actions on gray whales, humpback
whales, killer whales, harbor porpoises, Steller sea lions, and harbor
seals are discussed below. Some of these factors also apply to CIBWs;
however, a more detailed analysis for CIBWs is provided in a separate
sub-section below.
Pile driving associated with the project, as outlined previously,
has 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
[[Page 2868]]
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.
The POA's planned activities and associated impacts will occur
within a limited, confined area of the stocks' range. The work will
occur in the vicinity of the NES1 site and sound from the planned
activities will be blocked by the coastline along Knik Arm along the
eastern boundaries of the site, and for those harassment isopleths that
extend more than 3,000-m (i.e., the vibratory installation of 36-inch
(91-cm) piles and vibratory removal of 24-inch (61-inch) piles),
directly across the Arm along the western shoreline (see figure 6-4 in
the POA's application)). The intensity and duration of take by Level A
and Level B harassment will be minimized through use of mitigation
measures described herein. Further the amount of take authorized is
small when compared to stock abundance (see table 12). In addition,
NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality will occur as
a result of the POA's planned activity given the nature of the
activity, even in the absence of required mitigation.
Exposures to elevated sound levels produced during pile driving may
cause behavioral disturbance of some individuals. Behavioral responses
of marine mammals to pile driving at the NES1 project site are expected
to be mild, short term, and temporary. Effects on individuals that are
taken by Level B harassment, as enumerated in the Estimated Take
section, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as
monitoring from other similar activities at the POA and elsewhere, will
likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds,
increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were
occurring; e.g., Ridgway et al., 1997; Nowacek et al., 2007; Thorson
and Reyff, 2006; Kendall and Cornick, 2015; Goldbogen et al., 2013b;
Piwetz et al., 2021). 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 or increased haul out time (e.g., Tougaard et
al., 2003; Carstensen et al., 2006; Thorson and Reyff, 2006; Parks et
al., 2007; Brandt et al., 2011; Graham et al., 2017). However, as
described in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine
Mammals and Their Habitat section of the Federal Register notice of the
proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023), marine mammals, excepting
CIBWs, observed within Level A and Level B harassment zones related to
recent POA construction activities have not shown any acute observable
reactions to pile driving activities that have occurred during the PCT
and SFD projects (61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b).
Some of the species present in the region will only be present
temporarily based on seasonal patterns or during transit between other
habitats. These temporarily present species will be exposed to even
smaller periods of noise-generating activity, further decreasing the
impacts. Most likely, individual animals will simply move away from the
sound source and be temporarily displaced from the area. Takes may also
occur during important feeding times. The project area though
represents a small portion of available foraging habitat and impacts on
marine mammal feeding for all species should be minimal.
The activities analyzed here are similar to numerous other
construction activities conducted in Alaska (e.g., 86 FR 43190, August
6, 2021; 87 FR 15387, March 18, 2022), including the PCT and SFD
projects within Upper Knik Arm (85 FR 19294, April 6, 2020; 86 FR
50057, September 7, 2021, respectively) which have taken place with no
known long-term adverse consequences from behavioral harassment. Any
potential reactions and behavioral changes are expected to subside
quickly when the exposures cease and, therefore, no such long-term
adverse consequences should be expected (e.g., Graham et al., 2017).
For example, harbor porpoises returned to a construction area between
pile-driving events within several days during the construction of
offshore wind turbines near Denmark (Carstensen et al., 2006). The
intensity of Level B harassment events will be minimized through use of
mitigation measures described herein, which were not quantitatively
factored into the take estimates. The POA will use PSOs stationed
strategically to increase detectability of marine mammals during in-
water construction activities, enabling a high rate of success in
implementation of shutdowns to avoid or minimize injury for most
species. Further, given the absence of any major rookeries and haulouts
within the estimated harassment zones, we assume that potential takes
by Level B harassment will have an inconsequential short-term effect on
individuals and will not result in population-level impacts.
As stated in the mitigation section, the POA will implement
shutdown zones that equal or exceed the Level A harassment isopleths
shown in table 7. Take by Level A harassment is authorized for some
species (harbor seals and harbor porpoises) to account for the
potential that an animal could enter and remain within the Level A
harassment zone for a duration long enough to incur PTS. Any take by
Level A harassment is expected to arise from, at most, a small degree
of PTS because animals will 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.
Due to the levels and durations of likely exposure, animals that
experience PTS will likely only receive slight PTS, i.e., minor
degradation of hearing capabilities within regions of hearing that
align most completely with the frequency range of the energy produced
by POA's in-water construction activities (i.e., the low-frequency
region below 2 kHz), not severe hearing impairment or impairment in the
ranges of greatest hearing sensitivity. If hearing impairment does
occur, it is most likely that the affected animal will lose a few dBs
in its hearing sensitivity, which in most cases is not likely to
meaningfully affect its ability to forage and communicate with
conspecifics. There are no data to suggest that a single instance in
which an animal accrues PTS (or TTS) and is subject to behavioral
disturbance will result in impacts to reproduction or survival. If PTS
were to occur, it will be at a lower level likely to accrue to a
relatively small portion of the population by being a stationary
activity in one particular location. 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 is not expected to
adversely impact individual fitness, let alone annual rates of
recruitment or survival.
Theoretically, repeated, sequential exposure to pile driving noise
over a long duration could result in more severe impacts to individuals
that could affect a population (via sustained or repeated disruption of
important behaviors such as feeding, resting, traveling, and
socializing; Southall et al., 2007). Alternatively, marine mammals
exposed to repetitious construction sounds may become
[[Page 2869]]
habituated, desensitized, or tolerant after initial exposure to these
sounds (reviewed by Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al., 2007).
Given that marine mammals still frequent and use Knik Arm despite being
exposed to pile driving activities across many years, these severe
population level impacts are not anticipated. The absence of any
pinniped haulouts or other known non-CIBW home-ranges in the NES1
action area further decreases the likelihood of severe population level
impacts.
The NES1 project is also not expected to have significant adverse
effects on any marine mammal habitat. The project activities will occur
within the same footprint as existing marine infrastructure, and when
construction is complete, subtidal and intertidal habitats previously
lost at the project site will be restored. Impacts to the immediate
substrate are anticipated, but these will be limited to minor,
temporary suspension of sediments, which can impact water quality and
visibility for a short amount of time but which will not be expected to
have any effects on individual marine mammals. While the area is
generally not high quality habitat, it is expected to be of higher
quality to marine mammals and fish after NES1 construction is complete
as the site returns to its natural state and is colonized by marine
organisms. Further, there are no known BIAs near the project zone,
except for CIBWs, that will be impacted by the POA's planned
activities.
Impacts to marine mammal prey species are also expected to be minor
and temporary and to 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. Overall, the area impacted by the NES1
project is very small compared to the available surrounding habitat,
and does not include habitat of particular importance. The most likely
impact to prey will be temporary behavioral avoidance of the immediate
area. During construction activities, it is expected that some fish and
marine mammals will temporarily leave the area of disturbance, thus
impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion
of their foraging range. But, because of the relatively small area of
the habitat that may be affected, and lack of any habitat of particular
importance, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to
cause significant or long-term negative consequences. Further, as
described above, additional habitat for marine mammal prey will be
available after the completion of the POA's construction activities
likely providing additional foraging, migrating, and rearing habitats
to fish and foraging habitat to marine mammals.
In summary and as described above, the following factors support
our negligible impact determinations for the affected stocks of gray
whales, humpback whales, killer whales, harbor porpoises, Steller sea
lions, and harbor seals:
No takes by mortality or serious injury are anticipated or
authorized;
Any acoustic impacts to marine mammal habitat from pile
driving (including to prey sources as well as acoustic habitat, and
including resulting behavioral impacts e.g., from masking) are expected
to be temporary and minimal;
Take will not occur in places and/or times where take will
be more likely to accrue to impacts on reproduction or survival, such
as within ESA-designated or proposed critical habitat, BIAs, or other
habitats critical to recruitment or survival (e.g., rookery);
The project area represents a very small portion of the
available foraging area for all potentially impacted marine mammal
species;
Take will only occur within upper Cook Inlet--a limited,
confined area of any given stock's home range;
Monitoring reports from similar work in Knik Arm have
documented little to no observable effect on individuals of the same
species impacted by the specified activities;
The required mitigation measures (i.e., soft starts, pre-
clearance monitoring, shutdown zones) are expected to be effective in
reducing the effects of the specified activity by minimizing the
numbers of marine mammals exposed to injurious levels of sound, and by
ensuring that any take by Level A harassment is, at most, a small
degree of PTS and of a lower degree that will not impact the fitness of
any animals; and
The intensity of anticipated takes by Level B harassment
is low for all stocks consisting of, at worst, temporary modifications
in behavior, and will not be of a duration or intensity expected to
result in impacts on reproduction or survival.
Cook Inlet Beluga Whales. For CIBWs, we further discuss our
negligible impact findings in the context of potential impacts to this
endangered stock based on our evaluation of the take authorized (table
12).
As described in the Recovery Plan for the CIBW (NMFS, 2016b), NMFS
determined the following physical or biological features are essential
to the conservation of this species: (1) Intertidal and subtidal waters
of Cook Inlet with depths less than 9-m mean lower low water and within
8-km of high and medium flow anadromous fish streams; (2) Primary prey
species consisting of four species of Pacific salmon (Chinook, sockeye,
chum, and coho), Pacific eulachon, Pacific cod, walleye pollock,
saffron cod, and yellowfin sole; (3) Waters free of toxins or other
agents of a type and amount harmful to CIBWs; (4) Unrestricted passage
within or between the critical habitat areas; and (5) Waters with in-
water noise below levels resulting in the abandonment of critical
habitat areas by CIBWs. The NES1 project will not impact essential
features 1-3 listed above. All construction will be done in a manner
implementing best management practices to preserve water quality, and
no work will occur around creek mouths or river systems leading to prey
abundance reductions. In addition, no physical structures will restrict
passage; however, impacts to the acoustic habitat are relevant and
discussed here.
Monitoring data from the POA suggest pile driving does not
discourage CIBWs from entering Knik Arm and traveling to critical
foraging grounds such as those around Eagle Bay (e.g., 61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022).
As described in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine
Mammals and Their Habitat section of the Federal Register notice of the
proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023), sighting rates were not
different in the presence or absence of pile driving (Kendall and
Cornick, 2015). In addition, large numbers of CIBWs have continued to
use Knik Arm and pass through the area during pile driving projects
that have taken place at the POA during the past two decades (Funk et
al., 2005; Prevel-Ramos et al., 2006; Markowitz and McGuire, 2007;
Cornick and Saxon-Kendall, 2008, 2009; ICRC, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012;
Cornick et al., 2010, 2011; Cornick and Pinney, 2011; Cornick and
Seagars, 2016; POA, 2019), including during the recent PCT and SFD
construction projects (61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Easley-
Appleyard and Leonard, 2022). These findings are not surprising as food
is a strong motivation for marine mammals. As described in Forney et
al. (2017), animals typically favor particular areas because of their
importance for survival (e.g., feeding or breeding), and leaving may
have significant costs to fitness (reduced foraging success, increased
predation risk, increased exposure to other anthropogenic threats).
Consequently,
[[Page 2870]]
animals may be highly motivated to maintain foraging behavior in
historical foraging areas despite negative impacts (e.g., Rolland et
al., 2012). Previous monitoring data indicates CIBWs are responding to
pile driving noise, but not through abandonment of critical habitat,
including primary foraging areas north of the port. Instead, they
travel more often and faster past the POA, more quietly, and in tighter
groups (Kendall and Cornick, 2015; 61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a,
2022b).
While the habitat near the POA is not typically considered high
quality foraging habitat for CIBWs and feeding is not a predominant
behavior observed in CIBWs near the POA (61N Environmental, 2021,
2022a, 2022b; Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022), CIBWs have been
observed exhibiting foraging behaviors during pile driving activities
in the action area. For example, Saxon-Kendall et al. (2013) recorded
echolocation clicks (which can be indicative of feeding behavior)
during the MTRP both while pile driving was occurring and when it was
not. While the action area is located within designated essential fish
habitat (EFH) for chum, coho, Chinook, sockeye, and pink salmon; there
are no designated areas of particular concern in the vicinity of the
POA. Still, increased turbidity, elevation in noise levels during pile
driving, and small spills have the potential to impact fish, including
preferred prey of CIBWs including Pacific salmon (Chinook, sockeye,
chum, and coho), Pacific eulachon, Pacific cod, walleye pollock,
saffron cod, and yellowfin sole. However, CIBWs are known to typically
forage in or near river mouths (e.g., Six Mile Creek, Eagle River,
Eklutna River) from late spring through summer, which contain
predictable salmon runs, and in nearshore bays and estuaries in the
fall, when anadromous fish runs decline. Further, there is no evidence
to suggest that CIBWs are restricted in transiting between preferred
feeding areas during pile driving activities (e.g., 61N Environmental,
2021, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c; Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022). Thus,
while there may be some impacts to CIBW prey and CIBW foraging
behaviors in the action area, NMFS anticipates that these impacts would
be temporary, and most likely related to fish avoiding the action area.
NMFS does not anticipate that these impacts would rise to the level of
adversely impacting annual rates of recruitment or survival.
During PCT and SFD construction monitoring, little variability was
evident in CIBW behaviors recorded from month to month, or between
sightings that coincided with in-water pile installation and removal
and those that did not (61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Easley-
Appleyard and Leonard, 2022). Of the 386 CIBWs groups sighted during
PCT and SFD construction monitoring, 10 groups were observed during or
within minutes of in-water impact pile installation and 56 groups were
observed during or within minutes of vibratory pile installation or
removal (61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b). In general, CIBWs were
more likely to display no reaction or to continue to move towards the
PCT or SFD during pile installation and removal. In the situations
during which CIBWs showed a possible reaction (6 groups during impact
driving and 13 groups during vibratory driving), CIBWs were observed
either moving away immediately after the pile driving activities
started or were observed increasing their rate of travel.
NMFS funded a visual marine mammal monitoring project in 2021
(described in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine
Mammals and Their Habitat of the Federal Register notice of the
proposed IHA; 88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023) to supplement sighting
data collected by the POA monitoring program during non-pile driving
days in order to further evaluate the impacts of anthropogenic
activities on CIBWs (Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022). Preliminary
results suggest that group size ranged from 1 to 34 whales, with an
average of 3 to 5.6, depending on the month. September had the highest
sighting rate with 4.08 whales per hour, followed by October and August
(3.46 and 3.41, respectively). Traveling was recorded as the primary
behavior for 80 percent of the group sightings and milling was the
secondary behavior most often recorded. Sighting duration varied from a
single surfacing lasting less than 1 minute to 380 minutes. Preliminary
findings suggest these results are consistent with the results from the
POA's PCT and SFD monitoring efforts. For example, group sizes ranged
from 2.38 to 4.32 depending on the month and the highest sighting rate
was observed in September (1.75). In addition, traveling was the
predominant behavior observed for all months and categories of
construction activity (i.e., no pile driving, before pile driving,
during pile driving, between pile driving, or after pile driving),
being recorded as the primary behavior for 86 percent of all sightings,
and either the primary or secondary behavior for 95 percent of
sightings.
Easley-Appleyard and Leonard (2022) also asked PSOs to complete a
questionnaire post-monitoring that provided NMFS with qualitative data
regarding CIBW behavior during observations. Specifically during pile
driving events, the PSOs noted that CIBW behaviors varied; however,
multiple PSOs noted seeing behavioral changes specifically during
impact pile driving (which will only be used when necessary to loosen
piles for vibratory removal or direct pulling during the NES1 project)
and not during vibratory pile driving. CIBWs were observed sometimes
changing direction, turning around, or changing speed during impact
pile driving. There were numerous instances where CIBWs were seen
traveling directly towards the POA during vibratory pile driving before
entering the Level B harassment zone (POA was required to shutdown
prior to CIBWs entering the Level B harassment zone), which is
consistent with findings during the POA's PCT and SFD monitoring
efforts (61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b). The PSOs also reported
that it seemed more likely for CIBWs to show more cryptic behavior
during pile driving (e.g., surfacing infrequently and without clear
direction), though this seemed to vary across months (Easley-Appleyard
and Leonard, 2022).
We anticipate that disturbance to CIBWs will manifest in the same
manner when they are exposed to noise during the NES1 project: whales
will move quickly and silently through the area in more cohesive
groups. We do not believe exposure to elevated noise levels during
transit past the POA has adverse effects on reproduction or survival as
the whales continue to access critical foraging grounds north of the
POA, even if having shown a potential reaction during pile driving, and
tight associations help to mitigate the potential for any contraction
of communication space for a group. We also do not anticipate that
CIBWs will abandon entering or exiting Knik Arm, as this is not evident
based on previous years of monitoring data (e.g., Kendall and Cornick,
2015; 61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Easley-Appleyard and
Leonard, 2022), and the pre-pile driving clearance mitigation measure
is designed to further avoid any potential abandonment. Finally, as
described in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine
Mammals and Their Habitat of the Federal Register notice of the
proposed IHA (88 FR 76576, November 6, 2023), both telemetry (tagging)
and acoustic data suggest CIBWs likely stay in upper Knik Arm (i.e.,
north of the NES1 project site) for several days or weeks before
exiting Knik Arm. Specifically, a CIBW
[[Page 2871]]
instrumented with a satellite link time/depth recorder entered Knik Arm
on August 18, 1999 and remained in Eagle Bay until September 12, 1999
(Ferrero et al., 2000). Further, a recent detailed re-analysis of the
satellite telemetry data confirms how several tagged whales exhibited
this same movement pattern: whales entered Knik Arm and remained there
for several days before exiting through lower Knik Arm (Shelden et al.,
2018). This longer-term use of upper Knik Arm will avoid repetitive
exposures from pile driving noise.
There is concern that exposure to pile driving at the POA could
result in CIBWs avoiding Knik Arm and thereby not accessing the
productive foraging grounds north of POA such as Eagle River flats
thus, impacting essential feature number five above. Although the data
previously presented demonstrate CIBWs are not abandoning the area
(i.e., no significant difference in sighting rate with and without pile
driving), results of an expert elicitation (EE) at a 2016 workshop,
which predicted the impacts of noise on CIBW survival and reproduction
given lost foraging opportunities, helped to inform our assessment of
impacts on this stock. The 2016 EE workshop used conceptual models of
an interim population consequences of disturbance (PCoD) for marine
mammals (NRC, 2005; New et al., 2014; Tollit et al., 2016) to help in
understanding how noise-related stressors might affect vital rates
(survival, birth rate and growth) for CIBW (King et al., 2015). NMFS
(2016b) suggests that the main direct effects of noise on CIBW are
likely to be through masking of vocalizations used for communication
and prey location and habitat degradation. The 2016 workshop on CIBWs
was specifically designed to provide regulators with a tool to help
understand whether chronic and acute anthropogenic noise from various
sources and projects are likely to be limiting recovery of the CIBW
population. The full report can be found at https://www.smruconsulting.com/publications/ with a summary of the EE portion
of the workshop below.
For each of the noise effect mechanisms chosen for EE, the experts
provided a set of parameters and values that determined the forms of a
relationship between the number of days of disturbance a female CIBW
experiences in a particular period and the effect of that disturbance
on her energy reserves. Examples included the number of days of
disturbance during the period April, May, and June that would be
predicted to reduce the energy reserves of a pregnant CIBW to such a
level that she is certain to terminate the pregnancy or abandon the
calf soon after birth, the number of days of disturbance in the period
April-September required to reduce the energy reserves of a lactating
CIBW to a level where she is certain to abandon her calf, and the
number of days of disturbance where a female fails to gain sufficient
energy by the end of summer to maintain themselves and their calves
during the subsequent winter. Overall, median values ranged from 16 to
69 days of disturbance depending on the question. However, for this
elicitation, a ``day of disturbance'' was defined as any day on which
an animal loses the ability to forage for at least one tidal cycle
(i.e., it forgoes 50-100 percent of its energy intake on that day). The
day of disturbance considered in the context of the report is notably
more severe than the Level B harassment expected to result from these
activities, which as described is expected to be comprised
predominantly of temporary modifications in the behavior of individual
CIBWs (e.g., faster swim speeds, more cohesive group structure,
decreased sighting durations, cessation of vocalizations). Also, NMFS
authorized 72 instances of takes, with the instances representing
disturbance events within a day--this means that either 72 different
individual CIBWs are disturbed on no more than 1 day each, or some
lesser number of individuals may be disturbed on more than 1 day, but
with the product of individuals and days not exceeding 72. Given the
overall anticipated take, it is unlikely that any one CIBW will be
disturbed on more than a few days. Further, the mitigation measures
NMFS has prescribed for the NES1 project are designed to avoid the
potential that any animal will lose the ability to forage for one or
more tidal cycles should they be foraging in the NES1 project area,
which is not known to be a particularly important feeding area for
CIBWs. While Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) will be
authorized, the POA's mitigation measures will limit the severity of
the effects of that Level B harassment to behavioral changes such as
increased swim speeds, tighter group formations, and cessation of
vocalizations, not the loss of foraging capabilities. Regardless, this
elicitation recognized that pregnant or lactating females and calves
are inherently more at risk than other animals, such as males. NMFS has
determined all CIBWs warrant pile driving shutdown to be protective of
potential vulnerable life stages, such as pregnancy, that cannot be
determined from observations, and to avoid more severe behavioral
reaction.
NMFS has prescribed mitigation measures to minimize exposure to
CIBWs, specifically, shutting down pile driving should a CIBW approach
or enter the Level B harassment zone. These measures are designed to
ensure CIBWs will not abandon critical habitat and exposure to pile
driving noise will not result in adverse impacts on the reproduction or
survival of any individuals. The location of the PSOs will allow for
detection of CIBWs and behavioral observations prior to CIBWs entering
the Level B harassment zone. Further, impact driving appeared to cause
behavioral reactions more readily than vibratory hammering (61N
Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b), which will only be used in
situations where sheet piles remain seized in the sediments and cannot
be loosened or broken free with a vibratory hammer, which is expected
to be uncommon during the NES1 project. If impact driving does occur,
the POA must implement soft starts, which ideally allows animals to
leave a disturbed area before the full-power driving commences
(Tougaard et al., 2012). Although NMFS does not anticipate CIBWs will
abandon entering Knik Arm in the presence of pile driving with the
required mitigation measures, PSOs will be integral to identifying if
CIBWs are potentially altering pathways they would otherwise take in
the absence of pile driving. Finally, take by mortality, serious
injury, or Level A harassment of CIBWs is not anticipated or
authorized.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity
are not expected to adversely affect the CIBWs through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No mortality is anticipated or authorized;
The area of exposure will be limited to habitat primarily
used as a travel corridor. Data demonstrates Level B harassment of
CIBWs typically manifests as increased swim speeds past the POA,
tighter group formations, and cessation of vocalizations, rather than
through habitat abandonment;
No critical foraging grounds (e.g., Eagle Bay, Eagle
River, Susitna Delta) will be impacted by pile driving; and
While animals may be harassed more than once, exposures
are not likely to exceed more than a few per year for any given
individual and are not expected to occur on sequential days; thereby
decreasing the likelihood of physiological impacts caused by chronic
stress or masking.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
[[Page 2872]]
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the required monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from
the specified activity will have a negligible impact on all affected
marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals
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.
For all stocks, except for the Mexico-North Pacific stock of
humpback whales whose abundance estimate is unknown, the amount of
taking is less than one-third of the best available population
abundance estimate (in fact it is less than 2 percent for all stocks,
except for CIBWs whose authorized take is 22 percent of the stock;
table 12). The number of animals authorized to be taken from these
stocks would be considered small relative to the relevant stock's
abundances even if each estimated take occurred to a new individual.
The amount of take authorized likely represents smaller numbers of
individual harbor seals and Steller sea lions. Harbor seals tend to
concentrate near Ship Creek and have small home ranges. It is possible
that a single individual harbor seal may linger near the POA,
especially near Ship Creek, and be counted multiple times each day as
it moves around and resurfaces in different locations. Previous Steller
sea lion sightings identified that if a Steller sea lion is within Knik
Arm, it is likely lingering to forage on salmon or eulachon runs and
may be present for several days. Therefore, the amount of take
authorized likely represents repeat exposures to the same animals. For
all species, PSOs will count individuals as separate unless they cannot
be individually identified.
Abundance estimates for the Mexico-North Pacific stock of humpback
whales are based upon data collected more than 8 years ago and,
therefore, current estimates are considered unknown (Young et al.,
2023). The most recent minimum population estimates (NMIN)
for this population include an estimate of 2,241 individuals between
2003 and 2006 (Martinez-Aguilar, 2011) and 766 individuals between 2004
and 2006 (Wade, 2021). NMFS' Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal
Stocks suggest that the NMIN estimate of the stock should be
adjusted to account for potential abundance changes that may have
occurred since the last survey and provide reasonable assurance that
the stock size is at least as large as the estimate (NMFS, 2023b). The
abundance trend for this stock is unclear; therefore, there is no basis
for adjusting these estimates (Young et al., 2023). Assuming the
population has been stable, the 4 takes of this stock authorized
represents small numbers of this stock (0.18 percent of the stock
assuming a NMIN of 2,241 individuals and 0.52 percent of the
stock assuming an NMIN of 766 individuals).
Based on the analysis contained herein of the planned activity
(including the required mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of
marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the
affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified
activity will not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the
subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by
Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50
CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1)
That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing
the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly
displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
While no significant subsistence activity currently occurs within
or near the POA, Alaska Natives have traditionally harvested
subsistence resources, including marine mammals, in upper Cook Inlet
for millennia. CIBWs are more than a food source; they are important to
the cultural and spiritual practices of Cook Inlet Native communities
(NMFS, 2008b). Dena'ina Athabascans, currently living in the
communities of Eklutna, Knik, Tyonek, and elsewhere, occupied
settlements in Cook Inlet for the last 1,500 years and have been the
primary traditional users of this area into the present.
NMFS estimated that 65 CIBWs per year (range 21-123) were killed
between 1994 and 1998, including those successfully harvested and those
struck and lost. NMFS concluded that this number was high enough to
account for the estimated 14 percent annual decline in population
during this time (Hobbs et al., 2008); however, given the difficulty of
estimating the number of whales struck and lost during the hunts,
actual mortality may have been higher. During this same period,
population abundance surveys indicated a population decline of 47
percent, although the reason for this decline should not be associated
solely with subsistence hunting and likely began well before 1994 (Rugh
et al., 2000).
In 1999, a moratorium was enacted (Pub. L. 106-31) prohibiting the
subsistence harvest of CIBWs except through a cooperative agreement
between NMFS and the affected Alaska Native organizations. NMFS began
working cooperatively with the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council
(CIMMC), a group of tribes that traditionally hunted CIBWs, to
establish sustainable harvests. CIMMC voluntarily curtailed its
harvests in 1999. In 2000, NMFS designated the Cook Inlet stock of
beluga whales as depleted under the MMPA (65 FR 34590, May 31, 2000).
NMFS and CIMMC signed Co-Management of the Cook Inlet Stock of Beluga
Whales agreements in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006. CIBW
harvests between 1999 and 2006 resulted in the strike and harvest of
five whales, including one whale each in 2001, 2002, and 2003, and two
whales in 2005 (NMFS, 2008b). No hunt occurred in 2004 due to higher-
than-normal mortality of CIBWs in 2003, and the Native Village of
Tyonek agreed to not hunt in 2007. Since 2008, NMFS has examined how
many CIBWs could be harvested during 5-year intervals based on
estimates of population size and growth rate and determined that no
harvests would occur between 2008 and 2012 and between 2013 and 2017
(NMFS, 2008b). The CIMMC was disbanded by unanimous vote of the CIMMC
member Tribes' representatives in June 2012, and a replacement group of
Tribal members has not been formed
[[Page 2873]]
to date. There has been no subsistence harvest of CIBWs since 2005
(NMFS, 2022d).
Subsistence harvest of other marine mammals in upper Cook Inlet is
limited to harbor seals. Steller sea lions are rare in upper Cook
Inlet; therefore, subsistence use of this species is not common.
However, Steller sea lions are taken for subsistence use in lower Cook
Inlet. Residents of the Native Village of Tyonek are the primary
subsistence users in the upper Cook Inlet area. While harbor seals are
hunted for subsistence purposes, harvests of this for traditional and
subsistence uses by Native peoples have been low in upper Cook Inlet
(e.g., 33 harbor seals were harvested in Tyonek between 1983 and 2013;
see table 8-1 in the POA's application), although these data are not
currently being collected and summarized. As the POA's planned project
activities will take place within the immediate vicinity of the POA, no
activities will occur in or near Tyonek's identified traditional
subsistence hunting areas. As the harvest of marine mammals in upper
Cook Inlet is historically a small portion of the total subsistence
harvest, and the number of marine mammals using upper Cook Inlet is
proportionately small, the number of marine mammals harvested in upper
Cook Inlet is expected to remain low.
The potential impacts from harassment on stocks that are harvested
in Cook Inlet will be limited to minor behavioral changes (e.g.,
increased swim speeds, changes in dive time, temporary avoidance near
the POA, etc.) within the vicinity of the POA. Some PTS may occur;
however, the shift is likely to be slight due to the implementation of
mitigation measures (e.g., shutdown zones, pre-clearance monitoring,
soft starts) and the shift will be limited to lower pile driving
frequencies, which are on the lower end of phocid and otariid hearing
ranges. In summary, any impacts to harbor seals will be limited to
those seals within Knik Arm (outside of any hunting area) and the very
few takes of Steller sea lions in Knik Arm will be far removed in time
and space from any hunting in lower Cook Inlet.
The POA will communicate with representative Alaska Native
subsistence users and Tribal members to identify and explain the
measures that have been taken or will be taken to minimize any adverse
effects of NES1 on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence
uses. In addition, the POA will adhere to the following procedures
during Tribal consultation regarding marine mammal subsistence use
within the Project area:
(1) Send letters to the Kenaitze, Tyonek, Knik, Eklutna, Ninilchik,
Salamatof, and Chickaloon Tribes informing them of the planned project
(i.e., timing, location, and features). Include a map of the planned
project area; identify potential impacts to marine mammals and
mitigation efforts, if needed, to avoid or minimize impacts; and
inquire about possible marine mammal subsistence concerns they have;
(2) Follow up with a phone call to the environmental departments of
the seven Tribal entities to ensure that they received the letter,
understand the project, and have a chance to ask questions. Inquire
about any concerns they might have about potential impacts to
subsistence hunting of marine mammals;
(3) Document all communication between the POA and Tribes; and
(4) If any Tribes express concerns regarding project impacts to
subsistence hunting of marine mammals, propose a Plan of Cooperation
between the POA and the concerned Tribe(s).
The NES1 project features and activities, in combination with a
number of actions to be taken by the POA during project implementation,
should avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects on the
availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses. Furthermore,
although construction will occur within the traditional area for
hunting marine mammals, the project area is not currently used for
subsistence activities. In-water pile installation and removal will
follow mitigation procedures to minimize effects on the behavior of
marine mammals, and impacts will be temporary.
The POA has expressed, if desired, regional subsistence
representatives may support project marine mammal biologists during the
monitoring program by assisting with collection of marine mammal
observations and may request copies of marine mammal monitoring
reports.
Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures
described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine
mammals for subsistence purposes, and the required mitigation and
monitoring measures, NMFS has determined that there will not be an
unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from the POA's planned
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 OPR consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species, in this case with the NMFS Alaska
Regional Office.
There are three marine mammal species (the Mexico DPS and Western
North Pacific DPS of humpback whale, CIBWs, and western DPS Steller sea
lion) with confirmed occurrence in the project area that are listed as
endangered or threatened under the ESA. The NMFS Alaska Regional Office
issued a BiOp on December 15, 2023, under section 7 of the ESA, on the
issuance of an IHA to the POA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by
the NMFS OPR. The BiOp concluded that the specified action is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Mexico DPS and
Western North Pacific DPS of humpback whale, CIBWs, or western DPS
Steller sea lions, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify
CIBW critical habitat. There is no critical habitat designated for
humpback whales or Steller sea lions in the action area.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 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. Accordingly, NMFS prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA). The EA supported a FONSI. A copy of the EA and FONSI
is available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to the POA for the potential harassment of
small numbers of seven marine mammal species incidental to the NES1
project in Anchorage, Alaska, that includes the previously explained
mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements.
Dated: January 8, 2024.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-00511 Filed 1-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P