Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Eareckson Air Station Fuel Pier Repair in Alcan Harbor on Shemya Island, Alaska, 17423-17439 [2024-05105]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 48 / Monday, March 11, 2024 / Notices
display their official vessel
identification number. Numbers must be
permanently affixed to, or painted on,
the port and starboard sides of the
deckhouse or hull and on an
appropriate weather deck, so as to be
clearly visible from an enforcement
vessel or aircraft. In block Arabic
numerals permanently affixed to or
painted on the vessel in contrasting
color to the background. At least 18
inches (45.7 cm) in height for vessels
over 65 ft (19.8 m) in length; at least 10
inches (25.4 cm) in height for all other
vessels over 25 ft (7.6 m) in length; and
at least 3 inches (7.6 cm) in height for
vessels 25 ft (7.6 m) in length or less.
Furthermore, the owner or operator of
a vessel for which a permit has been
issued under § 635.4 and that uses
handline, buoy gear, harpoon, longline,
or gillnet, must display the vessel’s
name, registration number or Atlantic
Tunas, Atlantic HMS Angling, or
Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit
number on each float attached to a
handline, buoy gear, or harpoon, and on
the terminal floats and high-flyers (if
applicable) on a longline or gillnet used
by the vessel. The vessel’s name or
number must be at least 1 inch (2.5 cm)
in height in block letters or arabic
numerals in a color that contrasts with
the background color of the float or
high-flyer.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
II. Method of Collection
There is no form or information
collected under this requirement.
Official vessel numbers issued to vessel
operators are marked on the vessel and
on flotation gear, if applicable.
III. Data
OMB Control Number: 0648–0373.
Form Number(s): None.
Type of Review: Regular submission
(extension of a current information
collection).
Affected Public: Non-profit
institutions; State, local, or tribal
government; business or other for-profit
organizations (vessel owners).
Estimated Number of Respondents:
4,212.
Estimated Time per Response: 45
minutes to mark the vessel; 15 minutes
each to mark highflyers, buoys, and
floats.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 4,950 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to
Public: $513,810.
Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory.
Legal Authority: Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and the
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975
(16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Mar 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
IV. Request for Comments
We are soliciting public comments to
permit the Department/Bureau to: (a)
Evaluate whether the proposed
information collection is necessary for
the proper functions of the Department,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the
accuracy of our estimate of the time and
cost burden for this proposed collection,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c)
Evaluate ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) Minimize the
reporting burden on those who are to
respond, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. We will include or
summarize each comment in our request
to OMB to approve this ICR. Before
including your address, phone number,
email address, or other personal
identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you may ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Sheleen Dumas,
Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of
the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs,
Commerce Department.
[FR Doc. 2024–05134 Filed 3–8–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XD533]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to Eareckson Air
Station Fuel Pier Repair in Alcan
Harbor on Shemya Island, 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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17423
harassment authorization (IHA) to the
Pacific Air Forces Regional Support
Center (USAF) to incidentally harass
marine mammals during construction
activities associated with the Eareckson
Air Station (EAS) Fuel Pier Repair in
Alcan Harbor, Shemya Island, Alaska.
There are no changes from the proposed
authorization in this final authorization.
DATES: This authorization is effective
from April 1, 2024 through March 31,
2025.
Electronic copies of the
application and supporting documents,
as well as a list of the references cited
in this document cited in this
document, may be obtained online at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities. In case of
problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate
Fleming, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
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
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
17424
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 48 / Monday, March 11, 2024 / Notices
statutory terms cited above are included
in the relevant sections below.
Summary of Request
On May 15, 2023, NMFS received a
request from the USACE on behalf of
USAF for an IHA to take marine
mammals incidental to construction
associated with the EAS Fuel Pier
Repair in Alcan Harbor on Shemya
Island, Alaska. Following NMFS’ review
of the application, and discussions
between NMFS and USAF, the
application was deemed adequate and
complete on September 19, 2023. The
USAF’s request is for take of 12 species
of marine mammals, by Level B
harassment and, for a subset of these
species, Level A harassment. Neither
USAF nor NMFS expect serious injury
or mortality to result from this activity
and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
There are no changes from the proposed
IHA to the final IHA.
The IHA will be effective from April
1, 2024 to March 31, 2025.
Description of the Specified Activity
The USAF plans to conduct long-term
repairs on the only existing fuel pier at
EAS on Shemya Island, Alaska. The
activities that have the potential to take
marine mammals, by Level A
harassment and Level B harassment,
include down-the-hole (DTH) drilling,
vibratory and impact installation of
temporary and permanent steel pipe
piles, and vibratory removal of
temporary steel pipe piles, and would
introduce underwater sounds that may
result in take, by Level A harassment
and Level B harassment, of marine
mammals. The marine construction
associated with the planned activities is
planned to occur over 160 days over 1
year, accounting for weather delays and
mechanical issues. The IHA is effective
from April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025.
The fuel pier replacement project
would include the installation of an
interlocking steel pipe combi-wall
system, which will require the
installation and removal of 60 30-inch
(in) temporary steel pipe piles and the
installation of 208 42-in round steel
interlocking pipe piles using vibratory,
impact, and/or DTH methods.
A detailed description of the planned
construction project is provided in the
Federal Register notice for the proposed
IHA (88 FR 74451, October 31, 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.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue
an IHA to USAF was published in the
Federal Register on October 31, 2023
(88 FR 74451). That notice described, in
detail, USAF’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, the United States
Geological Survey noted that they have
‘‘no comment at this time.’’ NMFS
received no other public comments.
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application
summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution
and habitat preferences, and behavior
and life history of the potentially
affected species. 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).
Table 1 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 Endangered Species Act
(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 2022 SARs (Young
et al., 2023). All values presented in
table 1 are the most recent available at
the time of publication and are available
online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments.
TABLE 1—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES
Common name
Scientific name
Stock
I
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
I
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance
survey) 2
Annual
M/SI 3
PBR
I
I
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Order Artiodactyla—Infraorder Cetacea—Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenopteridae:
Fin Whale ...........................
Balaenoptera physalus .............
Northeast Pacific .......................
E, D, Y
Humpback Whale ...............
Megaptera novaeangliae ..........
Western North Pacific ...............
E, D, Y
Mexico—North Pacific ..............
Hawai1i ......................................
T, D, Y
-, -, N
Alaska .......................................
-, -, -
Minke Whale .......................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Balaenoptera acutorostrata ......
18:24 Mar 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
UND (UND, UND,
2013) 4.
1,084, (0.088, 1,007,
2006).
N/A (N/A, N/A, 2006) 5 ....
11,278 (0.56, 7,265,
2020).
N/A (N/A, N/A, N/A) 6 ......
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
UND
0.6
3
2.8
UND
127
0.56
19.6
UND
0
17425
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 48 / Monday, March 11, 2024 / Notices
TABLE 1—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES—Continued
Common name
Scientific name
Stock
I
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
I
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance
survey) 2
Annual
M/SI 3
PBR
I
I
Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Physeteridae:
Sperm whale .......................
UND
3.5
N/A (N/A, N/A, N/A) 8
N/A (N/A, N/A, N/A) 8
N/A
N/A
0
0
-, -, N
-, -, N
1,920 (N/A, 1,920, 2019)
587 (N/A, 587, 2012) ......
19
5.9
1.3
0.8
Alaska .......................................
-, -, N
UND
37
Bering Sea ................................
-, -, Y
UND (UND, UND, 2015)
9.
UNK (UNK, N/A, 2008)
10.
UND
0.4
11,403
373
318
254
97
90
Physeter macrocephalus ..........
North Pacific .............................
E, D, Y
UND (UND, UND,
2015) 7.
Berardius bairdii ........................
Mesoplodon stejnegeri ..............
Alaska .......................................
Alaska .......................................
-, -, N
-, -, N
Orcinus orca .............................
ENP Alaska Resident Stock .....
ENP Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian
Islands, and Bering Sea.
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Dall’s Porpoise ....................
Phocoenoides dalli ....................
Harbor Porpoise .................
Phocoena phocoena .................
Family Ziphiidae (beaked
whales):
Baird’s beaked whale .........
Stejneger’s Beaked Whale
Family Delphinidae:
Killer Whale ........................
Order Carnivora—Pinnipedia
Family Otariidae (eared seals
and sea lions):
Northern Fur Seal ...............
Callorhinus ursinus ...................
Eastern Pacific ..........................
-, D, Y
Steller Sea Lion ..................
Eumetopias jubatus ..................
Western, U.S. ...........................
E, D, Y
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor Seal ........................
Phoca vitulina ...........................
Aleutian Islands ........................
-, -, N
626,618 (0.2, 530,376,
2019).
52,932 (N/A, 52,932,
2019).
5,588 (N/A, 5,366, 2018)
1 Endangered
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the
ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or
which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically
designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars. CV is coefficient of variation; N
min is the minimum estimate of
stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable (explain if this is the case).
3 These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, vessel strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
4 The best available abundance estimate for this stock is not considered representative of the entire stock as surveys were limited to a small portion of the stock’s
range. Based upon this estimate and the Nmin, the PBR value is likely negatively biased for the entire stock.
5 Abundance estimates are based upon data collected more than 8 years ago and therefore current estimates are considered unknown.
6 Reliable population estimates are not available for this stock. Please see Friday et al. (2013) and Zerbini et al. (2006) for additional information on numbers of
minke whales in Alaska.
7 The most recent abundance estimate is likely unreliable as it covered a small area that may not have included females and juveniles, and did not account for animals missed on the trackline. The calculated PBR is not a reliable index for the stock as it is based upon negatively biased minimum abundance estimate.
8 Reliable abundance estimates for this stock are currently unavailable.
9 The best available abundance estimate is likely an underestimate for the entire stock because it is based upon a survey that covered only a small portion of the
stock’s range.
10 The best available abundance estimate and N
min are likely an underestimate for the entire stock because it is based upon a survey that covered only a small portion of the stock’s range. PBR for this stock is undetermined due to this estimate being older than 8 years.
As indicated above, all 12 species
(with 15 managed stocks) in table 1
temporally and spatially co-occur with
the activity to the degree that take is
reasonably likely to occur. All species
that could potentially occur in the
project area are included in table 3–1 of
the IHA application. While blue whale,
gray whale, North Pacific right whale,
Pacific white-sided dolphin, and ribbon
seal could occur in the area, the
temporal and/or 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. These
species all have extremely low
abundance and most are observed in
areas outside of the project area.
In addition, northern sea otter may be
found the western Aleutians. However,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Mar 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
this species is managed by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and is not
considered further in this document.
A detailed description of the of the
species likely to be affected by the
USAF’s project, including brief
introductions to the species and
relevant stocks as well as available
information regarding population trends
and threats, and information regarding
local occurrence, were provided in the
Federal Register notice for the proposed
IHA (88 FR 74451, October 31, 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://
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
17426
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 48 / Monday, March 11, 2024 / Notices
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-decibel
(dB) threshold from the normalized
composite audiograms, with the
exception for lower limits for low-
frequency cetaceans where the lower
bound was deemed to be biologically
implausible and the lower bound from
Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine
mammal hearing groups and their
associated hearing ranges are provided
in table 2.
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS
[NMFS, 2018]
Generalized
hearing range *
Hearing group
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) .....................................................................................................................
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) ...........................................
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L.
australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) ...................................................................................................................
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) ..............................................................................................
7 Hz to 35 kHz.
150 Hz to 160 kHz.
275 Hz to 160 kHz.
50 Hz to 86 kHz.
60 Hz to 39 kHz.
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’
hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65-dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram,
with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
The pinniped functional hearing
group was modified from Southall et al.
(2007) on the basis of data indicating
that phocid species have consistently
demonstrated an extended frequency
range of hearing compared to otariids,
especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemila¨ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al.,
2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013).
For more detail concerning these
groups and associated frequency ranges,
please see NMFS (2018) for a review of
available information.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
The effects of underwater noise from
the USAF’s construction activities have
the potential to result in behavioral
harassment of marine mammals in the
vicinity of the project area. The notice
of proposed IHA (88 FR 74451, October
31, 2023) included a discussion of the
effects of anthropogenic noise on marine
mammals and the potential effects of
underwater noise from the USAF’s
construction on marine mammals and
their habitat. That information and
analysis is incorporated by reference
into this final IHA determination and is
not repeated here; please refer to the
notice of proposed IHA (88 FR 74451,
October 31, 2023).
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes
authorized through this IHA, which will
inform both NMFS’ consideration of
‘‘small numbers,’’ and the negligible
impact 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Mar 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act
of pursuit, torment, or annoyance,
which: (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption
of behavioral patterns, including, but
not limited to, migration, breathing,
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
(Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be
by Level B harassment, as use of the
acoustic sources (i.e., impact and
vibratory pile driving and removal and
DTH) 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 mysticetes and/or high frequency
species and/or phocids because
predicted auditory injury zones are
larger than for mid-frequency species
and/or otariids. Auditory injury is
unlikely to occur for other groups. The
required 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 authorized take
numbers are 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
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 how take is
estimated.
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; Southall et
al., 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
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
17427
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 48 / Monday, March 11, 2024 / Notices
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 root-meansquared pressure received levels (RMS
SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1
micropascal (re 1 mPa)) for continuous
(e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and
above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 mPa for nonexplosive 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 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. USAF’s
planned activity includes the use of
continuous (vibratory pile driving and
removal and DTH) and impulsive
(impact pile driving and DTH) sources,
and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds
of 120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa is/are
applicable.
Level A Harassment—NMFS’
‘‘Technical Guidance for Assessing the
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on
Marine Mammal Hearing’’ (Version 2.0,
Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies
dual criteria to assess auditory injury
(Level A harassment) to five different
marine mammal groups (based on
hearing sensitivity) as a result of
exposure to noise from two different
types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). USAF’s planned activity
includes the use of impulsive (impact
pile driving and DTH) and nonimpulsive (vibratory pile driving and
removal and DTH) 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.
TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT
PTS onset acoustic thresholds *
(received level)
Hearing group
Impulsive
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ......................................
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ......................................
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans .....................................
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) Underwater) ...............................
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) .............................
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
1:
3:
5:
7:
9:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
219
230
202
218
232
dB;
dB;
dB;
dB;
dB;
Non-impulsive
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB .........................
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB .......................
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB .......................
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should
also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s.
In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI, 2013). However, peak sound pressure
is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being
included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated
with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF
cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level
thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for
action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
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 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., pile driving and
removal and DTH). The maximum
(underwater) area ensonified above the
thresholds for behavioral harassment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Mar 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
referenced above is 1286 kilometers2
(km2) (496 miles2 (mi2)), and the
calculated distance to the farthest
behavioral harassment isopleth is
approximately 39,811 meters (m)
(24,737.4 mi).
The project includes vibratory pile
installation and removal, impact pile
driving, and DTH. Source levels for
these activities are based on reviews of
measurements of the same or similar
types and dimensions of piles available
in the literature. Source levels for each
pile size and activity are presented in
table 4. Source levels for vibratory
installation and removal of piles of the
same diameter are assumed to be the
same.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NMFS recommends treating DTH
systems as both impulsive and
continuous, non-impulsive sound
source types simultaneously. Thus,
impulsive thresholds are used to
evaluate Level A harassment, and
continuous thresholds are used to
evaluate Level B harassment. With
regards to DTH mono-hammers, NMFS
recommends proxy levels for Level A
harassment based on available data
regarding DTH systems of similar sized
piles and holes (Denes et al., 2019; Reyff
and Heyvaert, 2019; Reyff, 2020;
Heyvaert and Reyff, 2021) (table 4
includes sound pressure and sound
exposure levels for each pile type).
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
17428
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 48 / Monday, March 11, 2024 / Notices
TABLE 4—ESTIMATES OF MEAN UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS GENERATED DURING VIBRATORY AND IMPACT PILE
INSTALLATION, DTH, AND VIBRATORY PILE REMOVAL
SSL at 10 m dB
rms
Continuous sound sources
Literature source
Vibratory Hammer
42-in steel piles ........................
30-in steel piles ........................
168.2
166
Port of Anchorage Test Pile Program (table 16 in Austin et al., 2016).
* NMFS Analysis (C. Hotchkin, April 24, 2023).
DTH
42-in steel piles ........................
30-in steel piles ........................
Impulsive sound sources
174
174
dB rms
Reyff & Heyvaert, 2019; Reyff, 2020.
Reyff & Heyvaert, 2019; Reyff, 2020.
dB SEL
dB peak
Literature source
Impact Hammer
42-in steel piles .............
30-in steel piles .............
192
191
179
177
213
212
Caltrans, 2020.
Caltrans, 2020.
DTH
42-in steel piles .............
30-in steel piles .............
N/A
N/A
164
164
194
194
Reyff & Heyvaert, 2019; Reyff, 2020; Denes et al., 2019.
Reyff & Heyvaert, 2019; Reyff, 2020; Denes et al., 2019.
Note: dB peak = peak sound level; DTH = down-the-hole drilling; rms = root mean square; SEL = sound exposure level.
* NMFS generated this source level by completing a completed a comprehensive review of source levels relevant to southeast Alaska; NMFS
compiled all available data from Puget Sound and southeast Alaska and adjusted the data to standardize distance from the measured pile to 10
m. NMFS then calculated average source levels for each project and for each pile type. NMFS weighted impact pile driving project averages by
the number of strikes per pile following the methodology in Navy (2015).
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease
in acoustic intensity as an acoustic
pressure wave propagates out from a
source. TL parameters vary with
frequency, temperature, sea conditions,
current, source and receiver depth,
water depth, water chemistry, and
bottom composition and topography.
The general formula for underwater TL
is:
TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2),
Where
TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from
the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the
initial measurement
Absent site-specific acoustical
monitoring with differing measured
transmission loss, a practical spreading
value of 15 is used as the transmission
loss coefficient in the above formula.
Site-specific transmission loss data for
the Shemya Island are not available;
therefore, the default coefficient of 15 is
used to determine the distances to the
Level A harassment and Level B
harassment thresholds.
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
expected to incur PTS. Inputs used in
the optional User Spreadsheet tool, and
the resulting estimated isopleths, are
reported below.
TABLE 5—USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Vibratory
Spreadsheet Tab
Used.
Source Level
(SPL).
Transmission
Loss Coefficient.
Weighting Factor
Adjustment
(kHz).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Impact
DTH
30-in steel piles
42-in steel piles
30-in steel piles
42-in steel piles
30-in steel piles
42-in steel piles
Installation or removal
Installation
Installation
Installation
Installation
Installation
A.1) Vibratory Pile
Driving.
166 RMS ...................
A.1) Vibratory Pile
Driving.
168.2 RMS ................
E.1) Impact Pile Driving.
177 SEL .....................
E.1) Impact Pile Driving.
179 SEL .....................
E.2) DTH Pile Driving
E.2) DTH Pile Driving.
174 RMS, 164 SEL ...
174 RMS, 164 SEL.
15 ...............................
15 ...............................
15 ...............................
15 ...............................
15 ...............................
15
2.5 ..............................
2.5 ..............................
2 .................................
2 .................................
2 .................................
2
18:24 Mar 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
17429
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 48 / Monday, March 11, 2024 / Notices
TABLE 5—USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS—Continued
Vibratory
30-in steel piles
Activity Duration
per day (minutes).
Strike Rate per
second.
Number of
strikes per pile.
Number of piles
per day.
Distance of
sound pressure level
measurement.
Impact
42-in steel piles
30-in steel piles
DTH
42-in steel piles
30-in steel piles
42-in steel piles
Installation or removal
Installation
Installation
Installation
Installation
60 ...............................
120 .............................
120 .............................
180 .............................
150 .............................
180
Installation
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
10 ...............................
10
....................................
....................................
900 .............................
1,800 ..........................
....................................
4 .................................
4 .................................
4 .................................
4 .................................
3 .................................
3
10 ...............................
10 ...............................
10 ...............................
10 ...............................
10 ...............................
10
TABLE 6—LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS FROM VIBRATORY AND IMPACT PILE DRIVING
AND DTH
Level A harassment isopleths
(m)
Pile type
LF
MF
I
I
HF
I
PW
I
Level B
harassment
isopleth
(m)
OW
Vibratory
42-in steel pipe piles ........................................................
30-in Steel pipe piles .......................................................
32.7
14.7
2.9
1.3
48.4
21.8
19.9
8.9
1.4
0.6
16,343
11,659
90.7
80.3
3,036.7
2,689.2
1,364.3
1,208.2
99.3
88
39,811
39,811
71.7
33.2
2,400.3
1,112.3
1,078.4
499.7
78.5
36.4
1,359
1,166
DTH
42-in Steel pipe piles .......................................................
30-in Steel pipe piles .......................................................
2,549.4
2,257.6
Impact
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
42-in steel pipe piles ........................................................
30-in Steel pipe piles .......................................................
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 will inform
the take calculations. We describe how
the information provided is synthesized
to produce a quantitative take estimate.
As described above, for some species
(humpback whale, killer whale, Steller
sea lion and harbor seal) observations
within the project area from the prior
monitoring were available to directly
inform the take estimates, while for
other species (fin whale, minke whale,
sperm whale, Baird’s beaked whale,
Stejneger’s beaked whale, Dall’s
porpoise, harbor porpoise and northern
fur seal) they were not. Prior surveys
include Protected Species Observer
(PSO) monitoring completed at the
project site on 60 days between June
and August 2021 during the emergency
fuel pier repair, island-wide faunal
surveys completed by the USACE
Engineer Research Development Center
(ERDC) across 33 days between 2016
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Mar 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
2,015.1
933.8
and 2019 (primarily in the spring and
fall), and island-wide marine mammal
surveys completed by the USACE Civil
Works Environmental Resource Section
on 26 days between May and October
2021. From all three surveys, data that
were collected within the project area
are primarily the basis for the take
estimates because those data best
represents what might be encountered
there. Average group sizes used to
inform Level B take estimates (which
also underlie the estimates for Level A
harassment) for all species with prior
observations in the project area are
primarily based on those data. Alternate
methods utilizing average group sizes
informed primarily by Alaska’s Wildlife
Notebook Series are used for species
without prior observations.
Also of note, while the results are not
significantly different, in some cases we
recommended modified methods for
estimating take from those presented by
the applicant and have described them
below. A summary of authorized take,
including as a percentage of population
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
for each of the species, is shown in table
7.
Fin Whale
No fin whale were reported during
monitoring conducted for the EAS fuel
pier emergency repair completed in
2021, nor during other surveys
completed from Shemya Island (see
application). Accordingly, average
group size, estimated group size based
on information shared in the Alaska
Wildlife Notebook Series (Clark, 2008a),
is used as the basis for the take
estimates.
USAF requested 17 takes of fin
whales by Level B harassment, using a
calculation based on 0.002 groups of
eight fin whales per hour of
construction activity. NMFS concurs
with USAF’s predicted group size of fin
whale (eight individuals), but since
there are no observations of this species
from Shemya Island, NMFS finds it
more appropriate to estimate take by
Level B harassment using a less granular
occurrence estimate (monthly) rather
than USAF’s hourly occurrence
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
17430
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 48 / Monday, March 11, 2024 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
estimate. Specifically, one group of
eight fin whales is predicted every 2
construction months, based on the
applicant’s prediction that this species
would be rare in the project area. The
duration of the construction is 160 days
(2.65 * the basic 60-day period) and 8
* 2.65 = 21 takes by Level B
harassment).
Although the shutdown zone is larger
than the Level A harassment zone for
low frequency cetaceans, USAF
indicates that at ≥2,000 m, it becomes
more challenging to reliably detect low
frequency cetaceans in some
environmental conditions, and therefore
it is possible that a fin whale could
enter the Level A harassment zone
during DTH activities and stay long
enough to incur PTS before USAF
detects the animal and shuts down. As
such, USAF requested and NMFS
authorized a small amount of take by
Level A harassment of fin whales.
NMFS calculated takes by Level A
harassment by first determining the
proportion of the area of largest Level A
harassment zone (42-in DTH, 2,549 m)
that occurs beyond the readily
observable 2,000 m from the pile driving
location (i.e., 7.5 km2¥5 km2/7.5 km2 =
0.33). This ratio was multiplied by the
estimated fin whale exposures, which is
generally one group of eight fin whale
that would occur every 2 construction
months (or 60 days, adjusted by 1.2 to
account for the 70 days that DTH
activities are planned). Multiplying
these factors (8 * 1.2 * 0.33) results in
three takes by Level A harassment.
Any individuals exposed to the higher
levels associated with the potential for
PTS closer to the source might also be
behaviorally disturbed, however, for the
purposes of quantifying take we do not
count those exposures of one individual
as both a Level A harassment take and
a Level B harassment take, and therefore
takes by Level B harassment calculated
as described above are further modified
to deduct the authorized amount of take
by Level A harassment (i.e., 21¥3 = 18).
Therefore, NMFS proposes to
authorize 3 takes by Level A harassment
and 18 takes by Level B harassment for
fin whales, for a total of 21 takes.
Humpback Whale
Across 119 days of marine mammal
surveys completed from Shemya Island
between 2016 and 2021, seven
humpback whales were observed in the
project area. The average group size for
humpback whales detected in the
project area was two humpback whales
per group detected.
For estimating take by Level B
harassment where monitoring data
confirmed the presence of the marine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Mar 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
mammal species, NMFS concurred with
USAF’s approach. USAF requested take
by Level B harassment by predicting
that 0.07 groups of humpback whales
would be sighted every hour, which was
based on the applicant predicting this
species would commonly occur within
the project area. This was then
multiplied by the average group size for
humpback whales (two individuals), to
achieve an hourly humpback rate.
Finally, these numbers are multiplied
by the hours of construction activity
(0.07 * 2 * 1,101 = 154 takes by Level
B harassment).
Although the shutdown zone is larger
than the Level A harassment zone for
low frequency cetaceans, USAF
indicates that at ≥2,000 m, it becomes
more challenging to reliably detect low
frequency cetaceans in some
environmental conditions, and therefore
it is possible that humpback whales
could enter the Level A harassment
zone during DTH activities and stay
long enough to incur PTS before USAF
detects the animal and shuts down. As
such, USAF requested and NMFS
authorized a small amount of take by
Level A harassment of humpback
whales. NMFS calculated takes by Level
A harassment by determining the
proportion of the area of largest Level A
harassment zone (42-in DTH, 2,549 m)
that occurs beyond 2,000 m from the
pile driving location (i.e., 7.5 km2¥5
km2/7.5 km2 = 0.33) and multiplying
this ratio by the estimated humpback
whale exposures (0.07 groups of 2
humpback whale) that would occur
every construction hour that DTH
activities are planned (624 hours) (0.07
* 2 * 624 * 0.33 = 29 takes by Level A
harassment).
For the reasons described above, takes
by Level B harassment were modified to
deduct the authorized amount of take by
Level A harassment (i.e., 154¥29 =
125).
Therefore, NMFS proposes to
authorize 29 takes by Level A
harassment and 125 takes by Level B
harassment for humpback whales, for a
total of 154 takes.
Minke Whale
No minke whales were reported
during monitoring conducted for the
EAS fuel pier emergency repair
completed in 2021, nor during other
surveys completed from Shemya Island
(e.g., see application). Accordingly,
average group size, estimated based on
group size information shared in the
Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series (Clark,
2008a), is used as the basis for the take
estimates (Guerrero, 2008b).
USAF requested seven takes of minke
whales by Level B harassment, using a
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
calculation of 0.002 groups of three
minke whales per hour of construction
activity. NMFS concurs with USAF’s
predicted group size of minke whale
(three individuals), but since there are
no observations of this species from
Shemya Island, NMFS finds it more
appropriate to estimate take by Level B
harassment using a less granular
occurrence estimate (monthly) rather
than USAF’s hourly occurrence
estimate. Specifically, one group of
three minke whales is predicted every 2
construction months, based on the
applicant’s prediction that this species
would be rare in the project area. The
duration of construction is 160 days
(2.65 * the basic 60-day period, which
corresponds to 2 months) and 3 * 2.65
= 8 takes by Level B harassment.
Although the shutdown zone is larger
than the Level A harassment zone for
low frequency cetaceans, USAF
indicates that at ≥2,000 m, it becomes
more challenging to reliably detect low
frequency cetaceans in some
environmental conditions, and therefore
it is possible that a minke whale could
enter the Level A harassment zone
during DTH activities and stay long
enough to incur PTS before USAF
detects the animal and shuts down. As
such, USAF requested and NMFS
authorized a small amount of take by
Level A harassment of minke whales.
NMFS calculated takes by Level A
harassment by determining the
proportion of the area of largest Level A
harassment zone (42-in DTH, 2,549 m)
that occurs beyond the readily
observable 2,000 m from the pile driving
location (i.e., 7.5 km2¥5 km2/7.5 km2 =
0.33).This ratio was multiplied by the
estimated minke whale exposures,
which is generally one group of three
minke whales every 2 construction
months (or 60 days), adjusted by 1.2 to
account for the 70 days that DTH
activities are planned. Multiplying these
factors (1.2 * 0.33) results in one take by
Level A harassment. Since the predicted
average group size of minke whale is
three, NMFS proposes to authorize three
takes by Level A harassment of minke
whale.
For reasons described above, takes by
Level B harassment were modified to
deduct the authorized amount of take by
Level A harassment (i.e., 8¥3 = 5).
Therefore, NMFS proposes to
authorize three takes by Level A
harassment and five takes by Level B
harassment for minke whales, for a total
of eight takes.
Sperm Whale
Across 119 monitoring days between
2016 and 2021, four sperm whales were
observed on a single day from Shemya
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 48 / Monday, March 11, 2024 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Island, though outside of the project
area (see application).
USAF requested 27 takes of sperm
whale by Level B harassment, using a
calculation based on of 0.006 groups of
four sperm whales per hour of
construction activity. NMFS concurs
with USAF’s predicted group size of
sperm whale (four individuals, which
corresponds to the number of sperm
whales detected on a single day during
Shemya Island marine mammal
surveys), but since there are few
observations of this species from
Shemya Island, NMFS finds it more
appropriate to estimate take by Level B
harassment using a less granular
occurrence estimate (monthly) rather
than USAF’s hourly occurrence
estimate. Specifically, two groups of
four sperm whales is predicted every 1
construction month based on sperm
whales being one of the most frequently
sighted marine mammals in the high
latitude regions of the North Pacific,
including the Bering Sea and the
Aleutian Islands. The duration of the
construction is 5 months and 2 * 4 * 5
= 40 takes by Level B harassment.
Due to the small Level A harassment
zones (table 8), which do not reach deep
water where sperm whales are expected
to be encountered, coupled with the
implementation of shutdown zones,
which will be larger than Level A
harassment zones for mid-frequency
cetaceans (described in the Mitigation
section), NMFS concurs with USAF’s
assessment that take by Level A
harassment is not anticipated for sperm
whale. Therefore, NMFS authorized all
40 estimated exposures as takes by
Level B harassment. Takes by Level A
harassment for sperm whales are not
requested nor are they authorized.
Baird’s Beaked Whale
Baird’s beaked whales are usually
found in tight social groups (schools or
pods) averaging between 5 and 20
individuals, but they have occasionally
been observed in larger groups of up to
50 animals. Across 119 days of marine
mammal surveys completed from
Shemya Island between 2016 and 2021,
no observations of Baird’s beaked whale
were recorded (see application).
Accordingly, average group size,
estimated based on group size
information shared in the Alaska
Wildlife Notebook Series (Guerrero,
2008a), is used as the basis for take
estimates.
USAF requested 11 takes by Level B
harassment, using a calculation based
on 0.001 groups of ten Baird’s beaked
whales per hour of construction activity.
NMFS concurs with USAF’s predicted
group size of Baird’s beaked whale (10
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Mar 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
individuals), but since there are no
observations of this species from
Shemya Island, NMFS finds it more
appropriate to estimate take by Level B
harassment using a less granular
occurrence estimate (monthly) rather
than USAF’s hourly occurrence
estimate. Specifically, 1 group of 10
Baird’s beaked whales is predicted
across the project, which is based on
this species being shy and preferring
deep waters and as such the applicant
predicted they would be very rare in the
project area. Therefore, NMFS proposes
to authorize 10 takes of Baird’s beaked
whale by Level B harassment.
Due to the small Level A harassment
zones (table 8), which do not reach deep
water where Baird’s beaked whales are
expected to be encountered, coupled
with the implementation of shutdown
zones, which will be larger than Level
A harassment zones for mid-frequency
cetaceans (described in the Mitigation
section), NMFS concurs with USAF’s
assessment that take by Level A
harassment is not anticipated for Baird’s
beaked whale. Therefore, NMFS
authorized all 10 estimated exposures as
takes by Level B harassment. Takes by
Level A harassment for Baird’s beaked
whales are not requested nor are they
authorized.
Stejneger’s Beaked Whale
Across 119 days of marine mammal
surveys completed from Shemya Island
between 2016 and 2021, no observations
of Stejneger’s beaked whale were
recorded (see application). Accordingly,
average group size, estimated based on
group size information shared in the
Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series
(Guerrero, 2008a), is used as the basis
for take estimates.
USAF requested nine takes of
Stejneger’s beaked whale by Level B
harassment, using a calculation based
on of 0.001 groups of eight Stejneger’s
beaked whales per hour of construction
activity. NMFS concurs with USAF’s
predicted group size of Stejneger’s
beaked whale (eight individuals), but
since there are no observations of this
species from Shemya Island, NMFS
finds it more appropriate to estimate
take by Level B harassment using a less
granular occurrence estimate (monthly)
rather than USAF’s hourly occurrence
estimate. Specifically, one group of
eight Stejneger’s beaked whales is
predicted across the entirety of the
project, based on this species being shy
and preferring deep waters and as such
the applicant predicted they would only
be very rarely encountered in the project
area. Therefore, NMFS proposes to
authorize eight Stejneger’s beaked whale
by level B harassment.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17431
Due to the small Level A harassment
zones (table 8), which do not reach deep
water where Stejneger’s beaked whales
are expected to be encountered, coupled
with the implementation of shutdown
zones, which will be larger than Level
A harassment zones for mid-frequency
cetaceans (described in the Mitigation
section), NMFS concurs with USAF’s
assessment that take by Level A
harassment is not anticipated for
Stejneger’s beaked whale. Therefore,
NMFS authorized all eight estimated
exposures as takes by Level B
harassment. Takes by Level A
harassment for Stejneger’s beaked
whales are not requested nor are they
authorized.
Killer Whale
Across 119 days of marine mammal
surveys completed from Shemya Island
between 2016 and 2021, 69 killer
whales were observed in the project
area. The average group size for killer
whales detected in the project area was
eight killer whales per group detected.
For estimating take by Level B
harassment where monitoring data
confirmed the presence of the marine
mammal species, NMFS concurred with
USAF’s approach. USAF requested take
by Level B harassment by predicting
that 0.02 groups of killer whales would
be sighted every hour, which was based
on the applicant’s prediction that this
species would commonly be
encountered in the project area. This
was then multiplied by the average
group size for humpback whales (eight
individuals), to achieve an hourly killer
whale rate. Finally, these numbers are
multiplied by the hours of construction
activity (0.02 * 8 * 1,101 = 176 takes by
Level B harassment).
Due to the small Level A harassment
zones (table 8), coupled with the
implementation of shutdown zones,
which will be larger than Level A
harassment zones for mid-frequency
cetaceans (described in the Mitigation
section), NMFS concurs with USAF’s
assessment that take by Level A
harassment is not anticipated for killer
whale. Therefore, NMFS authorized all
176 estimated exposures as takes by
Level B harassment. Takes by Level A
harassment for killer whale are not
requested nor are they authorized.
Dall’s Porpoise
No Dall’s porpoise were reported
during monitoring conducted for the
EAS fuel pier emergency repair
completed in 2021, nor during other
surveys completed from Shemya Island
(see application). Dall’s porpoise
generally travel in groups of 10 to 20
individuals but can occur in groups
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
17432
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 48 / Monday, March 11, 2024 / Notices
with over hundreds of individuals
(Wells, 2008). Accordingly, average
group size, estimated based group size
information shared in the Alaska
Wildlife Notebook Series (Wells 2008),
is used as the basis for the take
estimates, is used as the basis for take
estimates.
USAF requested 33 takes of Dall’s
porpoise by Level B harassment, using
a calculation based on of 0.002 groups
of 15 Dall’s porpoise per hour of
construction activity. NMFS concurs
with USAF’s predicted group size of
Dall’s porpoise (15 individuals), but
since there are no observations of this
species from Shemya Island, NMFS
finds it more appropriate to estimate
take by Level B harassment using a less
granular occurrence estimate (monthly)
rather than USAF’s hourly occurrence
estimate. Specifically, 1 group of 15
Dall’s porpoise is predicted every 2
construction months, based on the
applicant’s prediction that this species
would be rarely encountered in the
project area. The duration of the
construction is 160 days (2.65 * the
basic 60-day period that corresponds to
2 construction months) and 15 * 2.65 =
40 takes by Level B harassment.
For most activities, NMFS calculated
takes by Level A harassment by
determining the ratio of the largest Level
A harassment area for 42-in DTH
activities (i.e., 10.2 km2 for a Level A
harassment distance of 3,037 m) minus
the area of the shutdown zone for Dall’s
porpoise (i.e., 0.5 km2 for a shutdown
zone distance of 500 m) to the area of
the Level B harassment isopleth (1,285.9
km2) for a Level B harassment distance
of 39,811 m (i.e., (10.2 km2¥0.5 km2)/
1,285.9 km2 = 0.008). We then
multiplied this ratio by the number of
estimated Dall’s porpoise exposures
calculated as described above for Level
B harassment to determine take by Level
A harassment (i.e., 0.008 * 40 exposures
= 0.32 takes by Level A harassment).
For Level A harassment during impact
pile driving of 42-in piles, for which the
Level A harassment zone is larger than
the Level B harassment zone, NMFS
estimates take based on 1 group of 15
Dall’s porpoise every 2 months, or 60
days, in consideration of the 52 days
(0.87 of 60) of impact driving of 42-in
piles (15 Dall’s porpoise * 0.87 months
= 13.05) for a total of 13.37 takes by
Level A harassment (0.32 + 13.05 = 13).
For reasons described above, takes by
Level B harassment were modified to
deduct the authorized amount of take by
Level A harassment (i.e., 40¥13 = 27).
Therefore, NMFS proposes to
authorize 13 takes by Level A
harassment and 27 takes by Level B
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Mar 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
harassment for Dall’s porpoise, for a
total of 40 takes.
and 10 takes by Level B harassment for
harbor porpoise, for a total of 15 takes.
Harbor Porpoise
Northern Fur Seal
USAF requested 33 takes of northern
fur seal by Level B harassment using a
calculation based on 0.003 groups of
eight northern fur seals per hour of
construction activity. NMFS disagrees
with USAF’s predicted group size of
northern fur seal, as these animals are
typically solitary when at sea.
Additionally, because there are no
records of northern fur seal in the area,
NMFS finds it more appropriate to
estimate take by Level B harassment
according to a less granular occurrence
estimate (monthly) rather than USAF’s
hourly occurrence estimate.
Specifically, one group of one northern
fur seal every 1 construction month is
predicted and 1 * 5 = 5 takes by Level
B harassment.
Due to the small Level A harassment
zones (table 8), coupled with the
implementation of shutdown zones,
which will be larger than Level A
harassment zones for otariids (described
in the Mitigation section), NMFS
concurs with USAF’s assessment that
take by Level A harassment is not
anticipated for northern fur seal.
Therefore, NMFS authorized all five
estimated exposures as takes by Level B
harassment. Takes by Level A
harassment for northern fur seals are not
requested nor are they authorized.
Across 119 monitoring days between
2016 and 2021, one group of two to
three harbor porpoise were observed
from Shemya Island (see application),
though outside of the project area.
Average group size, estimated based on
the Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series
(Schmale, 2008), is used as the basis for
take estimates.
USAF requested 11 takes of harbor
porpoise by Level B harassment, using
a calculation based on of 0.01 groups of
1 harbor porpoise per hour of
construction activity. NMFS concurs
with USAF’s predicted group size of
harbor porpoise (one individual), but
since there are few observations of this
species from Shemya Island, NMFS
finds it more appropriate to estimate
take by Level B harassment using a less
granular occurrence estimate (monthly)
rather than USAF’s hourly occurrence
estimate. Specifically, three groups of
one harbor porpoise is predicted every
1 construction month. The duration of
construction is 5 months and 3 * 5 = 15
takes by Level B harassment.
For most activities, NMFS calculated
takes by Level A harassment by
determining the ratio of the largest Level
A harassment area for 42-in DTH
activities (i.e., 10.2 km2 for a Level A
harassment distance of 3,037 m) minus
the area of the shutdown zone for harbor
porpoise (i.e., 0.5 km2 for a shutdown
zone distance of 500 m) to the area of
the Level B harassment isopleth (1,285.9
km2) for a Level B harassment distance
of 39,811 m (i.e., (10.2 km2¥0.5 km2)/
1,285.9 km2 = 0.008). We then
multiplied this ratio by the number of
estimated harbor porpoise exposures
calculated as described above for Level
B harassment to determine take by Level
A harassment (i.e., 0.008 * 15 exposures
= 0.12 takes by Level A harassment).
For Level A harassment during impact
pile driving of 42-in piles, for which the
Level A harassment zone is larger than
the Level B harassment zone, NMFS
estimates take based on three groups of
one harbor porpoise could be taken by
Level A harassment every 1 month, or
30 days in consideration of the 52 days
(1.7 * 30) of impact pile driving of 42in piles (3 groups of 1 harbor porpoise
* 1.7 = 5.1) for a total of five takes by
Level A harassment (0.12 + 5.1 = 5).
For reasons described above, takes by
Level B harassment were modified to
deduct the authorized amount of take by
Level A harassment (i.e., 15¥5 = 10).
Therefore, NMFS proposes to
authorize 5 takes by Level A harassment
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lions are frequently
observed around Shemya Island outside
of the ensonified area, but only
occasionally observed in Alcan Harbor
and Shemya Pass (see application).
Across 119 monitoring days between
2016 and 2021, 16 Steller sea lions were
observed within the project area. The
average group size for Steller sea lion
detected in the project area as well as
around Shemya Island was one Steller
sea lion per detection.
For estimating take by Level B
harassment where monitoring data
confirmed the presence of the marine
mammal species, NMFS concurred with
USAF’s planned approach. USAF
requested take by Level B harassment by
predicting that 0.09 groups of Steller sea
lion would be sighted every hour, which
was based on the applicant’s prediction
that this species would be more
commonly encountered in the project
area. This was then multiplied by the
average group size for Steller sea lion (1
individual), to achieve an hourly steller
sea lion rate. Finally, these numbers are
multiplied by the hours of construction
activity (0.09 * 1 * 1,101 = 99 takes by
Level B harassment).
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
17433
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 48 / Monday, March 11, 2024 / Notices
Due to the small Level A harassment
zones (table 8), coupled with the
implementation of shutdown zones,
which will be larger than Level A
harassment zones for otariids (described
in the Mitigation section), NMFS
concurs with USAF’s assessment that
take by Level A harassment is not
anticipated for Steller sea lion.
Therefore, NMFS authorized all 99
estimated exposures as takes by Level B
harassment. Takes by Level A
harassment for Steller sea lion are not
requested nor are they authorized.
Harbor Seal
Across 119 monitoring days between
2016 and 2021, 54 harbor seals were
observed within the project area. The
average group size for harbor seals
detected in the project area was one
harbor seals per group.
For estimating take by Level B
harassment where monitoring data
confirmed the presence of the marine
mammal species, NMFS concurred with
USAF’s planned approach. USAF
requested take by Level B harassment by
predicting that 0.14 groups of harbor
seals would be sighted every hour,
which was based on the fact that this
species is expected to more commonly
occur within the project area. This was
then multiplied by the average group
size for harbor seal (1 individual), to
achieve an hourly harbor seal rate.
Finally, these numbers are multiplied
by the hours of construction activity
(0.14 * 1 * 1,101 = 154 takes by Level
B harassment).
NMFS initially calculated takes by
Level A harassment by determining the
ratio of the largest Level A harassment
area for 42-in DTH activities (i.e., 2.6
km2 for a Level A harassment distance
of 1364 m) minus the area of the
shutdown zone for harbor seal (i.e., 0.37
km2 for a shutdown zone distance of
400 m) to the area of the Level B
harassment isopleth (1,285.9 km2) for a
Level B harassment distance of 39,811
m (i.e., (2.6 km2¥0.37 km2)/1,285.9 km2
= 0.002). We then multiplied this ratio
by the number of estimated harbor seal
exposures calculated as described above
for Level B harassment to determine
take by Level A harassment (i.e., 0.002
* 154 exposures = 0.3 takes by Level A
harassment).
Because harbor seals typically inhabit
areas closer to shore rather than
distances represented by the largest
level B zone (39,811 m), NMFS
determined that the method above could
underestimate potential take by Level A
harassment. NMFS accordingly
estimated additional takes by Level A
harassment by determining the ratio of
harbor seals that were observed beyond
the shutdown zone isopleth compared
to the harbor seals that were observed
closer to construction activities during
the EAS fuel pier emergency repair that
was completed in 2021 (i.e., 11/38 =
0.29 harbor seals). We then multiplied
this ratio by the total number of
estimated harbor seal exposures to
determine take by Level A harassment
(i.e., 0.29 * 154 exposures = 45) for a
total of 45 takes by Level A harassment
(0.3 + 45 = 45.3).
For reasons described above, takes by
Level B harassment were modified to
deduct the authorized amount of take by
Level A harassment (i.e., 154¥45 =
109).
Therefore, NMFS proposes to
authorize 45 takes by Level A
harassment and 109 takes by Level B
harassment for harbor seal, for a total of
154 takes.
TABLE 7—AUTHORIZED TAKE BY STOCK AND HARASSMENT TYPE AND AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE
Authorized take
Species
Stock
Fin Whale ..............................................
Humpback Whale .................................
Northeast Pacific ..................................................................
Western North Pacific ..........................................................
Mexico—North Pacific ..........................................................
Hawai1i ..................................................................................
Alaska ...................................................................................
North Pacific .........................................................................
Alaska ...................................................................................
Alaska ...................................................................................
ENP Alaska Resident Stock .................................................
ENP Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Seal ......
Alaska ...................................................................................
Bering Seal ...........................................................................
Eastern Pacific .....................................................................
Western, U.S. .......................................................................
Aleutian Islands ....................................................................
Minke Whale .........................................
Sperm Whale ........................................
Baird’s beaked whale ...........................
Stejneger’s beaked whale ....................
Killer whale ...........................................
Dall’s Porpoise ......................................
Harbor Porpoise ....................................
Northern Fur Seal .................................
Steller Sea Lion ....................................
Harbor Seal ...........................................
Level B
harassment
Level A
harassment
18
3
9
113
5
40
10
8
176
3
1
2
26
3
0
0
0
0
26
10
5
99
109
13
5
0
0
45
Authorized
take as a
percentage
of stock
abundance
<1
<1
1.2
1.2
<1
16.4
(*)
(*)
9.2
30
<1
<1
<1
<1
2.8
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
* Reliable abundance estimates for these stock are currently unavailable.
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Mar 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
NMFS regulations require applicants for
incidental take authorizations to include
information about the availability and
feasibility (economic and technological)
of equipment, methods, and manner of
conducting the activity or other means
of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or
stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or
may not be appropriate to ensure the
least practicable adverse impact on
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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, as well as
subsistence uses. This considers the
nature of the potential adverse impact
being mitigated (likelihood, scope,
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
17434
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 48 / Monday, March 11, 2024 / Notices
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.
USAF must ensure that construction
supervisors and crews, the monitoring
team and relevant USAF staff are
trained prior to the start of all pile
driving and DTH activity, so that
responsibilities, communication
procedures, monitoring protocols, and
operational procedures are clearly
understood. New personnel joining
during the project must be trained prior
to commencing work.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and
Their Habitat
Shutdown Zones—For all pile
driving/removal and DTH activities,
USAF would implement shutdowns
within designated zones. The purpose of
a shutdown zone is generally to define
an area within which shutdown of the
activity would occur upon sighting of a
marine mammal (or in anticipation of an
animal entering the defined area).
Shutdown zones vary based on the
activity type and marine mammal
hearing group (table 8). In most cases,
the shutdown zones are based on the
estimated Level A harassment isopleth
distances for each hearing group, as
requested by USAF. However, in cases
where it would be challenging to detect
marine mammals at the Level A
isopleth, (e.g., for high frequency
cetaceans and phocids during DTH
activities and impact pile driving),
smaller shutdown zones have been
established (table 8). Additionally,
USAF has agreed to implement a
minimum shutdown zone of 25 m
during all pile driving and removal
activities and DTH.
Finally, construction supervisors and
crews, PSOs, and relevant USAF staff
must avoid direct physical interaction
with marine mammals during
construction activity. If a marine
mammal comes within 10 m of such
activity, operations must cease and
vessels must reduce speed to the
minimum level required to maintain
steerage and safe working conditions, as
necessary to avoid direct physical
interaction. If an activity 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 indicated in table 8 or
15 minutes have passed for delphinids
or pinnipeds or 30 minutes for all other
species without re-detection of the
animal.
Construction activities must be halted
upon observation of 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.
TABLE 8—SHUTDOWN ZONES
Pile
diameter
Activity
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Vibratory Installation or Removal ................................
Shutdown zones (m)
LF
MF
HF
42-in ...............
50
30-in ...............
25
DTH .............................................................................
42-in ...............
30-in ...............
2,600
2,300
100
80
Impact Pile ...................................................................
42-in ...............
30-in ...............
2,100
1,000
50
Protected Species Observers—The
number and placement of PSOs during
all construction activities (described in
the Monitoring and Reporting section)
would ensure that the entire shutdown
zone is visible. USAF would employ at
least two PSOs for all pile driving and
DTH activities.
Monitoring for Level B Harassment—
PSOs would monitor the shutdown
zones and beyond to the extent that
PSOs can see. Monitoring beyond the
shutdown zones enables observers to be
aware of and communicate the presence
of marine mammals in the project areas
outside the shutdown zones and thus
prepare for a potential cessation of
activity should the animal enter the
shutdown zone. If a marine mammal
enters the Level B harassment zone,
PSOs will document the marine
mammal’s presence and behavior.
Pre and Post-Activity Monitoring—
Prior to the start of daily in-water
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Mar 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
construction activity, or whenever a
break in pile driving of 30 minutes or
longer occurs, PSOs will observe the
shutdown, Level A harassment, and
Level B harassment for a period of 30
minutes. Pre-start clearance monitoring
must be conducted during periods of
visibility sufficient for the lead PSO to
determine that the shutdown zones are
clear of marine mammals. If the
shutdown zone is obscured by fog or
poor lighting conditions, in-water
construction activity will not be
initiated until the entire shutdown zone
is visible. Pile driving may commence
following 30 minutes of observation
when the determination is made that the
shutdown zones are clear of marine
mammals. If a marine mammal is
observed entering or within shutdown
zones, pile driving activity must be
delayed or halted. If pile driving is
delayed or halted due to the presence of
a marine mammal, the activity may not
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
PW
500
OW
400
100
90
80
50
commence or resume until either the
animal has voluntarily exited and been
visually confirmed beyond the
shutdown zone or 15 minutes have
passed for delphinids or pinnipeds or
30 minutes have passed for all other
species without re-detection of the
animal. If a marine mammal for which
Level B harassment take is authorized is
present in the Level B harassment zone,
activities would begin and Level B
harassment take would be recorded.
Soft Start—The use of soft-start
procedures are believed to provide
additional protection to marine
mammals by providing warning and/or
giving marine mammals a chance to
leave the area prior to the hammer
operating at full capacity. For impact
pile driving, contractors would be
required to provide an initial set of three
strikes from the hammer at reduced
energy, with each strike followed by a
30-second waiting period. This
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 48 / Monday, March 11, 2024 / Notices
procedure would be conducted a total of
three times before impact pile driving
begins. Soft start would be implemented
at the start of each day’s impact pile
driving and at any time following
cessation of impact pile driving for a
period of 30 minutes or longer. Soft start
is not required during vibratory pile
driving and removal activities.
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s planned measures, as well as
other measures considered by NMFS,
NMFS has determined that the planned
mitigation measures 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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
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;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Mar 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
• How anticipated responses to
stressors impact either: (1) long-term
fitness and survival of individual
marine mammals; or (2) populations,
species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat
(e.g., marine mammal prey species,
acoustic habitat, or other important
physical components of marine
mammal habitat); and,
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
Visual Monitoring—Marine mammal
monitoring must be conducted in
accordance with the Marine Mammal
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. Marine
mammal monitoring during pile driving
and removal and DTH activities must be
conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs in
a manner consistent with the following:
• PSOs must be independent of the
activity contractor (for example,
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 incidental
take authorization;
• Other PSOs may substitute other
relevant experience, education (degree
in biological science or related field) or
training for experience performing the
duties of a PSO during construction
activities pursuant to a NMFS-issued
incidental take authorization.
• Where a team of three or more PSOs
is required, a lead observer or
monitoring coordinator will be
designated. The lead observer will be
required to have prior experience
working as a marine mammal observer
during construction activity pursuant to
a NMFS-issued incidental take
authorization; and,
• PSOs must be approved by NMFS
prior to beginning any activity subject to
this IHA.
PSOs must also 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 identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or
experience with the construction
operation to provide for personal safety
during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a
report of observations including, but not
limited to, the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and
times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates, times,
and reason for implementation of
mitigation (or why mitigation was note
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17435
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.
Visual monitoring will be conducted
by a minimum of two trained PSOs
positioned at suitable vantage points.
One PSO will have an unobstructed
view of all water within the shutdown
zone and will be stationed at or near the
pier. Remaining PSOs will be placed at
one or more of the observer monitoring
locations identified on figure 3–3 of the
marine mammal monitoring and
mitigation plan, in order to observe as
much as the Level A and Level B
harassment zone as possible. All PSOs
will have access to 20 by 60 spotting
scope on a window mount or tripod.
Monitoring will be conducted 30
minutes before, during, and 30 minutes
after all in water construction activities.
In addition, PSOs will record all
incidents of marine mammal
occurrence, regardless of distance from
activity, and will document any
behavioral reactions in concert with
distance from piles being driven or
removed. Pile driving activities include
the time to install or remove a single
pile or series of piles, as long as the time
elapsed between uses of the pile driving
equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
Reporting
USAF will submit a draft marine
mammal monitoring report to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of
pile driving activities, or 60 days prior
to a requested date of issuance of any
future IHAs for the project, or other
projects at the same location, whichever
comes first. The marine mammal
monitoring report will include an
overall description of work completed,
a narrative regarding marine mammal
sightings, and associated PSO data
sheets. Specifically, the report will
include:
• Dates and times (begin and end) of
all marine mammal monitoring;
• Construction activities occurring
during each daily observation period,
including: (1) The number and type of
piles that were driven and the method
(e.g., impact, vibratory, DTH); (2) Total
duration of driving time for each pile
(vibratory driving) and number of
strikes for each pile (impact driving);
and (3) For DTH drilling, duration of
operation for both impulsive and nonpulse components;
• PSO locations during marine
mammal monitoring;
• Environmental conditions during
monitoring periods (at beginning and
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
17436
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 48 / Monday, March 11, 2024 / Notices
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: (1)
Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s)
and PSO location and activity at time of
sighting; (2) Time of sighting; (3)
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; (4) Distance and location
of each observed marine mammal
relative to the pile being driven for each
sighting; (5) Estimated number of
animals (min/max/best estimate); (6)
Estimated number of animals by cohort
(adults, juveniles, neonates, group
composition, etc.); (7) Animal’s closest
point of approach and estimated time
spent within the harassment zone; (8)
Description of any marine mammal
behavioral observations (e.g., observed
behaviors such as feeding or traveling),
including an assessment of behavioral
responses thought to have resulted from
the activity (e.g., no response or changes
in behavioral state such as ceasing
feeding, changing direction, flushing, or
breaching);
• Number of marine mammals
detected within the harassment zones,
by species; and,
• Detailed information about
implementation of any mitigation (e.g.,
shutdowns and delays), a description of
specific actions that ensued, and
resulting changes in behavior of the
animal(s), if any.
A final report must be prepared and
submitted within 30 calendar days
following receipt of any NMFS
comments on the draft report. If no
comments are received from NMFS
within 30 calendar days of receipt of the
draft report, the report shall be
considered final. All PSO datasheets
and/or raw sighting data would be
submitted with the draft marine
mammal report.
In the event that personnel involved
in the construction activities discover
an injured or dead marine mammal, the
Holder must report the incident to the
Office of Protected Resources (OPR),
NMFS (PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@
noaa.gov and itp.fleming@noaa.gov) and
to the Alaska regional stranding network
(877–925–7773) as soon as feasible. If
the death or injury was clearly caused
by the specified activity, the Holder
must immediately cease the activities
until NMFS OPR is able to review the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Mar 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
circumstances of the incident and
determine what, if any, additional
measures are appropriate to ensure
compliance with the terms of this IHA.
The Holder must not resume their
activities until notified by NMFS. The
report must include the following
information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the first discovery (and
updated location information if known
and applicable);
• Species identification (if known) or
description of the animal(s) involved;
• Condition of the animal(s)
(including carcass condition if the
animal is dead);
• Observed behaviors of the
animal(s), if alive;
• If available, photographs or video
footage of the animal(s); and,
• General circumstances under which
the animal was discovered.
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact
as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of takes alone is not enough information
on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’
through harassment, NMFS considers
other factors, such as the likely nature
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, the majority of
our analysis applies to all the species
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
listed in table 1, given that many of the
anticipated effects of this project on
different marine mammal stocks are
expected to be relatively similar in
nature. Where there are meaningful
differences between species or stocks, or
groups of species, in anticipated
individual responses to activities,
impact of expected take on the
population due to differences in
population status, or impacts on habitat,
they are described independently in the
analysis below.
Pile driving and DTH activities
associated with the EAS fuel pier repair
project, as outlined previously, have the
potential to disturb or displace marine
mammals. Specifically, the specified
activities may result in take, in the form
of Level B harassment and, for some
species Level A harassment, from
underwater sounds generated by pile
driving and DTH. 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.
No serious injury or mortality would
be expected, even in the absence of
required mitigation measures, given the
nature of the activities. Further, no take
by Level A harassment is anticipated for
otariids and mid-frequency cetaceans,
due to the application of planned
mitigation measures, such as shutdown
zones that encompass Level A
harassment zones for these species. The
potential for harassment would be
minimized through the implementation
of planned mitigation measures (see
Mitigation section).
Take by Level A harassment is
authorized for six species (harbor
porpoise, Dall’s porpoise, harbor seal,
fin whale, humpback whale, and minke
whale) as the Level A harassment zone
exceeds the size of the shutdown zones
(high frequency cetaceans and phocids),
or, in the case of low frequency
cetaceans, the shutdown zone is so large
that it is possible that a minke whale,
fin whale, or humpback whale could
enter the Level A harassment zone and
remain within the zone for a duration
long enough to incur PTS before being
detected.
Any take by Level A harassment is
expected to arise from, at most, a small
degree of PTS (i.e., minor degradation of
hearing capabilities within regions of
hearing that align most completely with
the energy produced by impact pile
driving such as the low-frequency
region below 2 kHz), not severe hearing
impairment or impairment within the
ranges of greatest hearing sensitivity.
Animals would need to be exposed to
higher levels and/or longer duration
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 48 / Monday, March 11, 2024 / Notices
than are expected to occur here in order
to incur any more than a small degree
of PTS.
Given the small degree anticipated,
any PTS potential incurred would not
be expected to affect the reproductive
success or survival of any individuals,
much less result in adverse impacts on
the species or stock.
Additionally, some subset of the
individuals that are behaviorally
harassed could also simultaneously
incur some small degree of TTS for a
short duration of time. However, since
the hearing sensitivity of individuals
that incur TTS is expected to recover
completely within minutes to hours, it
is unlikely that the brief hearing
impairment would affect the
individual’s long-term ability to forage
and communicate with conspecifics,
and would therefore not likely impact
reproduction or survival of any
individual marine mammal, let alone
adversely affect rates of recruitment or
survival of the species or stock.
As described above, NMFS expects
that marine mammals would likely
move away from an aversive stimulus,
especially at levels that would be
expected to result in PTS, given
sufficient notice through use of soft
start. USAF would also shut down pile
driving activities if marine mammals
enter the shutdown zones (table 8)
further minimizing the likelihood and
degree of PTS that would be incurred.
Effects on individuals that are taken
by Level B harassment in the form of
behavioral disruption, on the basis of
reports in the literature as well as
monitoring from other similar activities,
would likely be limited to reactions
such as avoidance, increased swimming
speeds, increased surfacing time, or
decreased foraging (if such activity were
occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff,
2006). Most likely, individuals would
simply move away from the sound
source and temporarily avoid the area
where pile driving is occurring. If sound
produced by project activities is
sufficiently disturbing, animals are
likely to simply avoid the area while the
activities are occurring. We expect that
any avoidance of the project areas by
marine mammals would be temporary
in nature and that any marine mammals
that avoid the project areas during
construction would not be permanently
displaced. Short-term avoidance of the
project areas and energetic impacts of
interrupted foraging or other important
behaviors is unlikely to affect the
reproduction or survival of individual
marine mammals, and the effects of
behavioral disturbance on individuals is
not likely to accrue in a manner that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Mar 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
would affect the rates of recruitment or
survival of any affected stock.
The project area does overlap a
Biologically Important Area (BIA)
identified as important for feeding by
sperm whale (Brower et al., 2022). The
BIA that overlaps the project area is
active April through September, which
overlaps USAF’s planned work period
(April to October). White the BIA is
considered to be of higher importance,
the area of the BIA is very large,
spanning the island chain, and the
project area is very small in comparison.
Further sperm whales utilize deeper
waters to feed, and while the Level B
harassment zone does extend into
deeper waters, the sound levels at the
distances that overlay deeper water
where sperm whales might be foraging
would be of comparatively lower levels.
Given the extensive options for high
quality foraging area near and outside of
the project area, any impacts to feeding
sperm whales would not be expected to
impact the survival or reproductive
success of any individuals.
The ensonified area also overlaps
ESA-designated critical habitat for
western DPS Steller sea lion.
Specifically, the Level B ensonified area
overlaps with the aquatic zones of three
designated major haulouts to the east
and northwest of the project site:
Shemya Island Major Haulout, Alaid
Island Major Haulout, Attu/Chirikof
Point Major Haulout. The ensonified
area Level B harassment zone related to
implementation of the planned project,
described in the Estimated Take of
Marine Mammals section, overlaps with
the designated aquatic zone of all three
designated major haulouts.. No Steller
sea lions have been observed on Shemya
Island Major Haulout (2.75 nm to the
east of the project site) during the most
recent surveys (between 2015 and 2017)
and only one Steller sea lion was
observed at Attu/Chirikof Point Major
Haulout (24 nm northwest of the project
site). An average of 68 non-pups and 7
pups were observed annually during
this time at Alaid Island Major Haulout,
which is 5 nautical miles northwest of
the project site. The construction site
itself does not overlap with critical
habitat. Take by Level B harassment of
steller sea lions has been authorized to
account for those that are occasionally
observed in low numbers in Alcan
Harbor and Shemya Pass, however, the
project is not expected to have
significant adverse impacts on Steller
sea lion critical habitat.
The project is also not expected to
have significant adverse effects on
affected marine mammals’ habitats. The
project activities would not modify
existing marine mammal habitat for a
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17437
significant amount of time. The
activities may cause some fish to leave
the area of disturbance, thus temporarily
impacting marine mammals’ foraging
opportunities in a limited portion of the
foraging range. We do not expect pile
driving activities to have significant
consequences to marine invertebrate
populations. Given the short duration of
the activities and the relatively small
area of the habitat that may be affected,
the impacts to marine mammal habitat,
including fish and invertebrates, are not
expected to cause significant or longterm negative consequences.
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 any of the
species or stocks through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or authorized;
• No Level A harassment of six
species is authorized;
• Level A harassment takes
authorized for six species are expected
to be of a small degree;
• While impacts would occur within
areas that are important for feeding for
sperm whale, because of the small
footprint of the activity relative to the
area of these important use areas, we do
not expect impacts to the reproduction
and survival of any individuals;
• Effects on species that serve as prey
for marine mammals from the activities
are expected to be short-term and,
therefore, any associated impacts on
marine mammal feeding are not
expected to result in significant or longterm consequences for individuals, or to
accrue to adverse impacts on their
populations;
• The lack of anticipated significant
or long-term negative effects to marine
mammal habitat; and,
• The efficacy of the mitigation
measures in reducing the effects of the
specified activities on all species and
stocks.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
planned monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS finds that the total
marine mammal take from the planned
activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted previously, only take of
small numbers of marine mammals may
be authorized under sections
101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
17438
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 48 / Monday, March 11, 2024 / Notices
specified activities other than military
readiness activities. The MMPA does
not define small numbers and so, in
practice, where estimated numbers are
available, NMFS compares the number
of individuals taken to the most
appropriate estimation of abundance of
the relevant species or stock in our
determination of whether an
authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals. When the
predicted number of individuals to be
taken is fewer than one-third of the
species or stock abundance, the take is
considered to be of small numbers.
Additionally, other qualitative factors
may be considered in the analysis, such
as the temporal or spatial scale of the
activities.
The instances of take NMFS proposes
to authorize are below one-third of the
estimated stock abundance for all stocks
(table 7). The number of animals that we
expect to authorize to be taken from
these stocks would be considered small
relative to the relevant stocks’
abundances even if each estimated
taking occurred to a new individual,
which is an unlikely scenario.
The best available abundance estimate
for fin whale is not considered
representative of the entire stock as
surveys were limited to a small portion
of the stock’s range, but there are known
to be over 2,500 fin whales in the
northeast Pacific stock (Muto et al.,
2021). As such, the 18 takes by Level B
harassment and 3 takes by Level A
harassment authorized, compared to the
abundance estimate, shows that less
than 1 percent of the stock would be
expected to be impacted.
The most recent abundance estimate
for the Mexico-North Pacific stock of
humpback whale is likely unreliable as
it is more than 8 years old. The most
relevant estimate of this stock’s
abundance in the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands is 918 humpback
whales (Wade, 2021), so the 9
authorized takes by Level B harassment
and 2 authorized takes by Level A
harassment, is small relative to the
estimated abundance (1.2 percent), even
if each authorized take occurred to a
new individual.
A lack of an accepted stock
abundance value for the Alaska stock of
minke whale did not allow for the
calculation of an expected percentage of
the population that would be affected.
The most relevant estimate of partial
stock abundance is 1,233 minke whales
in coastal waters of the Alaska
Peninsula and Aleutian Islands (Zerbini
et al., 2006), so the 5 authorized takes
by Level B harassment, and 3 authorized
takes by Level A harassment, compared
to the abundance estimate, shows that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Mar 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
less than 1 percent of the stock would
be expected to be impacted.
The most recent abundance estimate
for sperm whale in the North Pacific is
likely unreliable as it is more than 8
years old and was derived from data
collected in a small area that may not
have included females and juveniles,
and did not account for animals missed
on the trackline. The minimum
population estimate for this stock is 244
sperm whales, so the 40 authorized
takes by Level B harassment is small
relative to the estimated survey
abundance, even if each authorized take
occurred to a new individual.
There is no abundance information
available for any Alaskan stock of
beaked whale. However, the take
numbers are sufficiently small (8 and 10
takes by Level B harassment for
Stejneger’s beaked whale and Baird’s
beaked whale, respectively) that we can
safely assume that they are small
relative to any reasonable assumption of
likely population abundance for these
stocks. For reference, current abundance
estimates for other beaked whale stocks
in the Pacific include 1,363 Baird’s
beaked whales (California/Oregon/
Washington stock), 3,044 Mesoplodont
beaked whales (CA/OR/WA stock),
5,454 Cuvier’s beaked whales (CA/OR/
WA stock), 564 Blainville’s beaked
whales (Hawai’i Pelagic stock), 2,550
Longman’s beaked whales (Hawai‘i
stock), and 3,180 Cuvier’s beaked
whales (Hawai’i Pelagic stock).
The Alaska stock of Dall’s porpoise
has no official NMFS abundance
estimate for this area, as the most recent
estimate is greater than 8 years old. The
most recent estimate was 13,110
animals for just a portion of the stock’s
range. Therefore, the 26 takes by Level
B harassment and 13 takes by Level A
harassment authorized for this stock,
compared to the abundance estimate,
shows that less than 1 percent of the
stock would be expected to be impacted.
For the Bering Sea stock of harbor
porpoise, the most reliable abundance
estimate is 5,713, a corrected estimate
from a 2008 survey. However, this
survey covered only a small portion of
the stock’s range, and therefore, is
considered to be an underestimate for
the entire stock (Muto et al., 2022).
Given the 10 takes by Level B
harassment authorized for the stock, and
5 takes by Level A harassment
authorized for the stock, compared to
the abundance estimate, which is only
a portion of the Bering Sea Stock, shows
that, at most, less than 1 percent of the
stock would be expected to be impacted.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the planned activity (including
the planned mitigation and monitoring
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
measures) and the anticipated take of
marine mammals, NMFS finds that
small numbers of marine mammals
would 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.
No subsistence hunting occurs on
Shemya Island, which is a USAF Air
Station; Access to the island is only
provided by military aircraft and USAFcontracted charter planes for crews and
workers. The nearest community that
engages in subsistence hunting is
located on Adak, Alaska which is 640
km (399 mi) to the east. Historically, an
Alaska Native community on Attu, 60
km (37 mi) to the west, hunted for
subsistence, but that community was
destroyed during WWII and the
residents that survived internment did
not return to the island.
Based on the description of the
specified activity, NMFS has
determined that there will not be an
unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence uses from USAF’s planned
activities.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal
agency insure that any action it
authorizes, funds, or carries out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. To ensure
ESA compliance for the issuance of
IHAs, NMFS consults internally
whenever we propose to authorize take
for endangered or threatened species, in
this case with the Alaska Regional
Office.
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 48 / Monday, March 11, 2024 / Notices
There are four marine mammal
species (northeast Pacific fin whale,
Mexico-North Pacific and western North
Pacific humpback whale, North Pacific
sperm whale, and western DPS Steller
sea lion) with confirmed occurrence in
the project area that are listed as
endangered under the ESA. The NMFS
Alaska Regional Office Protected
Resources Division issued a Biological
Opinion on March 1, 2024 under section
7 of the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA
to USAF under section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA by the NMFS Permits and
Conservation Division. The Biological
Opinion concluded that the proposed
action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of northeast Pacific
fin whale, Mexico Pacific and western
North Pacific humpback whale, North
Pacific sperm whale, and western DPS
Steller sea lion and is not likely to
destroy or adversely modify western
DPS Steller sea lion critical habitat.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)
216–6A, NMFS must evaluate our
proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
IHA) and alternatives with respect to
potential impacts on the human
environment. This action is consistent
with categories of activities identified in
Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no
anticipated serious injury or mortality)
of the Companion Manual for NAO 216–
6A, which do not individually or
cumulatively have the potential for
significant impacts on the quality of the
human environment and for which we
have not identified any extraordinary
circumstances that would preclude this
categorical exclusion. Accordingly,
NMFS has determined that the issuance
of this IHA qualifies to be categorically
excluded from further NEPA review.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to USAF for
the potential harassment of small
numbers of 12 marine mammal species
incidental to the Eareckson Air Station
(EAS) Fuel Pier Repair in Alcan Harbor,
Shemya Island, Alaska, that includes
the previously explained mitigation,
monitoring and reporting requirements.
Dated: March 6, 2024.
Catherine G. Marzin,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2024–05105 Filed 3–8–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Mar 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XD775]
Pacific Fishery Management Council;
Public Meeting
17439
Special Accommodations
Requests for sign language
interpretation or other auxiliary aids
should be directed to Mr. Kris
Kleinschmidt (kris.kleinschmidt@
noaa.gov; (503) 820–2412) at least 10
days prior to the meeting date.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
Dated: March 5, 2024.
Rey Israel Marquez,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
The Pacific Fishery
Management Council’s (Pacific Council)
Habitat Committee (HC) will hold an
online public meeting.
DATES: The online meeting will be held
Tuesday, March 26, 2024, from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time or
until business for the day has been
completed.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
This meeting will be held
online. Specific meeting information,
including a proposed agenda and
directions on how to attend the meeting
and system requirements, will be
provided in the meeting announcement
on the Pacific Council’s website (see
www.pcouncil.org). You may send an
email to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt
(kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov) or contact
him at (503) 820–2412 for technical
assistance.
Council address: Pacific Fishery
Management Council, 7700 NE
Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland,
OR 97220–1384.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kerry Griffin, Staff Officer, Pacific
Council; telephone: (503) 820–2409.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
purpose of this online meeting is for the
HC to consider items on the Pacific
Council’s April meeting agenda and to
prepare supplemental reports as
necessary. Topics will include Current
Habitat Issues, the National Marine
Sanctuary report, Council Operations
and Priorities, and Future Meeting
Agenda and Workload Planning. Other
topics may be considered as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not
contained in the meeting agenda may be
discussed, those issues may not be the
subject of formal action during this
meeting. Action will be restricted to
those issues specifically listed in this
document and any issues arising after
publication of this document that
require emergency action under section
305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act,
provided the public has been notified of
the intent to take final action to address
the emergency.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[FR Doc. 2024–05028 Filed 3–8–24; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XD776]
New England Fishery Management
Council; Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.
AGENCY:
The New England Fishery
Management Council (Council) is
scheduling a hybrid meeting of its
Scallop Advisory Panel to consider
actions affecting New England fisheries
in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
Recommendations from this group will
be brought to the full Council for formal
consideration and action, if appropriate.
DATES: This meeting will be held on
Tuesday, March 26, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.
ADDRESSES:
Meeting address: This meeting will be
held at Hotel Providence, 139 Matheson
Street, Providence, RI 02903; telephone:
(401) 490–8000.
Webinar URL information: https://
attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/
6726267218504115289.
Council address: New England
Fishery Management Council, 50 Water
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cate
O’Keefe, Ph.D., Executive Director, New
England Fishery Management Council;
telephone: (978) 465–0492.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Agenda
The Advisory Panel will meet to
discuss Scallop and Habitat Plan
Development Team analyses of four
concept areas for potential scallop
access on the Northern Edge of Georges
Bank. The Advisory Panel will provide
recommendations to the Scallop
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 48 (Monday, March 11, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17423-17439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05105]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XD533]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Eareckson Air Station Fuel Pier
Repair in Alcan Harbor on Shemya Island, 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 Pacific Air Forces Regional Support Center (USAF) to incidentally
harass marine mammals during construction activities associated with
the Eareckson Air Station (EAS) Fuel Pier Repair in Alcan Harbor,
Shemya Island, Alaska. There are no changes from the proposed
authorization in this final authorization.
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
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: Kate Fleming, 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
[[Page 17424]]
statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections
below.
Summary of Request
On May 15, 2023, NMFS received a request from the USACE on behalf
of USAF for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to construction
associated with the EAS Fuel Pier Repair in Alcan Harbor on Shemya
Island, Alaska. Following NMFS' review of the application, and
discussions between NMFS and USAF, the application was deemed adequate
and complete on September 19, 2023. The USAF's request is for take of
12 species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment and, for a subset
of these species, Level A harassment. Neither USAF nor NMFS expect
serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and,
therefore, an IHA is appropriate. There are no changes from the
proposed IHA to the final IHA.
The IHA will be effective from April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025.
Description of the Specified Activity
The USAF plans to conduct long-term repairs on the only existing
fuel pier at EAS on Shemya Island, Alaska. The activities that have the
potential to take marine mammals, by Level A harassment and Level B
harassment, include down-the-hole (DTH) drilling, vibratory and impact
installation of temporary and permanent steel pipe piles, and vibratory
removal of temporary steel pipe piles, and would introduce underwater
sounds that may result in take, by Level A harassment and Level B
harassment, of marine mammals. The marine construction associated with
the planned activities is planned to occur over 160 days over 1 year,
accounting for weather delays and mechanical issues. The IHA is
effective from April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025.
The fuel pier replacement project would include the installation of
an interlocking steel pipe combi-wall system, which will require the
installation and removal of 60 30-inch (in) temporary steel pipe piles
and the installation of 208 42-in round steel interlocking pipe piles
using vibratory, impact, and/or DTH methods.
A detailed description of the planned construction project is
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (88 FR
74451, October 31, 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.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to USAF was published in
the Federal Register on October 31, 2023 (88 FR 74451). That notice
described, in detail, USAF'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, the
United States Geological Survey noted that they have ``no comment at
this time.'' NMFS received no other public comments.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. 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).
Table 1 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
Endangered Species Act (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 2022 SARs (Young et al., 2023). All values presented
in table 1 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.
Table 1--Species Likely Impacted by the Specified Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Artiodactyla--Infraorder Cetacea--Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenopteridae:
Fin Whale....................... Balaenoptera physalus.. Northeast Pacific...... E, D, Y UND (UND, UND, 2013) UND 0.6
\4\.
Humpback Whale.................. Megaptera novaeangliae. Western North Pacific.. E, D, Y 1,084, (0.088, 1,007, 3 2.8
2006).
Mexico--North Pacific.. T, D, Y N/A (N/A, N/A, 2006) UND 0.56
\5\.
Hawai[revaps]i......... -, -, N 11,278 (0.56, 7,265, 127 19.6
2020).
Minke Whale..................... Balaenoptera Alaska................. -, -, - N/A (N/A, N/A, N/A) UND 0
acutorostrata. \6\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17425]]
Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Physeteridae:
Sperm whale..................... Physeter macrocephalus. North Pacific.......... E, D, Y UND (UND, UND, 2015) UND 3.5
\7\.
Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales):
Baird's beaked whale............ Berardius bairdii...... Alaska................. -, -, N N/A (N/A, N/A, N/A)\ N/A 0
8\.
Stejneger's Beaked Whale........ Mesoplodon stejnegeri.. Alaska................. -, -, N N/A (N/A, N/A, N/A)\ N/A 0
8\.
Family Delphinidae:
Killer Whale.................... Orcinus orca........... ENP Alaska Resident -, -, N 1,920 (N/A, 1,920, 19 1.3
Stock. 2019).
ENP Gulf of Alaska, -, -, N 587 (N/A, 587, 2012).. 5.9 0.8
Aleutian Islands, and
Bering Sea.
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Dall's Porpoise................. Phocoenoides dalli..... Alaska................. -, -, N UND (UND, UND, 2015) UND 37
\9\.
Harbor Porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena...... Bering Sea............. -, -, Y UNK (UNK, N/A, 2008) UND 0.4
\10\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
sea lions):
Northern Fur Seal............... Callorhinus ursinus.... Eastern Pacific........ -, D, Y 626,618 (0.2, 530,376, 11,403 373
2019).
Steller Sea Lion................ Eumetopias jubatus..... Western, U.S........... E, D, Y 52,932 (N/A, 52,932, 318 254
2019).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor Seal..................... Phoca vitulina......... Aleutian Islands....... -, -, N 5,588 (N/A, 5,366, 97 90
2018).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum
estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable (explain if this is the case).
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, vessel strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A
CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ The best available abundance estimate for this stock is not considered representative of the entire stock as surveys were limited to a small portion
of the stock's range. Based upon this estimate and the Nmin, the PBR value is likely negatively biased for the entire stock.
\5\ Abundance estimates are based upon data collected more than 8 years ago and therefore current estimates are considered unknown.
\6\ Reliable population estimates are not available for this stock. Please see Friday et al. (2013) and Zerbini et al. (2006) for additional information
on numbers of minke whales in Alaska.
\7\ The most recent abundance estimate is likely unreliable as it covered a small area that may not have included females and juveniles, and did not
account for animals missed on the trackline. The calculated PBR is not a reliable index for the stock as it is based upon negatively biased minimum
abundance estimate.
\8\ Reliable abundance estimates for this stock are currently unavailable.
\9\ The best available abundance estimate is likely an underestimate for the entire stock because it is based upon a survey that covered only a small
portion of the stock's range.
\10\ The best available abundance estimate and Nmin are likely an underestimate for the entire stock because it is based upon a survey that covered only
a small portion of the stock's range. PBR for this stock is undetermined due to this estimate being older than 8 years.
As indicated above, all 12 species (with 15 managed stocks) in
table 1 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the
degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. All species that could
potentially occur in the project area are included in table 3-1 of the
IHA application. While blue whale, gray whale, North Pacific right
whale, Pacific white-sided dolphin, and ribbon seal could occur in the
area, the temporal and/or 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. These species all have extremely
low abundance and most are observed in areas outside of the project
area.
In addition, northern sea otter may be found the western Aleutians.
However, this species is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and is not considered further in this document.
A detailed description of the of the species likely to be affected
by the USAF's project, including brief introductions to the species and
relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population
trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (88 FR
74451, October 31, 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
[[Page 17426]]
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-decibel (dB)
threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception
for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was
deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall
et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing groups and their
associated hearing ranges are provided in table 2.
Table 2--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
(dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
(true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
(sea lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65-dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt,
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
The effects of underwater noise from the USAF's construction
activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of
marine mammals in the vicinity of the project area. The notice of
proposed IHA (88 FR 74451, October 31, 2023) included a discussion of
the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential
effects of underwater noise from the USAF's construction on marine
mammals and their habitat. That information and analysis is
incorporated by reference into this final IHA determination and is not
repeated here; please refer to the notice of proposed IHA (88 FR 74451,
October 31, 2023).
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration
of ``small numbers,'' and the negligible impact 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 would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use
of the acoustic sources (i.e., impact and vibratory pile driving and
removal and DTH) 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 mysticetes and/or high frequency species and/or phocids because
predicted auditory injury zones are larger than for mid-frequency
species and/or otariids. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for other
groups. The required 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
authorized take numbers are 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 how take is estimated.
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; Southall et al., 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
[[Page 17427]]
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 root-mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB
(referenced to 1 micropascal (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 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.
USAF's planned activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile
driving and removal and DTH) and impulsive (impact pile driving and
DTH) sources, and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re
1 [mu]Pa is/are applicable.
Level A Harassment--NMFS' ``Technical Guidance for Assessing the
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing'' (Version 2.0,
Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory
injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups
(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from
two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). USAF's
planned activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile driving and
DTH) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving and removal and DTH)
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.
Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) Underwater)...... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has
a reference value of 1[mu]Pa\2\s. In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National
Standards Institute standards (ANSI, 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating
frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ``flat'' is
being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the
designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and
that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be
exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it
is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the planned project.
Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the
primary components of the project (i.e., pile driving and removal and
DTH). The maximum (underwater) area ensonified above the thresholds for
behavioral harassment referenced above is 1286 kilometers\2\ (km\2\)
(496 miles\2\ (mi\2\)), and the calculated distance to the farthest
behavioral harassment isopleth is approximately 39,811 meters (m)
(24,737.4 mi).
The project includes vibratory pile installation and removal,
impact pile driving, and DTH. Source levels for these activities are
based on reviews of measurements of the same or similar types and
dimensions of piles available in the literature. Source levels for each
pile size and activity are presented in table 4. Source levels for
vibratory installation and removal of piles of the same diameter are
assumed to be the same.
NMFS recommends treating DTH systems as both impulsive and
continuous, non-impulsive sound source types simultaneously. Thus,
impulsive thresholds are used to evaluate Level A harassment, and
continuous thresholds are used to evaluate Level B harassment. With
regards to DTH mono-hammers, NMFS recommends proxy levels for Level A
harassment based on available data regarding DTH systems of similar
sized piles and holes (Denes et al., 2019; Reyff and Heyvaert, 2019;
Reyff, 2020; Heyvaert and Reyff, 2021) (table 4 includes sound pressure
and sound exposure levels for each pile type).
[[Page 17428]]
Table 4--Estimates of Mean Underwater Sound Levels Generated During Vibratory and Impact Pile Installation, DTH,
and Vibratory Pile Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSL at 10 m dB
Continuous sound sources rms Literature source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Hammer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42-in steel piles............................. 168.2 Port of Anchorage Test Pile Program (table 16
in Austin et al., 2016).
30-in steel piles............................. 166 * NMFS Analysis (C. Hotchkin, April 24, 2023).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42-in steel piles............................. 174 Reyff & Heyvaert, 2019; Reyff, 2020.
30-in steel piles............................. 174 Reyff & Heyvaert, 2019; Reyff, 2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive sound sources dB rms dB SEL dB peak Literature source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Hammer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42-in steel piles......................... 192 179 213 Caltrans, 2020.
30-in steel piles......................... 191 177 212 Caltrans, 2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42-in steel piles......................... N/A 164 194 Reyff & Heyvaert, 2019;
Reyff, 2020; Denes et al.,
2019.
30-in steel piles......................... N/A 164 194 Reyff & Heyvaert, 2019;
Reyff, 2020; Denes et al.,
2019.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: dB peak = peak sound level; DTH = down-the-hole drilling; rms = root mean square; SEL = sound exposure
level.
* NMFS generated this source level by completing a completed a comprehensive review of source levels relevant to
southeast Alaska; NMFS compiled all available data from Puget Sound and southeast Alaska and adjusted the data
to standardize distance from the measured pile to 10 m. NMFS then calculated average source levels for each
project and for each pile type. NMFS weighted impact pile driving project averages by the number of strikes
per pile following the methodology in Navy (2015).
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an
acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary
with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition
and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2),
Where
TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement
Absent site-specific acoustical monitoring with differing measured
transmission loss, a practical spreading value of 15 is used as the
transmission loss coefficient in the above formula. Site-specific
transmission loss data for the Shemya Island are not available;
therefore, the default coefficient of 15 is used to determine the
distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds.
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 expected to
incur PTS. Inputs used in the optional User Spreadsheet tool, and the
resulting estimated isopleths, are reported below.
Table 5--User Spreadsheet Inputs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Impact DTH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-in steel piles 42-in steel piles 30-in steel piles 42-in steel piles 30-in steel piles 42-in steel piles
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or removal Installation Installation Installation Installation Installation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spreadsheet Tab Used.......... A.1) Vibratory Pile A.1) Vibratory Pile E.1) Impact Pile Driving. E.1) Impact Pile Driving. E.2) DTH Pile Driving.... E.2) DTH Pile Driving.
Driving. Driving.
Source Level (SPL)............ 166 RMS.................. 168.2 RMS................ 177 SEL.................. 179 SEL.................. 174 RMS, 164 SEL......... 174 RMS, 164 SEL.
Transmission Loss Coefficient. 15....................... 15....................... 15....................... 15....................... 15....................... 15
Weighting Factor Adjustment 2.5...................... 2.5...................... 2........................ 2........................ 2........................ 2
(kHz).
[[Page 17429]]
Activity Duration per day 60....................... 120...................... 120...................... 180...................... 150...................... 180
(minutes).
Strike Rate per second........ ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 10....................... 10
Number of strikes per pile.... ......................... ......................... 900...................... 1,800.................... ......................... .........................
Number of piles per day....... 4........................ 4........................ 4........................ 4........................ 3........................ 3
Distance of sound pressure 10....................... 10....................... 10....................... 10....................... 10....................... 10
level measurement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Level A Harassment and Level B Harassment Isopleths From Vibratory and Impact Pile Driving and DTH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment isopleths (m) Level B
----------------------------------------------------------------- harassment
Pile type isopleth
LF MF HF PW OW (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42-in steel pipe piles............ 32.7 2.9 48.4 19.9 1.4 16,343
30-in Steel pipe piles............ 14.7 1.3 21.8 8.9 0.6 11,659
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42-in Steel pipe piles............ 2,549.4 90.7 3,036.7 1,364.3 99.3 39,811
30-in Steel pipe piles............ 2,257.6 80.3 2,689.2 1,208.2 88 39,811
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42-in steel pipe piles............ 2,015.1 71.7 2,400.3 1,078.4 78.5 1,359
30-in Steel pipe piles............ 933.8 33.2 1,112.3 499.7 36.4 1,166
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
will inform the take calculations. We describe how the information
provided is synthesized to produce a quantitative take estimate.
As described above, for some species (humpback whale, killer whale,
Steller sea lion and harbor seal) observations within the project area
from the prior monitoring were available to directly inform the take
estimates, while for other species (fin whale, minke whale, sperm
whale, Baird's beaked whale, Stejneger's beaked whale, Dall's porpoise,
harbor porpoise and northern fur seal) they were not. Prior surveys
include Protected Species Observer (PSO) monitoring completed at the
project site on 60 days between June and August 2021 during the
emergency fuel pier repair, island-wide faunal surveys completed by the
USACE Engineer Research Development Center (ERDC) across 33 days
between 2016 and 2019 (primarily in the spring and fall), and island-
wide marine mammal surveys completed by the USACE Civil Works
Environmental Resource Section on 26 days between May and October 2021.
From all three surveys, data that were collected within the project
area are primarily the basis for the take estimates because those data
best represents what might be encountered there. Average group sizes
used to inform Level B take estimates (which also underlie the
estimates for Level A harassment) for all species with prior
observations in the project area are primarily based on those data.
Alternate methods utilizing average group sizes informed primarily by
Alaska's Wildlife Notebook Series are used for species without prior
observations.
Also of note, while the results are not significantly different, in
some cases we recommended modified methods for estimating take from
those presented by the applicant and have described them below. A
summary of authorized take, including as a percentage of population for
each of the species, is shown in table 7.
Fin Whale
No fin whale were reported during monitoring conducted for the EAS
fuel pier emergency repair completed in 2021, nor during other surveys
completed from Shemya Island (see application). Accordingly, average
group size, estimated group size based on information shared in the
Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series (Clark, 2008a), is used as the basis
for the take estimates.
USAF requested 17 takes of fin whales by Level B harassment, using
a calculation based on 0.002 groups of eight fin whales per hour of
construction activity. NMFS concurs with USAF's predicted group size of
fin whale (eight individuals), but since there are no observations of
this species from Shemya Island, NMFS finds it more appropriate to
estimate take by Level B harassment using a less granular occurrence
estimate (monthly) rather than USAF's hourly occurrence
[[Page 17430]]
estimate. Specifically, one group of eight fin whales is predicted
every 2 construction months, based on the applicant's prediction that
this species would be rare in the project area. The duration of the
construction is 160 days (2.65 * the basic 60-day period) and 8 * 2.65
= 21 takes by Level B harassment).
Although the shutdown zone is larger than the Level A harassment
zone for low frequency cetaceans, USAF indicates that at >=2,000 m, it
becomes more challenging to reliably detect low frequency cetaceans in
some environmental conditions, and therefore it is possible that a fin
whale could enter the Level A harassment zone during DTH activities and
stay long enough to incur PTS before USAF detects the animal and shuts
down. As such, USAF requested and NMFS authorized a small amount of
take by Level A harassment of fin whales. NMFS calculated takes by
Level A harassment by first determining the proportion of the area of
largest Level A harassment zone (42-in DTH, 2,549 m) that occurs beyond
the readily observable 2,000 m from the pile driving location (i.e.,
7.5 km\2\-5 km\2\/7.5 km\2\ = 0.33). This ratio was multiplied by the
estimated fin whale exposures, which is generally one group of eight
fin whale that would occur every 2 construction months (or 60 days,
adjusted by 1.2 to account for the 70 days that DTH activities are
planned). Multiplying these factors (8 * 1.2 * 0.33) results in three
takes by Level A harassment.
Any individuals exposed to the higher levels associated with the
potential for PTS closer to the source might also be behaviorally
disturbed, however, for the purposes of quantifying take we do not
count those exposures of one individual as both a Level A harassment
take and a Level B harassment take, and therefore takes by Level B
harassment calculated as described above are further modified to deduct
the authorized amount of take by Level A harassment (i.e., 21-3 = 18).
Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize 3 takes by Level A harassment
and 18 takes by Level B harassment for fin whales, for a total of 21
takes.
Humpback Whale
Across 119 days of marine mammal surveys completed from Shemya
Island between 2016 and 2021, seven humpback whales were observed in
the project area. The average group size for humpback whales detected
in the project area was two humpback whales per group detected.
For estimating take by Level B harassment where monitoring data
confirmed the presence of the marine mammal species, NMFS concurred
with USAF's approach. USAF requested take by Level B harassment by
predicting that 0.07 groups of humpback whales would be sighted every
hour, which was based on the applicant predicting this species would
commonly occur within the project area. This was then multiplied by the
average group size for humpback whales (two individuals), to achieve an
hourly humpback rate. Finally, these numbers are multiplied by the
hours of construction activity (0.07 * 2 * 1,101 = 154 takes by Level B
harassment).
Although the shutdown zone is larger than the Level A harassment
zone for low frequency cetaceans, USAF indicates that at >=2,000 m, it
becomes more challenging to reliably detect low frequency cetaceans in
some environmental conditions, and therefore it is possible that
humpback whales could enter the Level A harassment zone during DTH
activities and stay long enough to incur PTS before USAF detects the
animal and shuts down. As such, USAF requested and NMFS authorized a
small amount of take by Level A harassment of humpback whales. NMFS
calculated takes by Level A harassment by determining the proportion of
the area of largest Level A harassment zone (42-in DTH, 2,549 m) that
occurs beyond 2,000 m from the pile driving location (i.e., 7.5 km\2\-5
km\2\/7.5 km\2\ = 0.33) and multiplying this ratio by the estimated
humpback whale exposures (0.07 groups of 2 humpback whale) that would
occur every construction hour that DTH activities are planned (624
hours) (0.07 * 2 * 624 * 0.33 = 29 takes by Level A harassment).
For the reasons described above, takes by Level B harassment were
modified to deduct the authorized amount of take by Level A harassment
(i.e., 154-29 = 125).
Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize 29 takes by Level A
harassment and 125 takes by Level B harassment for humpback whales, for
a total of 154 takes.
Minke Whale
No minke whales were reported during monitoring conducted for the
EAS fuel pier emergency repair completed in 2021, nor during other
surveys completed from Shemya Island (e.g., see application).
Accordingly, average group size, estimated based on group size
information shared in the Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series (Clark,
2008a), is used as the basis for the take estimates (Guerrero, 2008b).
USAF requested seven takes of minke whales by Level B harassment,
using a calculation of 0.002 groups of three minke whales per hour of
construction activity. NMFS concurs with USAF's predicted group size of
minke whale (three individuals), but since there are no observations of
this species from Shemya Island, NMFS finds it more appropriate to
estimate take by Level B harassment using a less granular occurrence
estimate (monthly) rather than USAF's hourly occurrence estimate.
Specifically, one group of three minke whales is predicted every 2
construction months, based on the applicant's prediction that this
species would be rare in the project area. The duration of construction
is 160 days (2.65 * the basic 60-day period, which corresponds to 2
months) and 3 * 2.65 = 8 takes by Level B harassment.
Although the shutdown zone is larger than the Level A harassment
zone for low frequency cetaceans, USAF indicates that at >=2,000 m, it
becomes more challenging to reliably detect low frequency cetaceans in
some environmental conditions, and therefore it is possible that a
minke whale could enter the Level A harassment zone during DTH
activities and stay long enough to incur PTS before USAF detects the
animal and shuts down. As such, USAF requested and NMFS authorized a
small amount of take by Level A harassment of minke whales. NMFS
calculated takes by Level A harassment by determining the proportion of
the area of largest Level A harassment zone (42-in DTH, 2,549 m) that
occurs beyond the readily observable 2,000 m from the pile driving
location (i.e., 7.5 km\2\-5 km\2\/7.5 km\2\ = 0.33).This ratio was
multiplied by the estimated minke whale exposures, which is generally
one group of three minke whales every 2 construction months (or 60
days), adjusted by 1.2 to account for the 70 days that DTH activities
are planned. Multiplying these factors (1.2 * 0.33) results in one take
by Level A harassment. Since the predicted average group size of minke
whale is three, NMFS proposes to authorize three takes by Level A
harassment of minke whale.
For reasons described above, takes by Level B harassment were
modified to deduct the authorized amount of take by Level A harassment
(i.e., 8-3 = 5).
Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize three takes by Level A
harassment and five takes by Level B harassment for minke whales, for a
total of eight takes.
Sperm Whale
Across 119 monitoring days between 2016 and 2021, four sperm whales
were observed on a single day from Shemya
[[Page 17431]]
Island, though outside of the project area (see application).
USAF requested 27 takes of sperm whale by Level B harassment, using
a calculation based on of 0.006 groups of four sperm whales per hour of
construction activity. NMFS concurs with USAF's predicted group size of
sperm whale (four individuals, which corresponds to the number of sperm
whales detected on a single day during Shemya Island marine mammal
surveys), but since there are few observations of this species from
Shemya Island, NMFS finds it more appropriate to estimate take by Level
B harassment using a less granular occurrence estimate (monthly) rather
than USAF's hourly occurrence estimate. Specifically, two groups of
four sperm whales is predicted every 1 construction month based on
sperm whales being one of the most frequently sighted marine mammals in
the high latitude regions of the North Pacific, including the Bering
Sea and the Aleutian Islands. The duration of the construction is 5
months and 2 * 4 * 5 = 40 takes by Level B harassment.
Due to the small Level A harassment zones (table 8), which do not
reach deep water where sperm whales are expected to be encountered,
coupled with the implementation of shutdown zones, which will be larger
than Level A harassment zones for mid-frequency cetaceans (described in
the Mitigation section), NMFS concurs with USAF's assessment that take
by Level A harassment is not anticipated for sperm whale. Therefore,
NMFS authorized all 40 estimated exposures as takes by Level B
harassment. Takes by Level A harassment for sperm whales are not
requested nor are they authorized.
Baird's Beaked Whale
Baird's beaked whales are usually found in tight social groups
(schools or pods) averaging between 5 and 20 individuals, but they have
occasionally been observed in larger groups of up to 50 animals. Across
119 days of marine mammal surveys completed from Shemya Island between
2016 and 2021, no observations of Baird's beaked whale were recorded
(see application). Accordingly, average group size, estimated based on
group size information shared in the Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series
(Guerrero, 2008a), is used as the basis for take estimates.
USAF requested 11 takes by Level B harassment, using a calculation
based on 0.001 groups of ten Baird's beaked whales per hour of
construction activity. NMFS concurs with USAF's predicted group size of
Baird's beaked whale (10 individuals), but since there are no
observations of this species from Shemya Island, NMFS finds it more
appropriate to estimate take by Level B harassment using a less
granular occurrence estimate (monthly) rather than USAF's hourly
occurrence estimate. Specifically, 1 group of 10 Baird's beaked whales
is predicted across the project, which is based on this species being
shy and preferring deep waters and as such the applicant predicted they
would be very rare in the project area. Therefore, NMFS proposes to
authorize 10 takes of Baird's beaked whale by Level B harassment.
Due to the small Level A harassment zones (table 8), which do not
reach deep water where Baird's beaked whales are expected to be
encountered, coupled with the implementation of shutdown zones, which
will be larger than Level A harassment zones for mid-frequency
cetaceans (described in the Mitigation section), NMFS concurs with
USAF's assessment that take by Level A harassment is not anticipated
for Baird's beaked whale. Therefore, NMFS authorized all 10 estimated
exposures as takes by Level B harassment. Takes by Level A harassment
for Baird's beaked whales are not requested nor are they authorized.
Stejneger's Beaked Whale
Across 119 days of marine mammal surveys completed from Shemya
Island between 2016 and 2021, no observations of Stejneger's beaked
whale were recorded (see application). Accordingly, average group size,
estimated based on group size information shared in the Alaska Wildlife
Notebook Series (Guerrero, 2008a), is used as the basis for take
estimates.
USAF requested nine takes of Stejneger's beaked whale by Level B
harassment, using a calculation based on of 0.001 groups of eight
Stejneger's beaked whales per hour of construction activity. NMFS
concurs with USAF's predicted group size of Stejneger's beaked whale
(eight individuals), but since there are no observations of this
species from Shemya Island, NMFS finds it more appropriate to estimate
take by Level B harassment using a less granular occurrence estimate
(monthly) rather than USAF's hourly occurrence estimate. Specifically,
one group of eight Stejneger's beaked whales is predicted across the
entirety of the project, based on this species being shy and preferring
deep waters and as such the applicant predicted they would only be very
rarely encountered in the project area. Therefore, NMFS proposes to
authorize eight Stejneger's beaked whale by level B harassment.
Due to the small Level A harassment zones (table 8), which do not
reach deep water where Stejneger's beaked whales are expected to be
encountered, coupled with the implementation of shutdown zones, which
will be larger than Level A harassment zones for mid-frequency
cetaceans (described in the Mitigation section), NMFS concurs with
USAF's assessment that take by Level A harassment is not anticipated
for Stejneger's beaked whale. Therefore, NMFS authorized all eight
estimated exposures as takes by Level B harassment. Takes by Level A
harassment for Stejneger's beaked whales are not requested nor are they
authorized.
Killer Whale
Across 119 days of marine mammal surveys completed from Shemya
Island between 2016 and 2021, 69 killer whales were observed in the
project area. The average group size for killer whales detected in the
project area was eight killer whales per group detected.
For estimating take by Level B harassment where monitoring data
confirmed the presence of the marine mammal species, NMFS concurred
with USAF's approach. USAF requested take by Level B harassment by
predicting that 0.02 groups of killer whales would be sighted every
hour, which was based on the applicant's prediction that this species
would commonly be encountered in the project area. This was then
multiplied by the average group size for humpback whales (eight
individuals), to achieve an hourly killer whale rate. Finally, these
numbers are multiplied by the hours of construction activity (0.02 * 8
* 1,101 = 176 takes by Level B harassment).
Due to the small Level A harassment zones (table 8), coupled with
the implementation of shutdown zones, which will be larger than Level A
harassment zones for mid-frequency cetaceans (described in the
Mitigation section), NMFS concurs with USAF's assessment that take by
Level A harassment is not anticipated for killer whale. Therefore, NMFS
authorized all 176 estimated exposures as takes by Level B harassment.
Takes by Level A harassment for killer whale are not requested nor are
they authorized.
Dall's Porpoise
No Dall's porpoise were reported during monitoring conducted for
the EAS fuel pier emergency repair completed in 2021, nor during other
surveys completed from Shemya Island (see application). Dall's porpoise
generally travel in groups of 10 to 20 individuals but can occur in
groups
[[Page 17432]]
with over hundreds of individuals (Wells, 2008). Accordingly, average
group size, estimated based group size information shared in the Alaska
Wildlife Notebook Series (Wells 2008), is used as the basis for the
take estimates, is used as the basis for take estimates.
USAF requested 33 takes of Dall's porpoise by Level B harassment,
using a calculation based on of 0.002 groups of 15 Dall's porpoise per
hour of construction activity. NMFS concurs with USAF's predicted group
size of Dall's porpoise (15 individuals), but since there are no
observations of this species from Shemya Island, NMFS finds it more
appropriate to estimate take by Level B harassment using a less
granular occurrence estimate (monthly) rather than USAF's hourly
occurrence estimate. Specifically, 1 group of 15 Dall's porpoise is
predicted every 2 construction months, based on the applicant's
prediction that this species would be rarely encountered in the project
area. The duration of the construction is 160 days (2.65 * the basic
60-day period that corresponds to 2 construction months) and 15 * 2.65
= 40 takes by Level B harassment.
For most activities, NMFS calculated takes by Level A harassment by
determining the ratio of the largest Level A harassment area for 42-in
DTH activities (i.e., 10.2 km\2\ for a Level A harassment distance of
3,037 m) minus the area of the shutdown zone for Dall's porpoise (i.e.,
0.5 km\2\ for a shutdown zone distance of 500 m) to the area of the
Level B harassment isopleth (1,285.9 km\2\) for a Level B harassment
distance of 39,811 m (i.e., (10.2 km\2\-0.5 km\2\)/1,285.9 km\2\ =
0.008). We then multiplied this ratio by the number of estimated Dall's
porpoise exposures calculated as described above for Level B harassment
to determine take by Level A harassment (i.e., 0.008 * 40 exposures =
0.32 takes by Level A harassment).
For Level A harassment during impact pile driving of 42-in piles,
for which the Level A harassment zone is larger than the Level B
harassment zone, NMFS estimates take based on 1 group of 15 Dall's
porpoise every 2 months, or 60 days, in consideration of the 52 days
(0.87 of 60) of impact driving of 42-in piles (15 Dall's porpoise *
0.87 months = 13.05) for a total of 13.37 takes by Level A harassment
(0.32 + 13.05 = 13).
For reasons described above, takes by Level B harassment were
modified to deduct the authorized amount of take by Level A harassment
(i.e., 40-13 = 27).
Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize 13 takes by Level A
harassment and 27 takes by Level B harassment for Dall's porpoise, for
a total of 40 takes.
Harbor Porpoise
Across 119 monitoring days between 2016 and 2021, one group of two
to three harbor porpoise were observed from Shemya Island (see
application), though outside of the project area. Average group size,
estimated based on the Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series (Schmale, 2008),
is used as the basis for take estimates.
USAF requested 11 takes of harbor porpoise by Level B harassment,
using a calculation based on of 0.01 groups of 1 harbor porpoise per
hour of construction activity. NMFS concurs with USAF's predicted group
size of harbor porpoise (one individual), but since there are few
observations of this species from Shemya Island, NMFS finds it more
appropriate to estimate take by Level B harassment using a less
granular occurrence estimate (monthly) rather than USAF's hourly
occurrence estimate. Specifically, three groups of one harbor porpoise
is predicted every 1 construction month. The duration of construction
is 5 months and 3 * 5 = 15 takes by Level B harassment.
For most activities, NMFS calculated takes by Level A harassment by
determining the ratio of the largest Level A harassment area for 42-in
DTH activities (i.e., 10.2 km\2\ for a Level A harassment distance of
3,037 m) minus the area of the shutdown zone for harbor porpoise (i.e.,
0.5 km\2\ for a shutdown zone distance of 500 m) to the area of the
Level B harassment isopleth (1,285.9 km\2\) for a Level B harassment
distance of 39,811 m (i.e., (10.2 km\2\-0.5 km\2\)/1,285.9 km\2\ =
0.008). We then multiplied this ratio by the number of estimated harbor
porpoise exposures calculated as described above for Level B harassment
to determine take by Level A harassment (i.e., 0.008 * 15 exposures =
0.12 takes by Level A harassment).
For Level A harassment during impact pile driving of 42-in piles,
for which the Level A harassment zone is larger than the Level B
harassment zone, NMFS estimates take based on three groups of one
harbor porpoise could be taken by Level A harassment every 1 month, or
30 days in consideration of the 52 days (1.7 * 30) of impact pile
driving of 42-in piles (3 groups of 1 harbor porpoise * 1.7 = 5.1) for
a total of five takes by Level A harassment (0.12 + 5.1 = 5).
For reasons described above, takes by Level B harassment were
modified to deduct the authorized amount of take by Level A harassment
(i.e., 15-5 = 10).
Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize 5 takes by Level A harassment
and 10 takes by Level B harassment for harbor porpoise, for a total of
15 takes.
Northern Fur Seal
USAF requested 33 takes of northern fur seal by Level B harassment
using a calculation based on 0.003 groups of eight northern fur seals
per hour of construction activity. NMFS disagrees with USAF's predicted
group size of northern fur seal, as these animals are typically
solitary when at sea. Additionally, because there are no records of
northern fur seal in the area, NMFS finds it more appropriate to
estimate take by Level B harassment according to a less granular
occurrence estimate (monthly) rather than USAF's hourly occurrence
estimate. Specifically, one group of one northern fur seal every 1
construction month is predicted and 1 * 5 = 5 takes by Level B
harassment.
Due to the small Level A harassment zones (table 8), coupled with
the implementation of shutdown zones, which will be larger than Level A
harassment zones for otariids (described in the Mitigation section),
NMFS concurs with USAF's assessment that take by Level A harassment is
not anticipated for northern fur seal. Therefore, NMFS authorized all
five estimated exposures as takes by Level B harassment. Takes by Level
A harassment for northern fur seals are not requested nor are they
authorized.
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lions are frequently observed around Shemya Island
outside of the ensonified area, but only occasionally observed in Alcan
Harbor and Shemya Pass (see application). Across 119 monitoring days
between 2016 and 2021, 16 Steller sea lions were observed within the
project area. The average group size for Steller sea lion detected in
the project area as well as around Shemya Island was one Steller sea
lion per detection.
For estimating take by Level B harassment where monitoring data
confirmed the presence of the marine mammal species, NMFS concurred
with USAF's planned approach. USAF requested take by Level B harassment
by predicting that 0.09 groups of Steller sea lion would be sighted
every hour, which was based on the applicant's prediction that this
species would be more commonly encountered in the project area. This
was then multiplied by the average group size for Steller sea lion (1
individual), to achieve an hourly steller sea lion rate. Finally, these
numbers are multiplied by the hours of construction activity (0.09 * 1
* 1,101 = 99 takes by Level B harassment).
[[Page 17433]]
Due to the small Level A harassment zones (table 8), coupled with
the implementation of shutdown zones, which will be larger than Level A
harassment zones for otariids (described in the Mitigation section),
NMFS concurs with USAF's assessment that take by Level A harassment is
not anticipated for Steller sea lion. Therefore, NMFS authorized all 99
estimated exposures as takes by Level B harassment. Takes by Level A
harassment for Steller sea lion are not requested nor are they
authorized.
Harbor Seal
Across 119 monitoring days between 2016 and 2021, 54 harbor seals
were observed within the project area. The average group size for
harbor seals detected in the project area was one harbor seals per
group.
For estimating take by Level B harassment where monitoring data
confirmed the presence of the marine mammal species, NMFS concurred
with USAF's planned approach. USAF requested take by Level B harassment
by predicting that 0.14 groups of harbor seals would be sighted every
hour, which was based on the fact that this species is expected to more
commonly occur within the project area. This was then multiplied by the
average group size for harbor seal (1 individual), to achieve an hourly
harbor seal rate. Finally, these numbers are multiplied by the hours of
construction activity (0.14 * 1 * 1,101 = 154 takes by Level B
harassment).
NMFS initially calculated takes by Level A harassment by
determining the ratio of the largest Level A harassment area for 42-in
DTH activities (i.e., 2.6 km\2\ for a Level A harassment distance of
1364 m) minus the area of the shutdown zone for harbor seal (i.e., 0.37
km\2\ for a shutdown zone distance of 400 m) to the area of the Level B
harassment isopleth (1,285.9 km\2\) for a Level B harassment distance
of 39,811 m (i.e., (2.6 km\2\-0.37 km\2\)/1,285.9 km\2\ = 0.002). We
then multiplied this ratio by the number of estimated harbor seal
exposures calculated as described above for Level B harassment to
determine take by Level A harassment (i.e., 0.002 * 154 exposures = 0.3
takes by Level A harassment).
Because harbor seals typically inhabit areas closer to shore rather
than distances represented by the largest level B zone (39,811 m), NMFS
determined that the method above could underestimate potential take by
Level A harassment. NMFS accordingly estimated additional takes by
Level A harassment by determining the ratio of harbor seals that were
observed beyond the shutdown zone isopleth compared to the harbor seals
that were observed closer to construction activities during the EAS
fuel pier emergency repair that was completed in 2021 (i.e., 11/38 =
0.29 harbor seals). We then multiplied this ratio by the total number
of estimated harbor seal exposures to determine take by Level A
harassment (i.e., 0.29 * 154 exposures = 45) for a total of 45 takes by
Level A harassment (0.3 + 45 = 45.3).
For reasons described above, takes by Level B harassment were
modified to deduct the authorized amount of take by Level A harassment
(i.e., 154-45 = 109).
Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize 45 takes by Level A
harassment and 109 takes by Level B harassment for harbor seal, for a
total of 154 takes.
Table 7--Authorized Take by Stock and Harassment Type and as a Percentage of Stock Abundance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized take Authorized
-------------------------- take as a
Species Stock percentage
Level B Level A of stock
harassment harassment abundance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin Whale................................. Northeast Pacific............ 18 3 <1
Humpback Whale............................ Western North Pacific........ 3 1 <1
Mexico--North Pacific........ 9 2 1.2
Hawai[revaps]i............... 113 26 1.2
Minke Whale............................... Alaska....................... 5 3 <1
Sperm Whale............................... North Pacific................ 40 0 16.4
Baird's beaked whale...................... Alaska....................... 10 0 (*)
Stejneger's beaked whale.................. Alaska....................... 8 0 (*)
Killer whale.............................. ENP Alaska Resident Stock.... 176 0 9.2
ENP Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian 30
Islands, and Bering Seal.
Dall's Porpoise........................... Alaska....................... 26 13 <1
Harbor Porpoise........................... Bering Seal.................. 10 5 <1
Northern Fur Seal......................... Eastern Pacific.............. 5 0 <1
Steller Sea Lion.......................... Western, U.S................. 99 0 <1
Harbor Seal............................... Aleutian Islands............. 109 45 2.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Reliable abundance estimates for these stock are currently unavailable.
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 incidental take authorizations to
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, 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, as
well as subsistence uses. This considers the nature of the potential
adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope,
[[Page 17434]]
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.
USAF must ensure that construction supervisors and crews, the
monitoring team and relevant USAF staff are trained prior to the start
of all pile driving and DTH activity, so that responsibilities,
communication procedures, monitoring protocols, and operational
procedures are clearly understood. New personnel joining during the
project must be trained prior to commencing work.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
Shutdown Zones--For all pile driving/removal and DTH activities,
USAF would implement shutdowns within designated zones. The purpose of
a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of
the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in
anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). Shutdown zones
vary based on the activity type and marine mammal hearing group (table
8). In most cases, the shutdown zones are based on the estimated Level
A harassment isopleth distances for each hearing group, as requested by
USAF. However, in cases where it would be challenging to detect marine
mammals at the Level A isopleth, (e.g., for high frequency cetaceans
and phocids during DTH activities and impact pile driving), smaller
shutdown zones have been established (table 8). Additionally, USAF has
agreed to implement a minimum shutdown zone of 25 m during all pile
driving and removal activities and DTH.
Finally, construction supervisors and crews, PSOs, and relevant
USAF staff must avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals
during construction activity. If a marine mammal comes within 10 m of
such activity, operations must cease and vessels must reduce speed to
the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working
conditions, as necessary to avoid direct physical interaction. If an
activity 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
indicated in table 8 or 15 minutes have passed for delphinids or
pinnipeds or 30 minutes for all other species without re-detection of
the animal.
Construction activities must be halted upon observation of 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.
Table 8--Shutdown Zones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shutdown zones (m)
Activity Pile diameter ----------------------------------------------------------------
LF MF HF PW OW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Installation or Removal............... 42-in................................ 50
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-in................................ 25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH............................................. 42-in................................ 2,600 100 500 400 100
30-in................................ 2,300 80 90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Pile..................................... 42-in................................ 2,100 80
30-in................................ 1,000 50 50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protected Species Observers--The number and placement of PSOs
during all construction activities (described in the Monitoring and
Reporting section) would ensure that the entire shutdown zone is
visible. USAF would employ at least two PSOs for all pile driving and
DTH activities.
Monitoring for Level B Harassment--PSOs would monitor the shutdown
zones and beyond to the extent that PSOs can see. Monitoring beyond the
shutdown zones enables observers to be aware of and communicate the
presence of marine mammals in the project areas outside the shutdown
zones and thus prepare for a potential cessation of activity should the
animal enter the shutdown zone. If a marine mammal enters the Level B
harassment zone, PSOs will document the marine mammal's presence and
behavior.
Pre and Post-Activity Monitoring--Prior to the start of daily in-
water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30
minutes or longer occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown, Level A
harassment, and Level B harassment for a period of 30 minutes. Pre-
start clearance monitoring must be conducted during periods of
visibility sufficient for the lead PSO to determine that the shutdown
zones are clear of marine mammals. If the shutdown zone is obscured by
fog or poor lighting conditions, in-water construction activity will
not be initiated until the entire shutdown zone is visible. Pile
driving may commence following 30 minutes of observation when the
determination is made that the shutdown zones are clear of marine
mammals. If a marine mammal is observed entering or within shutdown
zones, pile driving activity 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
or 15 minutes have passed for delphinids or pinnipeds or 30 minutes
have passed for all other species without re-detection of the animal.
If a marine mammal for which Level B harassment take is authorized is
present in the Level B harassment zone, activities would begin and
Level B harassment take would be recorded.
Soft Start--The use of soft-start procedures are believed to
provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning
and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the
hammer operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors
would be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the
hammer at reduced energy, with each strike followed by a 30-second
waiting period. This
[[Page 17435]]
procedure would be conducted a total of three times before impact pile
driving begins. Soft start would be implemented at the start of each
day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact
pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer. Soft start is not
required during vibratory pile driving and removal activities.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's planned measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the
planned mitigation measures 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, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and,
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Visual Monitoring--Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in
accordance with the Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan.
Marine mammal monitoring during pile driving and removal and DTH
activities must be conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs in a manner
consistent with the following:
PSOs must be independent of the activity contractor (for
example, 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
incidental take authorization;
Other PSOs may substitute other relevant experience,
education (degree in biological science or related field) or training
for experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction
activities pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization.
Where a team of three or more PSOs is required, a lead
observer or monitoring coordinator will be designated. The lead
observer will be required to have prior experience working as a marine
mammal observer during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued
incidental take authorization; and,
PSOs must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any
activity subject to this IHA.
PSOs must also 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 identification of behaviors;
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including, but not limited to, the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation
of mitigation (or why mitigation was note 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.
Visual monitoring will be conducted by a minimum of two trained
PSOs positioned at suitable vantage points. One PSO will have an
unobstructed view of all water within the shutdown zone and will be
stationed at or near the pier. Remaining PSOs will be placed at one or
more of the observer monitoring locations identified on figure 3-3 of
the marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan, in order to observe
as much as the Level A and Level B harassment zone as possible. All
PSOs will have access to 20 by 60 spotting scope on a window mount or
tripod.
Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30
minutes after all in water construction activities. In addition, PSOs
will record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of
distance from activity, and will document any behavioral reactions in
concert with distance from piles being driven or removed. Pile driving
activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or
series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile
driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
Reporting
USAF will submit a draft marine mammal monitoring report to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving activities, or 60
days prior to a requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for the
project, or other projects at the same location, whichever comes first.
The marine mammal monitoring report will include an overall description
of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and
associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report will include:
Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal
monitoring;
Construction activities occurring during each daily
observation period, including: (1) The number and type of piles that
were driven and the method (e.g., impact, vibratory, DTH); (2) Total
duration of driving time for each pile (vibratory driving) and number
of strikes for each pile (impact driving); and (3) For DTH drilling,
duration of operation for both impulsive and non-pulse components;
PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;
Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at
beginning and
[[Page 17436]]
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: (1) Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location
and activity at time of sighting; (2) Time of sighting; (3)
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; (4)
Distance and location of each observed marine mammal relative to the
pile being driven for each sighting; (5) Estimated number of animals
(min/max/best estimate); (6) Estimated number of animals by cohort
(adults, juveniles, neonates, group composition, etc.); (7) Animal's
closest point of approach and estimated time spent within the
harassment zone; (8) Description of any marine mammal behavioral
observations (e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling),
including an assessment of behavioral responses thought to have
resulted from the activity (e.g., no response or changes in behavioral
state such as ceasing feeding, changing direction, flushing, or
breaching);
Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment
zones, by species; and,
Detailed information about implementation of any
mitigation (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of specific
actions that ensued, and resulting changes in behavior of the
animal(s), if any.
A final report must be prepared and submitted within 30 calendar
days following receipt of any NMFS comments on the draft report. If no
comments are received from NMFS within 30 calendar days of receipt of
the draft report, the report shall be considered final. All PSO
datasheets and/or raw sighting data would be submitted with the draft
marine mammal report.
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the Holder must report the
incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS
([email protected] and [email protected]) and to the
Alaska regional stranding network (877-925-7773) as soon as feasible.
If the death or injury was clearly caused by the specified activity,
the Holder must immediately cease the activities until NMFS OPR 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 this IHA. The Holder must not resume their activities until notified
by NMFS. The report must include the following information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if
the animal is dead);
Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
If available, photographs or video footage of the
animal(s); and,
General circumstances under which the animal was
discovered.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature 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, the majority of our analysis applies to all
the species listed in table 1, given that many of the anticipated
effects of this project on different marine mammal stocks are expected
to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful
differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in
anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take
on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts
on habitat, they are described independently in the analysis below.
Pile driving and DTH activities associated with the EAS fuel pier
repair project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb
or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may
result in take, in the form of Level B harassment and, for some species
Level A harassment, from underwater sounds generated by pile driving
and DTH. 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.
No serious injury or mortality would be expected, even in the
absence of required mitigation measures, given the nature of the
activities. Further, no take by Level A harassment is anticipated for
otariids and mid-frequency cetaceans, due to the application of planned
mitigation measures, such as shutdown zones that encompass Level A
harassment zones for these species. The potential for harassment would
be minimized through the implementation of planned mitigation measures
(see Mitigation section).
Take by Level A harassment is authorized for six species (harbor
porpoise, Dall's porpoise, harbor seal, fin whale, humpback whale, and
minke whale) as the Level A harassment zone exceeds the size of the
shutdown zones (high frequency cetaceans and phocids), or, in the case
of low frequency cetaceans, the shutdown zone is so large that it is
possible that a minke whale, fin whale, or humpback whale could enter
the Level A harassment zone and remain within the zone for a duration
long enough to incur PTS before being detected.
Any take by Level A harassment is expected to arise from, at most,
a small degree of PTS (i.e., minor degradation of hearing capabilities
within regions of hearing that align most completely with the energy
produced by impact pile driving such as the low-frequency region below
2 kHz), not severe hearing impairment or impairment within the ranges
of greatest hearing sensitivity. Animals would need to be exposed to
higher levels and/or longer duration
[[Page 17437]]
than are expected to occur here in order to incur any more than a small
degree of PTS.
Given the small degree anticipated, any PTS potential incurred
would not be expected to affect the reproductive success or survival of
any individuals, much less result in adverse impacts on the species or
stock.
Additionally, some subset of the individuals that are behaviorally
harassed could also simultaneously incur some small degree of TTS for a
short duration of time. However, since the hearing sensitivity of
individuals that incur TTS is expected to recover completely within
minutes to hours, it is unlikely that the brief hearing impairment
would affect the individual's long-term ability to forage and
communicate with conspecifics, and would therefore not likely impact
reproduction or survival of any individual marine mammal, let alone
adversely affect rates of recruitment or survival of the species or
stock.
As described above, NMFS expects that marine mammals would likely
move away from an aversive stimulus, especially at levels that would be
expected to result in PTS, given sufficient notice through use of soft
start. USAF would also shut down pile driving activities if marine
mammals enter the shutdown zones (table 8) further minimizing the
likelihood and degree of PTS that would be incurred.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment in the
form of behavioral disruption, on the basis of reports in the
literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, would
likely be limited to reactions such as avoidance, increased swimming
speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such
activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006). Most likely,
individuals would simply move away from the sound source and
temporarily avoid the area where pile driving is occurring. If sound
produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are
likely to simply avoid the area while the activities are occurring. We
expect that any avoidance of the project areas by marine mammals would
be temporary in nature and that any marine mammals that avoid the
project areas during construction would not be permanently displaced.
Short-term avoidance of the project areas and energetic impacts of
interrupted foraging or other important behaviors is unlikely to affect
the reproduction or survival of individual marine mammals, and the
effects of behavioral disturbance on individuals is not likely to
accrue in a manner that would affect the rates of recruitment or
survival of any affected stock.
The project area does overlap a Biologically Important Area (BIA)
identified as important for feeding by sperm whale (Brower et al.,
2022). The BIA that overlaps the project area is active April through
September, which overlaps USAF's planned work period (April to
October). White the BIA is considered to be of higher importance, the
area of the BIA is very large, spanning the island chain, and the
project area is very small in comparison. Further sperm whales utilize
deeper waters to feed, and while the Level B harassment zone does
extend into deeper waters, the sound levels at the distances that
overlay deeper water where sperm whales might be foraging would be of
comparatively lower levels. Given the extensive options for high
quality foraging area near and outside of the project area, any impacts
to feeding sperm whales would not be expected to impact the survival or
reproductive success of any individuals.
The ensonified area also overlaps ESA-designated critical habitat
for western DPS Steller sea lion. Specifically, the Level B ensonified
area overlaps with the aquatic zones of three designated major haulouts
to the east and northwest of the project site: Shemya Island Major
Haulout, Alaid Island Major Haulout, Attu/Chirikof Point Major Haulout.
The ensonified area Level B harassment zone related to implementation
of the planned project, described in the Estimated Take of Marine
Mammals section, overlaps with the designated aquatic zone of all three
designated major haulouts.. No Steller sea lions have been observed on
Shemya Island Major Haulout (2.75 nm to the east of the project site)
during the most recent surveys (between 2015 and 2017) and only one
Steller sea lion was observed at Attu/Chirikof Point Major Haulout (24
nm northwest of the project site). An average of 68 non-pups and 7 pups
were observed annually during this time at Alaid Island Major Haulout,
which is 5 nautical miles northwest of the project site. The
construction site itself does not overlap with critical habitat. Take
by Level B harassment of steller sea lions has been authorized to
account for those that are occasionally observed in low numbers in
Alcan Harbor and Shemya Pass, however, the project is not expected to
have significant adverse impacts on Steller sea lion critical habitat.
The project is also not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitats. The project activities
would not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant
amount of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of
disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging
opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range. We do not
expect pile driving activities to have significant consequences to
marine invertebrate populations. Given the short duration of the
activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be
affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat, including fish and
invertebrates, are not expected to cause significant or long-term
negative consequences.
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 any of the species or stocks
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
No Level A harassment of six species is authorized;
Level A harassment takes authorized for six species are
expected to be of a small degree;
While impacts would occur within areas that are important
for feeding for sperm whale, because of the small footprint of the
activity relative to the area of these important use areas, we do not
expect impacts to the reproduction and survival of any individuals;
Effects on species that serve as prey for marine mammals
from the activities are expected to be short-term and, therefore, any
associated impacts on marine mammal feeding are not expected to result
in significant or long-term consequences for individuals, or to accrue
to adverse impacts on their populations;
The lack of anticipated significant or long-term negative
effects to marine mammal habitat; and,
The efficacy of the mitigation measures in reducing the
effects of the specified activities on all species and stocks.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the planned monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from
the planned activity will have a negligible impact on all affected
marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals
may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for
[[Page 17438]]
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to
small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of
individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock
abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally,
other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as
the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
The instances of take NMFS proposes to authorize are below one-
third of the estimated stock abundance for all stocks (table 7). The
number of animals that we expect to authorize to be taken from these
stocks would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks'
abundances even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual,
which is an unlikely scenario.
The best available abundance estimate for fin whale is not
considered representative of the entire stock as surveys were limited
to a small portion of the stock's range, but there are known to be over
2,500 fin whales in the northeast Pacific stock (Muto et al., 2021). As
such, the 18 takes by Level B harassment and 3 takes by Level A
harassment authorized, compared to the abundance estimate, shows that
less than 1 percent of the stock would be expected to be impacted.
The most recent abundance estimate for the Mexico-North Pacific
stock of humpback whale is likely unreliable as it is more than 8 years
old. The most relevant estimate of this stock's abundance in the Bering
Sea and Aleutian Islands is 918 humpback whales (Wade, 2021), so the 9
authorized takes by Level B harassment and 2 authorized takes by Level
A harassment, is small relative to the estimated abundance (1.2
percent), even if each authorized take occurred to a new individual.
A lack of an accepted stock abundance value for the Alaska stock of
minke whale did not allow for the calculation of an expected percentage
of the population that would be affected. The most relevant estimate of
partial stock abundance is 1,233 minke whales in coastal waters of the
Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands (Zerbini et al., 2006), so the 5
authorized takes by Level B harassment, and 3 authorized takes by Level
A harassment, compared to the abundance estimate, shows that less than
1 percent of the stock would be expected to be impacted.
The most recent abundance estimate for sperm whale in the North
Pacific is likely unreliable as it is more than 8 years old and was
derived from data collected in a small area that may not have included
females and juveniles, and did not account for animals missed on the
trackline. The minimum population estimate for this stock is 244 sperm
whales, so the 40 authorized takes by Level B harassment is small
relative to the estimated survey abundance, even if each authorized
take occurred to a new individual.
There is no abundance information available for any Alaskan stock
of beaked whale. However, the take numbers are sufficiently small (8
and 10 takes by Level B harassment for Stejneger's beaked whale and
Baird's beaked whale, respectively) that we can safely assume that they
are small relative to any reasonable assumption of likely population
abundance for these stocks. For reference, current abundance estimates
for other beaked whale stocks in the Pacific include 1,363 Baird's
beaked whales (California/Oregon/Washington stock), 3,044 Mesoplodont
beaked whales (CA/OR/WA stock), 5,454 Cuvier's beaked whales (CA/OR/WA
stock), 564 Blainville's beaked whales (Hawai'i Pelagic stock), 2,550
Longman's beaked whales (Hawai`i stock), and 3,180 Cuvier's beaked
whales (Hawai'i Pelagic stock).
The Alaska stock of Dall's porpoise has no official NMFS abundance
estimate for this area, as the most recent estimate is greater than 8
years old. The most recent estimate was 13,110 animals for just a
portion of the stock's range. Therefore, the 26 takes by Level B
harassment and 13 takes by Level A harassment authorized for this
stock, compared to the abundance estimate, shows that less than 1
percent of the stock would be expected to be impacted.
For the Bering Sea stock of harbor porpoise, the most reliable
abundance estimate is 5,713, a corrected estimate from a 2008 survey.
However, this survey covered only a small portion of the stock's range,
and therefore, is considered to be an underestimate for the entire
stock (Muto et al., 2022). Given the 10 takes by Level B harassment
authorized for the stock, and 5 takes by Level A harassment authorized
for the stock, compared to the abundance estimate, which is only a
portion of the Bering Sea Stock, shows that, at most, less than 1
percent of the stock would be expected to be impacted.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the planned activity
(including the planned mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of
marine mammals would 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.
No subsistence hunting occurs on Shemya Island, which is a USAF Air
Station; Access to the island is only provided by military aircraft and
USAF-contracted charter planes for crews and workers. The nearest
community that engages in subsistence hunting is located on Adak,
Alaska which is 640 km (399 mi) to the east. Historically, an Alaska
Native community on Attu, 60 km (37 mi) to the west, hunted for
subsistence, but that community was destroyed during WWII and the
residents that survived internment did not return to the island.
Based on the description of the specified activity, NMFS has
determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence uses from USAF's planned activities.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that
each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or
carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To ensure ESA
compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults internally whenever
we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species, in
this case with the Alaska Regional Office.
[[Page 17439]]
There are four marine mammal species (northeast Pacific fin whale,
Mexico-North Pacific and western North Pacific humpback whale, North
Pacific sperm whale, and western DPS Steller sea lion) with confirmed
occurrence in the project area that are listed as endangered under the
ESA. The NMFS Alaska Regional Office Protected Resources Division
issued a Biological Opinion on March 1, 2024 under section 7 of the
ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to USAF under section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA by the NMFS Permits and Conservation Division. The Biological
Opinion concluded that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of northeast Pacific fin whale, Mexico Pacific
and western North Pacific humpback whale, North Pacific sperm whale,
and western DPS Steller sea lion and is not likely to destroy or
adversely modify western DPS Steller sea lion critical habitat.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must evaluate our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA)
and alternatives with respect to potential impacts on the human
environment. This action is consistent with categories of activities
identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated
serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A,
which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined
that the issuance of this IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to USAF for the potential harassment of
small numbers of 12 marine mammal species incidental to the Eareckson
Air Station (EAS) Fuel Pier Repair in Alcan Harbor, Shemya Island,
Alaska, that includes the previously explained mitigation, monitoring
and reporting requirements.
Dated: March 6, 2024.
Catherine G. Marzin,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-05105 Filed 3-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
