Home/Federal/Federal Register/2021-26122

Notice2021-26122

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the NOAA Port Facility Project in Ketchikan, Alaska

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

December 1, 2021

Issuing agencies

Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Abstract

NMFS has received a request from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the NOAA Port Facility Project in Ketchikan, Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this document. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be summarized in the final notification of our decision.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 228 (Wednesday, December 1, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 228 (Wednesday, December 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68223-68243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26122]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB571]

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the NOAA Port Facility Project in
Ketchikan, Alaska

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for authorization to take marine
mammals incidental to the NOAA Port Facility Project in Ketchikan,
Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment
authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the
specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible
one-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and
if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public
Comments at the end of this document. NMFS will consider public
comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the
requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be summarized
in the final notification of our decision.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than January
3, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service and should be sent to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ed7caceb0d3fbfffaf1e9eddef0f1ffffb0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="450c11156b082024212a3236052b2a24246b222a33">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted online at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act</a> without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dwayne Meadows, Ph.D., Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the
application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the
references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act</a>. In case of problems accessing these
documents, please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed IHA may be provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth.
The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above
are included in the relevant sections below.

National Environmental Policy Act

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA)
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or
mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-
6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA
qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this
notification prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final
decision on the IHA request.

Summary of Request

On October 26, 2021, NMFS received an application from NOAA's
Office of Marine and Aviation Operations requesting an IHA to take
small numbers of 9 species (Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli),
Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus), Pacific white-

[[Page 68224]]

sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), killer whale (Orcinus
orca), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), minke whale (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), harbor porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena) and humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)) of marine
mammals incidental to vibratory and impact pile driving and down-the-
hole (DTH) system use associated with the project. The application was
deemed adequate and complete on November 16, 2021. NOAA's request is
for take of a small number of these species by Level A or Level B
harassment. Neither NOAA nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality
to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

The purpose of the project is to remove an obsolete dock facility
and construct a new facility including a 240 feet (ft) x 50 ft floating
pier connected to land by a transfer bridge. A small boat dock would be
connected to the large ship pier and a small boat launch ramp will be
constructed adjacent to the other structures.
The pile driving/removal and DTH can result in take of marine
mammals from sound in the water which results in behavioral harassment
or auditory injury.

Dates and Duration

This construction work will occur from 1 February 2022 through 31
January 2023 and will take no more than 47 days of in-water pile and
DTH work.

Specific Geographic Region

The project is located in the city of Ketchikan on Revillagigedo
Island and the east shore of the Tongass Narrows waterway (Figure 1).
The natural topography of the local area largely consists of moderately
steep slopes trending toward the Tongass Narrows waterway. In this
region, the Tongass Narrows is part of Southeast Alaska's Inside
Passage where it splits into two channels by Pennock Island. The
project area is in an industrial waterfront. The shoreline and
underwater portions of the area are highly modified by existing dock
structures and past dredging. Offshore marine sediments are reported to
be minimal, with sediment cover depths progressively increasing away
from the shoreline. Marine sediment depths overlying bedrock reportedly
range from four to five feet and consist of coarse sand, rock
fragments, and shells. Ongoing vessel activities throughout Tongass
Narrows waterway, land-based industrial and commercial activities, and
regular aircraft operations result in elevated in-air and underwater
sound conditions in the area. Sound levels likely vary seasonally, with
elevated levels during summer when the tourism and fishing industries
are at their peaks. The shoreline and underwater portions of the area
are highly modified by existing dock structures and past dredging.

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

The project consists of an almost complete recapitalization of the
existing facility. This includes the removal and appropriate disposal
of unused or obsolete structures and infrastructure, in both a 77,000-
square-feet (ft\2\) upland area and within 102,000 ft\2\ of the in-
water area. Descriptions of additional upland activities may be found
in the application but such actions will not affect marine mammals and
are not described in detail here.
All existing in-water structures, including pier, access trestle,
and mooring dolphins present above and below the water surface, are
inadequate and would be removed except for a concrete/steel mooring
platform and breasting dolphin with fender. The in-water structures
would be replaced by adequately sized and structurally sound elements
necessary for berthing, preparing, and maintaining vessel operations.
An estimated 134 remnant timber piles would be removed by direct
pull or by vibratory methods. If piles incur breakage or splintering
during the removal process, the pile would be cut at or about 2 feet
(0.67 meters (m)) from the bottom. In addition, 66 remnant steel piles
must be removed. This will occur by use of a pile clipper or hydraulic
saw.

[[Page 68225]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01DE21.004

An approximately 240-ft long and 50-ft wide (73 by 15 m) floating
pier would replace the existing pier and its supporting piles. The
floating pier would be secured and stabilized by 10 24-inch diameter
steel pipe piles, and accessed via a single, 144-ft long and 17-ft wide
(44 by 5 m) steel, truss-framed transfer bridge. The transfer bridge
would be supported by a bridge support float adjacent to the pier and
hinged to the shoreline cast in place concrete abutment. The 24-ft by
22-ft (7.3 by 6.7 m) bridge support float would be secured by four
additional 24-inch diameter steel piles. A small boat dock,
approximately 90 ft long by 14 ft wide (27 by 4 m), would be installed
and connected to the floating pier by an aluminum gangway and would
require an additional four 24-inch steel piles. Thus the new structures
would require a total of 18 24-inch steel piles. Installation of the
new steel piles is anticipated to be undertaken using a barge mounted
DTH system to create holes in the rock (sockets) in which the piles
would be placed. Piles would be embedded into socket holes created by
the DTH in bedrock to a minimum depth of 20 ft. The last foot of each
pile would be ``proofed'' using an impact pile driver that is
anticipated will require approximately 5 to 10 blows per pile.
Replacement mooring dolphins and fenders for mooring would be
installed. Ship utilities would be extended dockside attached to the
transfer bridge. A small boat launch ramp would be built on the
northern portion of the site and would be supported on a raised, rip-
rap protected mound with a footprint of approximately 200 ft by 70 ft
wide (61 by 21 m).
Table 1 provides a summary of the pile driving activities. Because
the steel piles being removed could be removed using either a pile
clipper or hydraulic saw, we use the loudest, most precautionary source
level for those piles which are pile clippers. In-water work would be
performed using equipment based on a floating barge or from the shore,
as needed. Pile work would normally only occur during civil daylight
hours unless work needs to continue on a pile until it is safe to leave
overnight. In summary, the project period includes 47 days of pile or
DTH activities for which this IHA is requested.

[[Page 68226]]

Table 1--Summary of Pile Driving Activities and User Spreadsheet Inputs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes/
Method Pile type Number of strikes per Piles per day
piles pile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH Impact............................ 24-inch Steel........... 18 25,000 1.5
48 1.5
Vibratory............................. 14-inch Timber.......... 130 2 10
Small Pile Clipper.................... 14-inch Steel........... 28 10 10
Large Pile Clipper.................... 20- or 24-inch Steel.... 42 10 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals............................ ........................ 218 .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All User spreadsheet calculations use Transmission Loss = 15 and standard weighting factor adjustments.

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species.
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments</a>) and more general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's
website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species</a>).
Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in
the project area and summarizes information related to the population
or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known.
For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2021). PBR is defined by
the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while
allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is
anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and
mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross
indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS's U.S. Alaska or Pacific SARs including the 2021 draft SARs.

Table 2--Species That Spatially Co-Occur With the Activity to the Degree That Take Is Reasonably Likely To Occur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
Humpback whale.................. Megaptera novaeangliae. Central North Pacific.. -,-; Y 10,103 (0.3, 7,890, 83 26
2006).
Minke Whale..................... Balaenoptera Alaska................. -,-; N N/A (see SAR, N/A, see uND 0
acutorostrata. SAR).
Family Eschrichtiidae (gray whale):
Gray Whale...................... Eschrichtius robustus.. Eastern North Pacific.. -,-; N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 801 131
2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Pacific white-sided dolphin..... Lagenorhynchus North Pacific.......... -,-; N 26,880 (N/A, N/A, uND 0
obliquidens. 1990).
Killer Whale.................... Orcinus orca........... Northern Resident...... -,-; N 302 (N/A, 302, 2018).. 2.2 0.2
Alaska Resident........ -,-; N 2,347 (N/A, 2347, 24 1
2012).
West Coast Transient... -,-; N 349 (N/A, 349, 2018).. 3.5 0.4
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena...... Southeast Alaska....... -,-; N see SAR (see SAR, see See SAR 34
SAR, 2012).
Dall's porpoise................. Phocoenoides dalli..... Entire Alaska Stock.... -,-; N 83,400 (0.097,........ uND 38
N/A, 1991)............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (sea lions and fur
seals):
Steller sea lion................ Eumetopias jubatus..... Eastern Stock.......... -,-; N 43,201 a (see SAR, 2592 112
43,201, 2017).

[[Page 68227]]

Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor seal..................... Phoca vitulina......... Clarence Strait........ -; N 27,659 (see SAR, 746 40
24,854, 2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports</a>. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual Mortality/ Serious Injury (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.

Humpback whales, minke whales, gray whales, Pacific white-sided
dolphin, killer whale, harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, harbor seal,
and Steller sea lions spatially co-occur with the activity to the
degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have proposed
authorizing take of these species. Fin whale could potentially occur in
the area, however there are no known sightings nearby so the species is
very rare, is readily observed, and the applicant would shut down pile
driving if they enter the project area. Thus take is not expected to
occur, and they are not discussed further.

Humpback Whale

The humpback whale is found worldwide in all oceans. Prior to 2016,
humpback whales were listed under the ESA as an endangered species
worldwide. Following a 2015 global status review (Bettridge et al.,
2015), NMFS established 14 DPSs with different listing statuses (81 FR
62259; September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. Humpback whales found in
the project area are predominantly members of the Hawaii DPS, which is
not listed under the ESA. However, based on a comprehensive photo-
identification study, members of the Mexico DPS, which is listed as
threatened, are known to occur in Southeast Alaska. Members of
different DPSs are known to intermix on feeding grounds; therefore, all
waters off the coast of Alaska should be considered to have ESA-listed
humpback whales. Approximately 2 percent of all humpback whales in
Southeast Alaska and northern British Columbia are members of the
Mexico DPS, while all others are members of the Hawaii DPS (Wade et
al., 2021).
The DPSs of humpback whales that were identified through the ESA
listing process do not equate to the existing MMPA stocks. The stock
delineations of humpback whales under the MMPA are currently under
review. Until this review is complete, NMFS considers humpback whales
in Southeast Alaska to be part of the Central North Pacific stock, with
a status of endangered under the ESA and designations of strategic and
depleted under the MMPA (Muto et al., 2021).
Humpback whales experienced large population declines due to
commercial whaling operations in the early 20th century. Barlow (2003)
estimated the population of humpback whales at approximately 1,200
animals in 1966. The population in the North Pacific grew to between
6,000 and 8,000 by the mid-1990s. Current threats to humpback whales
include vessel strikes, spills, climate change, and commercial fishing
operations (Muto et al., 2021).
Humpback whales are found throughout Southeast Alaska in a variety
of marine environments, including open-ocean, near-shore waters, and
areas with strong tidal currents (Dahlheim et al., 2009). Most humpback
whales are migratory and spend winters in the breeding grounds off
either Hawaii or Mexico. Humpback whales generally arrive in Southeast
Alaska in March and return to their wintering grounds in November. Some
humpback whales depart late or arrive early to feeding grounds, and
therefore the species occurs in Southeast Alaska year-round (Straley,
1990, Straley et al., 2018). Across the region, there have been no
recent estimates of humpback whale density.
No systematic studies have documented humpback whale abundance near
Ketchikan. Anecdotal information suggests that this species is present
in low numbers year-round in Tongass Narrows, with the highest
abundance during summer and fall. Anecdotal reports suggest that
humpback whales are seen only once or twice per month, while more
recently it has been suggested that the occurrence is more regular,
such as once per week on average, and more seasonal. Humpbacks observed
in Tongass Narrows are generally alone or in groups of one to three
individuals. In August 2017, a group of 6 individuals was observed
passing through Tongass Narrows several times per day, for several days
in a row.
The City of Ketchikan (COK) Rock Pinnacle project, which was
located approximately 4 kilometers (km) southeast of the proposed
project site, reported one humpback whale sighting of one individual
during the project (December 2019 through January 2020). During the
Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock Construction, located approximately 5 km
northwest of the proposed project site, 28 sightings of humpbacks were
made on eighteen days of in water work that occurred between February
and September 2020, with at least one humpback being recorded every
month. A total of 42 individuals were recorded and group sizes ranged
from 1 to 6 (Power Systems & Supplies of Alaska, 2020). Humpback whales
were sighted on 17 days out of 88 days of monitoring in Tongass Narrows
in 2020 and 2021 (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). There were
no sightings in January or February, but humpback whales were observed
each month from October to December 2020 and May to June 2021. During
November 2020, a single known individual (by fluke pattern) was
observed repeatedly, accounting for 14 of the 26 sighting events that
month (DOT&PF, 2020). During monitoring, humpback whales were observed
on average once a week.
Southeast Alaska is considered an important area for feeding
humpback whales between March and May (Ellison et al., 2012), though
not currently designated as critical habitat (86 FR 21082; April 21,
2021). In Alaska, humpback whales filter feed on tiny crustaceans,
plankton, and small fish

[[Page 68228]]

such as walleye pollock, Pacific sand lance, herring, eulachon
(Thaleichthys pacificus), and capelin (Witteveen et al., 2012).

Minke Whale

Minke whales are found throughout the northern hemisphere in polar,
temperate, and tropical waters. The population status of minke whales
is considered stable throughout most of their range. Historically,
commercial whaling reduced the population size of this species, but
given their small size, they were never a primary target of whaling and
did not experience the severe population declines as did larger
cetaceans.
Minke whales are found in all Alaska waters. Minke whales in
Southeast Alaska are part of the Alaska stock (Muto et al., 2021).
Research in Southeast Alaska have consistently identified individuals
throughout inland waters in low numbers (Dahlheim et al., 2009). All
sightings were of single minke whales, except for a single sighting of
multiple minke whales. Surveys took place in spring, summer, and fall,
and minke whales were present in low numbers in all seasons and years.
No information appears to be available on the winter occurrence of
minke whales in Southeast Alaska.
There are no known occurrences of minke whales within the project
area. Since their ranges extend into the project area and they have
been observed in southeast Alaska, including in Clarence Strait
(Dahlheim et al., 2009), it is possible the species could occur near
the project area. No minke whales were reported during the COK Rock
Pinnacle Blasting Project (Sitkiewicz, 2020). During marine mammal
monitoring of Tongass Narrows in 2020 and 2021, there were no minke
whales observed on 88 days of observations across 7 months (October
2020--February 2021; May--June 2021) (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c,
2021d).
In Alaska, the minke whale diet consists primarily of euphausiids
and walleye pollock. Minke whales are generally found in shallow,
coastal waters within 200 m of shore (Zerbini et al., 2006) and are
almost always solitary or in small groups of 2 to 3. In Alaska,
seasonal movements are associated with feeding areas that are generally
located at the edge of the pack ice (NMFS, 2014).

Gray Whale

Gray whales are distributed throughout the North Pacific Ocean and
are found primarily in shallow coastal waters (Muto et al., 2021). Gray
whales in the Eastern North Pacific stock range from the southern Gulf
of California, Mexico to the arctic waters of the Bering and Chukchi
Seas. Gray whales are generally solitary creatures and travel together
alone or in small groups.
Gray whales are rare in the action area and unlikely to occur in
Tongass Narrows. They were not observed during the Dahlheim et al.
(2009) surveys of Alaska's inland waters with surveys conducted in the
spring, summer and fall months. No gray whales were reported during the
COK Rock Pinnacle Blasting Project (Sitkiewicz, 2020) or Ward Cove
(Power Systems & Supplies of Alaska, 2020). However a gray whale could
migrate through or near the project during November especially.
There is an ongoing Unusual Mortality Event (UME) involving gray
whales on the Pacific Coast (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-2021-gray-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-west-coast-and">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-2021-gray-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-west-coast-and</a>). Almost half of the strandings in the United
States have been in Alaska. A definitive cause has not been found for
the UME but many of the animals show signs of emaciation.

Killer Whale

Killer whales have been observed in all the world's oceans, but the
highest densities occur in colder and more productive waters found at
high latitudes (NMFS, 2016b). Killer whales occur along the entire
Alaska coast, in British Columbia and Washington inland waterways, and
along the outer coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (NMFS,
2016b).
Based on data regarding association patterns, acoustics, movements,
and genetic differences, eight killer whale stocks are now recognized
within the Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. This proposed IHA
considers only the Eastern North Pacific Alaska Resident stock (Alaska
Resident stock), Eastern North Pacific Northern Resident stock
(Northern Resident stock), and West Coast Transient stock, because all
other stocks occur outside the geographic area under consideration
(Muto et al., 2021).
There are three distinct ecotypes, or forms, of killer whales
recognized: Resident, Transient, and Offshore. The three ecotypes
differ morphologically, ecologically, behaviorally, and genetically.
Surveys between 1991 and 2007 encountered resident killer whales during
all seasons throughout Southeast Alaska. Both residents and transients
were common in a variety of habitats and all major waterways, including
protected bays and inlets. There does not appear to be strong seasonal
variation in abundance or distribution of killer whales, but there was
substantial variability between years (Dahlheim et al., 2009). Spatial
distribution has been shown to vary among the different ecotypes, with
resident and, to a lesser extent, transient killer whales more commonly
observed along the continental shelf, and offshore killer whales more
commonly observed in pelagic waters (Rice et al., 2021).
No systematic studies of killer whales have been conducted in or
around Tongass Narrows. Killer whales have been observed in Tongass
Narrows year-round and are most common during the summer Chinook salmon
run (May-July). During the Chinook salmon run, Ketchikan residents have
reported pods of up to 20-30 whales (84 FR 36891; July 30, 2019).
Typical pod sizes observed within the project vicinity range from 1 to
10 animals and the frequency of killer whales passing through the
action area is estimated to be once per month (Frietag, 2017).
Anecdotal reports suggest that large pods of killer whales (as many as
80 individuals, but generally between 25 and 40 individuals) are not
uncommon in May, June, and July when the king salmon are running.
During the rest of the year, killer whales occur irregularly in pods of
6 to 12 or more individuals.
Transient killer whales are often found in long-term stable social
units (pods) of 1 to 16 whales. Average pod sizes in Southeast Alaska
were 6.0 in spring, 5.0 in summer, and 3.9 in fall. Pod sizes of
transient whales are generally smaller than those of resident social
groups. Resident killer whales occur in larger pods, ranging from 7 to
70 whales that are seen in association with one another more than 50
percent of the time (Dahlheim et al., 2009; NMFS, 2016a). In Southeast
Alaska, resident killer whale mean pod size was approximately 21.5 in
spring, 32.3 in summer, and 19.3 in fall (Dahlheim et al., 2009).
Although killer whales may occur in large numbers, they generally
form large pods and would incur fewer work stoppages than their numbers
suggest since stoppages would correlate more with the number of pods
than the number of individuals. Killer whales tend to transit through
Tongass Narrows, and do not linger in the project area.
Marine mammal observations in Tongass Narrows during 2020 and 2021
support an estimate of approximately one group of killer whales a month
in the Project area. During 7 months of monitoring (October 2020
February 2021; May June 2021), there were five

[[Page 68229]]

killer whale sightings in 4 months (November, February, May, June)
totaling 22 animals and sightings occurred on 5 out of 88 days of
monitoring (DOT&PF, 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Pod sizes ranged
from two to eight animals. During the COK's monitoring for the Rock
Pinnacle Removal project in December 2019 and January 2020, no killer
whales were observed. Over eight months of monitoring at the Ward Cove
Cruise Ship Dock in 2020, killer whales were only observed on two days
in March (Power Systems and Supplies of Alaska, 2020). These
observations included a sighting of one pod of two killer whales and a
second pod of five individuals travelling through the project area.

Pacific White-Sided Dolphin

Pacific white-sided dolphins are a pelagic species inhabiting
temperate waters of the North Pacific Ocean and along the coasts of
California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska (Muto et al., 2021). Despite
their distribution mostly in deep, offshore waters, they may also be
found over the continental shelf and near shore waters, including
inland waters of Southeast Alaska (Ferrero and Walker, 1996). They are
managed as two distinct stocks: The California/Oregon/Washington stock,
and the North Pacific stock (north of 45 N, including Alaska). Only the
North Pacific stock is found within the project area. The Pacific
white-sided dolphin is distributed throughout the temperate North
Pacific Ocean, north of Baja California to Alaska's southern coastline
and Aleutian Islands. The North Pacific Stock ranges from Canada into
Alaska (Muto et al., 2021).
Pacific white-sided dolphins prey on squid and small schooling fish
such as capelin, sardines, and herring (Morton, 2006). They are known
to work in groups to herd schools of fish and can dive underwater for
up to 6 minutes to feed (Morton, 2006). Group sizes have been reported
to range from 40 to over 1,000 animals, but groups of between 10 and
100 individuals (Stacey and Baird, 1991; NMFS no date) occur most
commonly. Seasonal movements of Pacific white-sided dolphins are not
well understood, but there is evidence of both north-south seasonal
movement (Leatherwood et al., 1984) and inshore-offshore seasonal
movement (Stacey and Baird, 1991).
Scientific studies and data are lacking relative to the presence or
abundance of Pacific white-sided dolphins in or near Tongass Narrows.
Although they generally prefer deeper and more-offshore waters,
anecdotal reports suggest that Pacific white-sided dolphins have
previously been observed in Tongass Narrows, although they have not
been observed entering Tongass Narrows or nearby inter-island waterways
in 15-20 years.
Pacific white-sided dolphins are rare in the inside passageways of
Southeast Alaska. Most observations occur off the outer coast or in
inland waterways near entrances to the open ocean. According to Muto et
al. (2018), aerial surveys in 1997 sighted one group of 164 Pacific
white-sided dolphins in Dixon entrance to the south of Tongass Narrows.
Surveys in April and May from 1991 to 1993 identified Pacific white-
sided dolphins in Revillagigedo Channel, Behm Canal, and Clarence
Strait (Dahlheim and Towell 1994). These areas are contiguous with the
open ocean waters of Dixon Entrance. This observational data, combined
with anecdotal information, indicates there is a rare, however, slight
potential for Pacific white-sided dolphins to occur in the project
area.
During marine mammal monitoring of Tongass Narrows in 2020 and
2021, no Pacific white-sided dolphins were observed on 88 days of
observations across 7 months (October 2020-February 2021; May-June
2021), which supports the anecdotal evidence that sightings of this
species are rare (DOT&PF, 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). There were
also no sightings of Pacific white-sided dolphins during the COK Rock
Pinnacle Blasting Project during monitoring surveys conducted in
December 2019 and January 2020 (Sitkiewicz, 2020) or during monitoring
surveys conducted between February and September 2020 as part of the
Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock (Power Systems and Supplies of Alaska,
2020).

Harbor Porpoise

In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, the harbor porpoise ranges from
Point Barrow, along the Alaska coast, and down the west coast of North
America to Point Conception, California. The Southeast Alaska stock
ranges from Cape Suckling to the Canadian border (Muto et al., 2021).
Harbor porpoises frequent primarily coastal waters in Southeast Alaska
(Dahlheim et al., 2009) and occur most frequently in waters less than
100 m (328 ft) deep (Dahlheim et al., 2015). They are not attracted to
areas with elevated levels of vessel activity and noise such as Tongass
Narrows.
Studies of harbor porpoises reported no evidence of seasonal
changes in distribution for the inland waters of Southeast Alaska
(Dahlheim et al., 2009). Their small overall size, lack of a visible
blow, low dorsal fins and overall low profile, and short surfacing time
make them difficult to spot (Dahlheim et al., 2015). Ketchikan area
densities are expected to be low. This is supported by anecdotal
estimates. Anecdotal reports (see IHA Application) specific to Tongass
Narrows indicate that harbor porpoises are rarely observed in the
action area. Harbor porpoises are expected to be present in the action
area only a few times per year.

Dall's Porpoise

Dall's porpoises are found throughout the North Pacific, from
southern Japan to southern California north to the Bering Sea. All
Dall's porpoises in Alaska are members of the Alaska stock. This
species can be found in offshore, inshore, and nearshore habitat.
Jefferson et al. (2019) presents historical survey data showing few
sightings in the Ketchikan area. The mean group size in Southeast
Alaska is estimated at approximately three individuals (Dahlheim et
al., 2009, Jefferson et al., 2019), although Freitag (2017, as cited in
83 FR 37473) suggested group sizes near Ketchikan range from 10 to 15
individuals. Anecdotal reports suggest that Dall's porpoises are found
northwest of Ketchikan near the Guard Islands, where waters are deeper,
as well as in deeper waters to the southeast of Tongass Narrows. This
species has a tendency to bow-ride with vessels and may occur in the
action area incidentally a few times per year.

Harbor Seal

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and estuarine waters off Alaska. They
haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice. They are
opportunistic feeders and often adjust their distribution to take
advantage of locally and seasonally abundant prey (Womble et al., 2009,
Allen and Angliss, 2015).
Harbor seals occurring in the project area belong to the Clarence
Strait stock. Distribution of the Clarence Strait stock ranges from the
east coast of Prince of Wales Island from Cape Chacon north through
Clarence Strait to Point Baker and along the east coast of Mitkof and
Kupreanof Islands north to Bay Point, including Ernest Sound, Behm
Canal, and Pearse Canal (Muto et al., 2021). In the project area, they
tend to be more abundant during spring, summer and fall months when
salmon are present in Ward Creek. Anecdotal evidence indicates that
harbor seals typically occur in groups of 1-3 animals in Ward Cove with
a few sightings per day (Spokely, 2019). They were not observed in
Tongass Narrows during a combined 63.5 hours of marine mammal

[[Page 68230]]

monitoring that took place in 2001 and 2016 (OSSA, 2001, Turnagain,
2016). There are no known harbor seal haulouts within the project area.
According to the list of harbor seal haulout locations, the closest
listed haulouts are located off the tip of Gravina Island,
approximately eight km (five miles (mi)) northwest of Ward Cove (AFSC,
2018), but not in the ensonified area from this project.

Steller Sea Lion

Steller sea lions were listed as threatened range-wide under the
ESA on November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). Steller sea lions were
subsequently partitioned into the western and eastern Distinct
Population Segments (DPSs; western and eastern stocks) in 1997 (62 FR
24345; May 5, 1997). The eastern DPS remained classified as threatened
until it was delisted in November 2013. The current minimum abundance
estimate for the eastern DPS of Steller sea lions is 43,201 individuals
(Muto et al., 2021). The western DPS (those individuals west of
144[deg] W longitude or Cape Suckling, Alaska) was upgraded to
endangered status following separation of the DPSs, and it remains
endangered today. There is regular movement of both DPSs across this
144[deg] W longitude boundary (Jemison et al., 2013), however, due to
the distance from this DPS boundary, it is likely that only eastern DPS
Steller sea lions are present in the project area. Therefore, animals
potentially affected by the project are assumed to be part of the
eastern DPS. Sea lions from the western DPS, which is listed as
endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), are not likely to be
affected by the proposed activity and are not discussed further.
There are several mapped and regularly monitored long-term Steller
sea lion haulouts surrounding Ketchikan, such as West Rocks (36 mi/58
km) or Nose Point (37 mi/60 km), but none are known to occur within
Tongass Narrows (Fritz et al., 2015). The nearest known Steller sea
lion haulout is located approximately 20 mi (58 km) west/northwest of
Ketchikan on Grindall Island. None of these haul-outs would be affected
by the proposed activity. Summer counts of adult and juvenile sea lions
at this haulout since 2000 have averaged approximately 191 individuals,
with a range from 6 in 2009 to 378 in 2008. Only two winter surveys of
this haulout have occurred. In March 1993, a total of 239 individuals
were recorded, and in December 1994, a total of 211 individuals were
recorded. No sea lion pups have been observed at this haulout during
surveys. Although this is a limited sample, it suggests that abundance
may be consistent year-round at the Grindall Island haulout.
No systematic studies of sea lion abundance or distribution have
occurred in Tongass Narrows. Anecdotal reports suggest that Steller sea
lions may be found in Tongass Narrows year-round, with an increase in
abundance from March to early May during the herring spawning season,
and another increase in late summer associated with salmon runs.
Overall sea lion presence in Tongass Narrows tends to be lower in
summer than in winter (FHWA, 2017). During summer, Steller sea lions
may aggregate outside the project area, at rookery and haulout sites.
Monitoring during construction of the Ketchikan Ferry Terminal in
summer (July 16 through August 17, 2016) did not record any Steller sea
lions (ADOT&PF 2015); however, monitoring during construction of the
Ward Cove Dock, located approximately 6 km northwest of the Project
site, recorded 181 individual sea lions between February and September
2020 (Power Systems & Supplies of Alaska, 2020). Most sightings
occurred in February (45 sightings of 88 sea lions) and March (34
sightings of 45 sea lions); the fewest number of sightings were
observed in May (1 sighting of 1 sea lion) (Power Systems & Supplies of
Alaska, 2020).
Sea lions are known to transit through Tongass Narrows while
pursuing prey. Steller sea lions are known to follow fishing vessels,
and may congregate in small numbers at seafood processing facilities
and hatcheries or at the mouths of rivers and creeks containing
hatcheries, where large numbers of salmon congregate in late summer.
Three seafood processing facilities are located east of the proposed
berth location on Revillagigedo Island, and two salmon hatcheries
operated by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) are located
east of the project area. Steller sea lions may aggregate near the
mouth of Ketchikan Creek, where a hatchery upstream supports a summer
salmon run. The Creek mouth is more than 4 km (2.5 mi) from both ferry
berth sites, and is positioned behind the cruise ship terminal and
within the small boat harbor. In addition to these locations, anecdotal
information from a local kayaking company suggests that there are
Steller sea lions present at Gravina Point, near the southwest entrance
to Tongass Narrows.
A total of 181 Steller sea lions were sighted on forty-four
separate days during all months of Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock
construction (February through September, 2020) (Power Systems and
Supplies of Alaska, 2020). Most sightings occurred in February and
March and the fewest sightings were in May. Sightings were of single
individuals, pairs, and herds of up to 10 individuals. They were
identified as travelling, foraging, swimming, chuffing, milling,
looking, sinking, spyhopping, and playing.
Marine mammal monitoring occurred near the proposed project site
during 2020 and 2021 for previous construction components of the
Tongass Narrows Project. Monitoring occurred from October 2020 to
February 2021 and resumed in May 2021, and is still underway. Steller
sea lions were observed in the Tongass Narrows Project area on 49 of 88
days between October 2020 and June 2021 (DOT&PF, 2020, 2021a, 2021b,
2021c, 2021d). They were observed in every month that observations took
place (DOT&PF, 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Sightings of Steller
sea lions were most frequent in January and February and least common
in May and June (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Sightings
were primarily of single animals, but animals were also present in
pairs and groups up to five sea lions (DOT&PF, 2020, 2021a, 2021b,
2021c, 2021d). This is consistent with Freitag (2017 as cited in 83 FR
22009), though groups of up to 80 individuals have been observed (HDR,
Inc., 2003). On average over the course of a year, Steller sea lions
occur in Tongass Narrows approximately three or four times per week
(DOT&PF, 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d).

Marine Mammal Hearing

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided
into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data,
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques,
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018)

[[Page 68231]]

described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing
groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the
approximately 65 decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite
audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-frequency
cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically
implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained.
Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are
provided in Table 3.

Table 3--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans 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.
Humpback, minke and gray whales are in the low-frequency hearing group,
killer whales and Pacific white-sided dolphins are in the mid-frequency
hearing group, harbor and Dall's porpoises are in the high frequency
hearing group, harbor seals are in the phocid group and Steller sea
lions are otariids.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat

This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The Estimated Take section later in this document
includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are
expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis
and Determination section considers the content of this section, the
Estimated Take section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those
impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or
stocks.
Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activity
can occur from impact pile driving and vibratory driving and removal
and DTH. The effects of underwater noise from NOAA's proposed
activities have the potential to result in Level A or Level B
harassment of marine mammals in the action area.

Description of Sound Sources

The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and
anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing
sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many
sources both near and far (ANSI 1995). The sound level of an area is
defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and
unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., waves, wind,
precipitation, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g.,
sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and
anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales.
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that,
depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the
specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals.
In-water construction activities associated with the project would
include impact and vibratory pile driving and removal and DTH. The
sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two general sound
types: Impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds (e.g., explosions,
sonic booms, impact pile driving) are typically transient, brief (less
than 1 second), broadband, and consist of high peak sound pressure with
rapid rise time and rapid decay (ANSI, 1986; NIOSH, 1998; NMFS, 2018).
Non-impulsive sounds (e.g., machinery operations such as drilling or
dredging, vibratory pile driving, underwater chainsaws, and active
sonar systems) can be broadband, narrowband or tonal, brief or
prolonged (continuous or intermittent), and typically do not have the
high peak sound pressure with raid rise/decay time that impulsive
sounds do (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS 2018). The distinction between
these two sound types is important because they have differing
potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to
hearing (e.g., Ward 1997 in Southall et al., 2007).
Three types of hammers would be used on this project: Impact,
vibratory, and DTH. Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping and/
or pushing a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the
substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is characterized by rapid
rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination
(Hastings and Popper, 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by
vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer

[[Page 68232]]

to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers produce significantly
less sound than impact hammers. Peak Sound pressure Levels (SPLs) may
be 180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs
generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et
al., 2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the probability and severity
of injury, and sound energy is distributed over a greater amount of
time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al., 2005).
A DTH hammer is essentially a drill bit that drills through the
bedrock using a rotating function like a normal drill, in concert with
a hammering mechanism operated by a pneumatic (or sometimes hydraulic)
component integrated into to the DTH hammer to increase speed of
progress through the substrate (i.e., it is similar to a ``hammer
drill'' hand tool). Rock socketing involves using DTH equipment to
create a hole in the bedrock inside of which the pile is placed to give
it lateral and longitudinal strength. The sounds produced by the DTH
method contain both a continuous non-impulsive component from the
drilling action and an impulsive component from the hammering effect.
Therefore, we treat DTH systems as both impulsive and non-impulsive
sound source types simultaneously.
The likely or possible impacts of NOAA's proposed activity on
marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors.
Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical
presence of the equipment, vessels, and personnel; however, any impacts
to marine mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature.
Acoustic stressors include effects of heavy equipment operation during
pile installation and removal.

Acoustic Impacts

The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic
environment from pile driving equipment is the primary means by which
marine mammals may be harassed from the NOAA's specified activity. In
general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may
experience physical and psychological effects, ranging in magnitude
from none to severe (Southall et al., 2007). Generally, exposure to DTH
or pile driving and removal and other construction noise has the
potential to result in auditory threshold shifts and behavioral
reactions (e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging and
vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). Exposure to anthropogenic noise
can also lead to non-observable physiological responses such an
increase in stress hormones. Additional noise in a marine mammal's
habitat can mask acoustic cues used by marine mammals to carry out
daily functions such as communication and predator and prey detection.
The effects of pile driving and demolition noise on marine mammals are
dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type
(e.g., impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the species, age and sex class
(e.g., adult male vs. mom with calf), duration of exposure, the
distance between the pile and the animal, received levels, behavior at
time of exposure, and previous history with exposure (Wartzok et al.,
2004; Southall et al., 2007). Here we discuss physical auditory effects
(threshold shifts) followed by behavioral effects and potential impacts
on habitat.
NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as a change,
usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). The amount of
threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent
or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018), there are numerous factors
to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not
limited to, the signal temporal pattern (e.g., impulsive or non-
impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long enough
duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude of the
TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the
frequency range of the exposure (i.e., spectral content), the hearing
and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species relative to the
signal's frequency spectrum (i.e., how animal uses sound within the
frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al., 2014), and the
overlap between the animal and the source (e.g., spatial, temporal, and
spectral).
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)--NMFS defines PTS as a permanent,
irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). Available data
from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB
threshold shift approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al., 1958, 1959;
Ward, 1960; Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996;
Henderson et al., 2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates,
with the exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a
harbor seal (Kastak et al., 2008), there are no empirical data
measuring PTS in marine mammals, largely due to the fact that, for
various ethical reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise
exposure at levels inducing PTS are not typically pursued or authorized
(NMFS, 2018).
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)--A temporary, reversible increase
in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of
an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference
level (NMFS, 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements (see
Southall et al., 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum
threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-
session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et
al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2000, 2002). As described in Finneran
(2016), marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases
with cumulative sound exposure level (SEL<INF>cum</INF>) in an
accelerating fashion: At low exposures with lower SEL<INF>cum</INF>,
the amount of TTS is typically small and the growth curves have shallow
slopes. At exposures with higher SEL<INF>cum</INF>, the growth curves
become steeper and approach linear relationships with the noise SEL.
Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration
(i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in
which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging
from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory
masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily
compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-
critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal
is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and
there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could
have more serious impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as
a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well
as humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so we can infer that
strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though
likely not without cost.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans
(bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), harbor
porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocoena asiaeorientalis))
and five species of pinnipeds exposed to a limited number

[[Page 68233]]

of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in
laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed in trained
spotted (Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to
impulsive noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset
(Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises
have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species
(Finneran, 2015). The potential for TTS from impact pile driving
exists. After exposure to playbacks of impact pile driving sounds (rate
2,760 strikes/hour) in captivity, mean TTS increased from 0 dB after 15
minute exposure to 5 dB after 360 minute exposure; recovery occurred
within 60 minutes (Kastelein et al., 2016). Additionally, the existing
marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within
these species. No data are available on noise-induced hearing loss for
mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for
further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al.
(2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and Table 5 in
NMFS (2018).
Installing piles for this project requires impact pile driving and
DTH. There would likely be pauses in activities producing the sound
during each day. Given these pauses and that many marine mammals are
likely moving through the action area and not remaining for extended
periods of time, the potential for TS declines.
Behavioral Harassment--Exposure to noise from DTH and pile driving
and removal also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine
mammals. Available studies show wide variation in response to
underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically
how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine
mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to
an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small
distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to
the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound
source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding
area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations
could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007;
NRC, 2005).
Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and
dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed;
reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain
behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle
response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw
clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located.
Pinnipeds may increase their haul-out time, possibly to avoid in-water
disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). Behavioral responses to sound
are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on
numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of
maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory
sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al.,
2007; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can
vary not only among individuals but also within an individual,
depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and
numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending
on characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it
is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source).
In general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more
quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans,
and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial
sound than most cetaceans. Please see Appendices B and C of Southall et
al. (2007) for a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral
responses to sound.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al.,
2001; Nowacek et al., 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al.,
2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history
stage of the animal.
In 2016, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (ADOT&PF) documented observations of marine mammals during
construction activities (i.e., pile driving) at the Kodiak Ferry Dock
(see 80 FR 60636, October 7, 2015). In the marine mammal monitoring
report for that project (ABR, 2016), 1,281 Steller sea lions were
observed within the Level B disturbance zone during pile driving or
drilling (i.e., documented as Level B harassment take). Of these, 19
individuals demonstrated an alert behavior, 7 were fleeing, and 19 swam
away from the project site. All other animals (98 percent) were engaged
in activities such as milling, foraging, or fighting and did not change
their behavior. In addition, two sea lions approached within 20 m of
active vibratory pile driving activities. Three harbor seals were
observed within the disturbance zone during pile driving activities;
none of them displayed disturbance behaviors. Fifteen killer whales and
three harbor porpoise were also observed within the Level B harassment
zone during pile driving. The killer whales were travelling or milling
while all harbor porpoises were travelling. No signs of disturbance
were noted for either of these species. Given the similarities in
species, activities and habitat, we expect similar behavioral responses
of marine mammals to the NOAA's specified activity. That is,
disturbance, if any, is likely to be temporary and localized (e.g.,
small area movements).
Stress responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses,
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950;
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most
economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral
avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses
to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an
animal's fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction,
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg 1987; Blecha
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated
with stress (Romano et al., 2004).

[[Page 68234]]

The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response,
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves
sufficient to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003;
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker 2000; Romano
et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations (e.g.,
Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that
noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was
associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These
and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine
mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to
acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be
classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003), however
distress is an unlikely result of this project based on observations of
marine mammals during previous, similar projects in the area.
Masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering
with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between
acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific
communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator
avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). Masking occurs when
the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound
at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may
occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., pile driving, shipping, sonar,
seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask
biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both
the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise
ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and
to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range,
critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination,
age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation
conditions. Masking of natural sounds can result when human activities
produce high levels of background sound at frequencies important to
marine mammals. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound
is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind and high waves), an
anthropogenic sound source would not be detectable as far away as would
be possible under quieter conditions and would itself be masked. The
Ketchikan area contains active commercial shipping, ferry operations,
commercial fishing as well as numerous recreational and other
commercial vessel and background sound levels in the area are already
elevated.
Airborne Acoustic Effects--Pinnipeds that occur near the project
site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with DTH and pile
driving and removal that have the potential to cause behavioral
harassment, depending on their distance from pile driving activities.
Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would
result in harassment as defined under the MMPA.
Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are
swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise
levels elevated above the acoustic criteria. We recognize that
pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may
result in behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above
water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses
similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For
instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to
exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in
vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon the area and move
further from the source. However, these animals would likely previously
have been ``taken'' because of exposure to underwater sound above the
behavioral harassment thresholds, which are generally larger than those
associated with airborne sound. There are no haulouts near the project
site. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is already
accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Therefore, we do
not believe that authorization of incidental take resulting from
airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not
discussed further here.

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects

NOAA's construction activities could have localized, temporary
impacts on marine mammal habitat and their prey by increasing in-water
sound pressure levels and slightly decreasing water quality. Increased
noise levels may affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion above)
and adversely affect marine mammal prey in the vicinity of the project
area (see discussion below). During DTH, impact and vibratory pile
driving or removal, elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify
the project area where both fishes and mammals occur and could affect
foraging success. Additionally, marine mammals may avoid the area
during construction, however, displacement due to noise is expected to
be temporary and is not expected to result in long-term effects to the
individuals or populations. Construction activities are of short
duration and would likely have temporary impacts on marine mammal
habitat through increases in underwater and airborne sound.
A temporary and localized increase in turbidity near the seafloor
would occur in the immediate area surrounding the area where piles are
installed or removed. In general, turbidity associated with pile
installation is localized to about a 25-ft (7.6-m) radius around the
pile (Everitt et al., 1980). The sediments of the project site will
settle out rapidly when disturbed. Cetaceans are not expected to be
close enough to the pile driving areas to experience effects of
turbidity, and any pinnipeds could avoid localized areas of turbidity.
Local strong currents are anticipated to disburse any additional
suspended sediments produced by project activities at moderate to rapid
rates depending on tidal stage. Therefore, we expect the impact from
increased turbidity levels to be discountable to marine mammals and do
not discuss it further.

In-Water Construction Effects on Potential Foraging Habitat

The area likely impacted by the project is relatively small
compared to the available habitat in Southeast Alaska and does not
include any Biologically Important Areas or other habitat of known
importance. The area is highly influenced by anthropogenic activities.
The total seafloor area affected by pile installation and removal is a
small area compared to the vast foraging area

[[Page 68235]]

available to marine mammals in the area. At best, the impact area
provides marginal foraging habitat for marine mammals and fishes.
Furthermore, pile driving and removal at the project site would not
obstruct movements or migration of marine mammals.
Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish) of the immediate area due
to the temporary loss of this foraging habitat is also possible. The
duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is
unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and
behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the
disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and
marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity.
In-water Construction Effects on Potential Prey--Sound may affect
marine mammals through impacts on the abundance, behavior, or
distribution of prey species (e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish,
zooplankton). Marine mammal prey varies by species, season, and
location. Here, we describe studies regarding the effects of noise on
known marine mammal prey.
Fish utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their
environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator
avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., Zelick and Mann, 1999; Fay,
2009). Depending on their hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory
structures, which vary among species, fishes hear sounds using pressure
and particle motion sensitivity capabilities and detect the motion of
surrounding water (Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects of noise on
fishes depends on the overlapping frequency range, distance from the
sound source, water depth of exposure, and species-specific hearing
sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. Key impacts to fishes may include
behavioral responses, hearing damage, barotrauma (pressure-related
injuries), and mortality.
Fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or
intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as
flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp
sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local
distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the
physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (e.g.,
feeding, spawning, migration), and other environmental factors.
Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish
may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies
have documented effects of pile driving on fish; several are based on
studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction projects
(e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). Several
studies have demonstrated that impulse sounds might affect the
distribution and behavior of some fishes, potentially impacting
foraging opportunities or increasing energetic costs (e.g., Fewtrell
and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992;
Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 2017). However, some studies have
shown no or slight reaction to impulse sounds (e.g., Pena et al., 2013;
Wardle et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009; Popper et al.,
2015).
SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish
and fish mortality. However, in most fish species, hair cells in the
ear continuously regenerate and loss of auditory function likely is
restored when damaged cells are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen et
al. (2012a) showed that a TTS of 4-6 dB was recoverable within 24 hours
for one species. Impacts would be most severe when the individual fish
is close to the source and when the duration of exposure is long.
Injury caused by barotrauma can range from slight to severe and can
cause death, and is most likely for fish with swim bladders. Barotrauma
injuries have been documented during controlled exposure to impact pile
driving (Halvorsen et al., 2012b; Casper et al., 2013).
The most likely impact to fishes from DTH and pile driving and
removal and construction activities at the project area would be
temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The duration of fish
avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid
return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is anticipated.
Construction activities, in the form of increased turbidity, have
the potential to adversely affect forage fish in the project area.
Forage fish form a significant prey base for many marine mammal species
that occur in the project area. Increased turbidity is expected to
occur in the immediate vicinity (on the order of 10 ft (3 m) or less)
of construction activities. However, suspended sediments and
particulates are expected to dissipate quickly within a single tidal
cycle. Given the limited area affected and high tidal dilution rates
any effects on forage fish are expected to be minor or negligible.
Finally, exposure to turbid waters from construction activities is not
expected to be different from the current exposure; fish and marine
mammals in Tongass Narrows are routinely exposed to substantial levels
of suspended sediment from natural and anthropogenic sources.
In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with
individual pile driving events and the relatively small areas being
affected, pile driving activities associated with the proposed action
are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat,
or populations of fish species. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the
disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and
marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. Thus, we
conclude that impacts of the specified activity are not likely to have
more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations
of prey species. Further, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not
expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for
individual marine mammals, or to contribute to adverse impacts on their
populations.

Estimated Take

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact
determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use
of the acoustic sources (i.e., vibratory or impact pile driving and
DTH) have the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns
for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for
auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result for porpoises and harbor
seals because predicted auditory injury zones are larger. The proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the
severity of the taking to the extent practicable.
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to
be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is
estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic
thresholds

[[Page 68236]]

above which marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4)
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous
monitoring results or average group size). Due to the lack of marine
mammal density, NMFS relied on local occurrence data and group size to
estimate take for some species. Below, we describe the factors
considered here in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the
received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals
would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to
Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A
harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007,
Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 dB re 1 microPascal ([mu]Pa) (root mean square
(rms)) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving) and above 160 dB
re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., impact pile
driving) or intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
NOAA's proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory
hammer and DTH) and impulsive (DTH and impact pile-driving) sources,
and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) thresholds are
applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS'' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual
criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five
different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a
result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources
(impulsive or non-impulsive). NOAA's activity includes the use of
impulsive (impact pile-driving and DTH) and non-impulsive (vibratory
hammer and DTH) sources.
These thresholds are provided in Table 4. The references, analysis,
and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described
in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance</a>.

Table 4--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1[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 will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project.
Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the
primary components of the project (i.e., impact and vibratory pile
driving, and DTH).
In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level
B harassment sound thresholds for the methods and piles being used in
this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations
to develop source levels for the various pile types, sizes and methods
(Table 5). Because the steel piles being removed could be removed using
either a pile clipper or hydraulic saw, we use the loudest, most
precautionary source level for those piles.

[[Page 68237]]

Table 5--Project Sound Source Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated noise
Method levels (dB) Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch DTH-impulsive............ 154 SELss........... Reyff & Heyvaert (2019).
24-inch DTH-non-impulsive........ 166 dB RMS.......... Denes et al. (2016).
24-inch Steel Impact............. 211.2 Pk, 183.2 SEL, Caltrans (2015) Table I.2.1 90th percentile.
197 RMS.
14-inch Timber Vibratory......... 157 RMS............. Caltrans (2015) Table I.2.2.
14-inch Steel Small Pile Clipper. 154 RMS............. NAVFAC SW (2020).
20- or 24-inch Steel Large Pile 161 RMS............. NAVFAC SW (2020).
Clipper.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: SEL = single strike sound exposure level; RMS = root mean square.

Level B Harassment Zones

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an
acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary
with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition
and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:

TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2),

Where

TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical spreading equals 15
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement

The recommended TL coefficient for most nearshore environments is
the practical spreading value of 15. This value results in an expected
propagation environment that would lie between spherical and
cylindrical spreading loss conditions, which is the most appropriate
assumption for NOAA's proposed activity in the absence of specific
modelling.
NOAA determined underwater noise would fall below the behavioral
effects threshold of 160 dB RMS for impact driving at 2,530 m and the
120 dB rms threshold for the other methods at between 1,848 and 11,659
m (Table 6). It should be noted that based on the bathymetry and
geography of the project area, sound will not reach the full distance
of the harassment isopleths in all directions.

Level A Harassment Zones

When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in
recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more
technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in
the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools
to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with
marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going
to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of
overestimate of take by Level A harassment. However, these tools offer
the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated
3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop
ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively
address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as
pile driving or removal and DTH using any of the methods discussed
above, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if
a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the
activity, it would not incur PTS. We used the User Spreadsheet to
determine the Level A harassment isopleths. Inputs used in the User
Spreadsheet or models are reported in Table 1 and the resulting
isopleths are reported in Table 6 for each of the construction methods
and scenarios.

Table 6--Level A and Level B Isopleths (Meters) for Each Method
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-
Method Pile type Low- frequency Mid- frequency frequency Phocids Otariids Level B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH............................... 24-inch steel....... 130 5 155 70 5 11,659
Impact............................ 24-inch steel....... 151 5 179 81 6 2,530
Vibratory......................... 14-inch Timber...... 2 0 3 1 0 2,929
Small Pile Clipper................ 14-inch Steel....... 1 0 1 1 0 1,848
Large Pile Clipper................ 20- or 24-inch Steel 1 1 2 1 0 5,412
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and Estimation

In this section we provide the information about the presence or
group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take
calculations. No density data are available for species in the project
area. Here we describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce a quantitative take estimate. The estimates below
are similar to and informed by prior projects in the Ketchikan area as
discussed above. A summary of proposed take is in Table 9.
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are expected to occur in the project area no more
than twice per five-day work week. Typical group size for humpback
whales in the project area is two animals. The project involves 47 days
(10 work weeks) of in-water work where take could occur. Therefore, we
estimate total take at 2 whales x 2/week x 10 weeks = 40 takes. All of
these takes are expected to be Level B harassment takes as we believe
the Level A shutdown zones can be fully implemented by Protected
Species Observers (PSO) because of the large size, short dive duration,
and obvious behaviors of humpback whales.
Given the data in Wade et al. (2021) discussed above on the
relative frequencies of Hawaii and Mexico DPS humpback whales in the
project area the 40 takes is expected to comprise 39

[[Page 68238]]

Hawaii DPS animals and 1 Mexico DPS animal.
Minke Whale
As discussed above minke whales have not been seen in the project
area but could occur there. They are often solitary. Therefore we
conservatively propose to authorize a single take of minke whales. This
one estimated take is expected to be by Level B harassment as we
believe the Level A shutdown zones can be fully implemented by PSOs
because of the large size, short dive duration, and obvious behaviors
of minke whales.
Gray Whale
Gray whales are expected to occur in the project area no more than
once per month. Typical group size for gray whales in the project area
is two animals. The project involves 47 days of in-water work where
take could occur. Therefore, we estimate total take at two whales x two
full months = four takes. All of these takes are expected to be Level B
harassment takes as we believe the Level A shutdown zones can be fully
implemented by PSOs because of the large size, short dive duration, and
obvious behaviors of gray whales.
Killer Whale
Killer whales are expected to occur in the project area no more
than once per month. Typical group size for killer whales in the
project area is conservatively estimated at 10 animals. The project
involves 47 days of in-water work where take could occur. Therefore, we
estimate total take at 10 whales x 2 full months = 20 takes. All of
these takes are expected to be Level B harassment takes as we believe
the Level A shutdown zones can be fully implemented by PSOs because of
the large size, short dive duration, and obvious behaviors of killer
whales and the smaller size of the shutdown zones.
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
Pacific white-sided dolphins are expected to occur in the project
area no more than once per week. Typical group size for Pacific white-
sided dolphins in the project area is 20 animals. The project involves
10 work weeks of in-water work where take could occur. Therefore, we
estimate total take at 20 dolphins x 10 weeks = 200 takes. All of these
takes are expected to be Level B harassment takes as we believe the
Level A shutdown zones can be fully implemented by PSOs because of the
large group size, short dive duration, and obvious behaviors of Pacific
white-sided dolphins and the smaller size of the shutdown zones.
Harbor Porpoise
Harbor porpoises are expected to occur in the project area no more
than three times per month. Typical group size for harbor porpoises in
the project area is 5 animals. The project involves 47 days (2 months)
of in-water work where take could occur. Therefore, we estimate total
take at 5 porpoises x 6/month = 30 takes. Twenty of these takes are
expected to be Level B harassment takes. Because the shutdown zone is
not the full size of the large Level A harassment zone, and because
harbor porpoises are small and cryptic and could sometimes remain
undetected within the estimated harassment zones for a duration
sufficient to experience PTS, we propose to authorize 10 takes by Level
A harassment.
Dall's Porpoise
Dall's porpoises are expected to occur in the project area no more
than three times. Typical group size for Dall's porpoises in the
project area is 20 animals. The project involves two months of in-water
work where take could occur. Therefore, we estimate total take at 20
porpoises x 3 = 60 takes. Forty of these takes are expected to be Level
B harassment takes. Because the shutdown zone is not the full size of
the large Level A harassment zone, and because Dall's porpoises are
small and cryptic and could sometimes remain undetected within the
estimated harassment zones for a duration sufficient to experience PTS,
we propose to authorize 20 takes by Level A harassment.
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals are expected to occur in the project area once per
day. The typical number of harbor seals per day in the project area is
up to 12 animals. The project involves 47 days of in-water work where
take could occur. Therefore, we estimate total take at 12 seals x 47
days = 564 takes. Seventy-five percent or 423 of these takes are
expected to be Level B harassment takes. Because the shutdown zone is
not the full size of the large Level A harassment zone, and because
harbor seals are small and cryptic and could sometimes remain
undetected within the estimated harassment zones for a duration
sufficient to experience PTS, we propose to authorize 141 takes by
Level A harassment.
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lions are expected to occur in the project area once
per day. The typical number of Steller sea lions per day in the project
area is up to 10 animals. The project involves 47 days of in-water work
where take could occur. Therefore, we estimate total take at 10 sea
lions x 47 days = 470 takes. Because the shutdown zone is small and
Steller sea lions are not cryptic we believe the Level A shutdown zones
can be fully implemented by PSOs and no Level A harassment take is
proposed.

Table 7--Proposed Authorized Amount of Taking, by Level A Harassment and Level B Harassment, by Species and
Stock and Percent of Take by Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Level A Percent of
Common name Stock harassment harassment stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale *...................... Central North Pacific... 40 0 0.4
Minke whale........................... Alaska.................. 1 0 <0.1
Gray whale............................ Eastern North Pacific... 4 0 <0.1
Killer whale.......................... Northern Resident; 20 0 <6.7
Alaska Resident; West
Coast Transient.
Pacific White-sided dolphin........... North Pacific........... 200 0 0.7
Dall's porpoise....................... Alaska.................. 40 20 <0.1
Harbor porpoise....................... Southeast Alaska........ 20 10 0.3
Harbor seal........................... Clarence Strait......... 423 141 2.1
Steller sea lion...................... Eastern DPS............. 470 0 1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1 take from the ESA listed Mexico DPS.

[[Page 68239]]

Proposed Mitigation

In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for IHAs to include information about
the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of
equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other
means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the
affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we
carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Because of the need for an ESA Section 7 consultation for effects
of the project on ESA listed humpback whales, there are a number of
mitigation measures that go beyond, or are in addition to, typical
mitigation measures we would otherwise require for this sort of
project. The proposed measures are however typical for actions in the
Ketchikan area. Additional or revised measures may be required once the
consultation is finalized. The following mitigation measures are
proposed in the IHA:
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> Conduct training between construction supervisors and
crews and the marine mammal monitoring team and relevant NOAA staff
prior to the start of all pile driving and DTH activity and when new
personnel join the work, so that responsibilities, communication
procedures, monitoring protocols, and operational procedures are
clearly understood;
<bullet> Pile driving activity must be halted upon observation of
either a species for which incidental take is not authorized or a
species for which incidental take has been authorized but the
authorized number of takes has been met, entering or within the
harassment zone. If an ESA listed marine mammal is determined by the
PSO to have been disturbed, harassed, harmed, injured, or killed (e.g.,
a listed marine mammal is observed entering a shutdown zone before
operations can be shut down, or is injured or killed as a direct or
indirect result of this action), the PSO will report the incident to
within one business day to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#accdc7de82dfc9cfd8c5c3c29becc2c3cdcd82cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ea8b8198c4998f899e838584ddaa84858b8bc48d859c">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>;
<bullet> NOAA will establish and implement the shutdown zones
indicated in Table 8. 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 typically vary based on the activity
type and marine mammal hearing group. To simplify implementation of
shutdown zones NOAA has proposed to implement a single shutdown zone
size for impact pile driving and DTH activities, with the shutdown zone
being the largest of the Level A harassment isopleths for any of the
hearing groups for those activities (180 m). For comparison purposes,
Table 8 shows both the minimum shutdown zones we would normally require
and the shutdown zones NOAA proposes to implement. NMFS proposes to
include the latter in the requested IHA;
<bullet> Employ PSOs and establish monitoring locations as
described in the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan and Section 5 of the
IHA. The Holder must monitor the project area to the maximum extent
possible based on the required number of PSOs, required monitoring
locations, and environmental conditions. For all pile driving and
removal at least three PSOs must be used;
<bullet> The placement of the PSOs during all pile driving and
removal and DTH activities will ensure that the entire shutdown zone is
visible during pile installation. Should environmental conditions
deteriorate such that marine mammals within the entire shutdown zone
will not be visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile driving and removal
must be delayed until the PSO is confident marine mammals within the
shutdown zone could be detected;
<bullet> Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to
initiation of pile driving activity through 30 minutes post-completion
of pile driving activity. Pre-start clearance monitoring must be
conducted during periods of visibility sufficient for the lead PSO to
determine the shutdown zones clear of marine mammals. Pile driving may
commence following 30 minutes of observation when the determination is
made;
<bullet> 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 without re-detection
of the animal (30 minutes for humpback whales);
<bullet> For humpback whales, if the boundaries of the harassment
zone have not been monitored continuously during a work stoppage, the
entire harassment zone will be surveyed again to ensure that no
humpback whales have entered the harassment zone that were not
previously accounted for;
<bullet> In-water activities will take place only: Between civil
dawn and civil dusk when PSOs can effectively monitor for the presence
of marine mammals; during conditions with a Beaufort Sea State of 4 or
less; when the entire shutdown zone and adjacent waters are visible
(e.g., monitoring effectiveness is not reduced due to rain, fog, snow,
etc.). Pile driving activities may continue for up to 30 minutes after
sunset during evening civil twilight, as necessary to secure a pile for
safety prior to demobilization for the evening. PSO(s) will continue to
observe shutdown and monitoring zones during this time. The length of
the post-activity monitoring period may be reduced if darkness
precludes visibility of the shutdown and monitoring zones;
<bullet> Vessel operators will maintain a watch for marine mammals
at all times while underway; stay at least 91 m (100 yards (yd)) away
from listed marine mammals, except they will remain at least 460 m (500
yd) from endangered

[[Page 68240]]

North Pacific right whales (in the unlikely event that the species were
to occur in the area); travel at less than 5 knots (9 km/hr) when
within 274 m (300 yd) of a whale; avoid changes in direction and speed
when within 274 m (300 yd) of whales, unless doing so is necessary for
maritime safety; not position vessel(s) in the path of whales, and will
not cut in front of whales in a way or at a distance that causes the
whales to change their direction of travel or behavior (including
breathing/surfacing pattern); check the waters immediately adjacent to
the vessel(s) to ensure that no whales will be injured when the
propellers are engaged; reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less when
weather conditions reduce visibility to 1.6 km (1 mi) or less; adhere
to the Alaska Humpback Whale Approach Regulations when transiting to
and from the project site (see 50 CFR 216.18, 223.214, and 224.103(b));
not allow lines to remain in the water, and no trash or other debris
will be thrown overboard, thereby reducing the potential for marine
mammal entanglement; follow established transit routes and will travel
<10 knots while in the harassment zones; the speed limit within Tongass
Narrows is 7 knots for vessels over 23 ft in length. If a whale's
course and speed are such that it will likely cross in front of a
vessel that is underway, or approach within 91 m (100 yards (yd)) of
the vessel, and if maritime conditions safely allow, the engine will be
put in neutral and the whale will be allowed to pass beyond the vessel,
except that vessels will remain 460 m (500 yd) from North Pacific right
whales; and
<bullet> NOAA must use soft start techniques when impact pile
driving. Soft start requires contractors to provide an initial set of
three strikes at reduced energy, followed by a 30-second waiting
period, then two subsequent reduced-energy strike sets. A soft start
must be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and
at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of
30 minutes or longer.

Table 8--Minimum Required Shutdown Zones (Meters) by Hearing Group and Voluntary Planned Shutdown Zones for Each Method
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method Pile type Low frequency Mid-frequency High frequency Phocids Otariids All
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH............................... 24-inch steel....... 130 10 160 70 10 180
Impact............................ 24-inch steel....... 160 10 180 90 10 180
Vibratory......................... 14-inch Timber...... 10 10 10 10 10 10
Small Pile Clipper................ 14-inch Steel....... 10 10 10 10 10 10
Large Pile Clipper................ 20- or 24-inch Steel 10 10 10 10 10 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: First five columns are what NMFS would consider appropriate in this circumstance, and the last column is what applicant has proposed and what NMFS
proposes to include in the IHA.

Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
<bullet> Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density);
<bullet> Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
<bullet> Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
<bullet> How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
<bullet> Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and
<bullet> Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Visual Monitoring

Monitoring must be conducted by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, in
accordance with the following:
<bullet> PSOs must be independent (i.e., not construction
personnel) and have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods.
At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the duties of a
PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued IHA. Other
PSOs may substitute other relevant experience, education (degree in
biological science or related field), or training. PSOs must be
approved by NMFS prior to beginning any activity subject to this IHA;
and
<bullet> PSOs must record all observations of marine mammals as
described in the Section 5 of the IHA and the Marine Mammal Monitoring
Plan, regardless of distance from the pile being driven. PSOs shall
document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles
being driven or removed;
PSOs must have the following additional qualifications:

[[Page 68241]]

<bullet> Ability to conduct field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols;
<bullet> Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
<bullet> Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
<bullet> Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including but not limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation
of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required);
and marine mammal behavior; and
<bullet> 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;
NOAA must establish the following monitoring locations. For all
pile driving and DTH activities, a minimum of one PSO must be assigned
to the active pile driving or DTH location to monitor the shutdown
zones and as much of the Level B harassment zones as possible. For all
pile driving and DTH activities, two additional PSOs are required. The
additional PSOs will start at the project site and travel along Tongass
Narrows, counting all humpback whales present, until they have reached
the edge of the respective harassment zone. At this point, the PSOs
will identify suitable observation points from which to observe the
width of Tongass Narrows for the duration of pile driving activities.
For the largest DTH zones these are expected to be on South Tongass
Highway near Mountain Point and North Tongass Highway just northwest of
the intersection with Carlanna Creek. See application Figure 11-1 for
map of PSO locations. If visibility deteriorates so that the entire
width of Tongass Narrows at the harassment zone boundary is not
visible, additional PSOs may be positioned so that the entire width is
visible, or work will be halted until the entire width is visible to
ensure that any humpback whales entering or within the harassment zone
are detected by PSOs.

Reporting

A draft marine mammal monitoring report will be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal
activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance of any
future IHAs for projects at the same location, whichever comes first.
The report will include an overall description of work completed, a
narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data
sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
<bullet> Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal
monitoring;
<bullet> Construction activities occurring during each daily
observation period, including the number and type of piles driven or
removed and by what method (i.e., impact, vibratory or DTH) and the
total equipment duration for vibratory removal or DTH for each pile or
hole or total number of strikes for each pile (impact driving);
<bullet> PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;
<bullet> Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at
beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change
significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant
weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall
visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance;
<bullet> Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following
information: Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and
activity at time of sighting; Time of sighting; Identification of the
animal(s) (e.g., genus/species, lowest possible taxonomic level, or
unidentified), PSO confidence in identification, and the composition of
the group if there is a mix of species; Distance and bearing of each
marine mammal observed relative to the pile being driven for each
sighting (if pile driving was occurring at time of sighting); Estimated
number of animals (min/max/best estimate); Estimated number of animals
by cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, group composition, etc.);
Animal's closest point of approach and estimated time spent within the
harassment zone; Description of any marine mammal behavioral
observations (e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling),
including an assessment of behavioral responses thought to have
resulted from the activity (e.g., no response or changes in behavioral
state such as ceasing feeding, changing direction, flushing, or
breaching);
<bullet> Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment
zones, by species;
<bullet> Detailed information about any implementation of any
mitigation triggered (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of
specific actions that ensued, and resulting changes in behavior of the
animal(s), if any; and
<bullet> If visibility degrades to where the PSO(s) cannot view the
entire impact or vibratory harassment zones, take of humpback whales
will be extrapolated based on the estimated percentage of the
monitoring zone that remains visible and the number of marine mammals
observed.
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft
final report will constitute the final report. If comments are
received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted
within 30 days after receipt of comments.

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine Mammals

In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the IHA-holder must
immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to
the Office of Protected Resources (OPR)
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#59090b77100d0977143637302d362b30373e0b3c29362b2d2a1937363838773e362f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ededca0c7dadea0c3e1e0e7fae1fce7e0e9dcebfee1fcfafdcee0e1efefa0e9e1f8">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>), NMFS and to the Alaska Regional
Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. If the death or injury was
clearly caused by the specified activity, NOAA must immediately cease
the specified activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances
of the incident and determine what, if any, additional measures are
appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms of the IHA. The IHA-
holder must not resume their activities until notified by NMFS. The
report must include the following information:
<bullet> Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
<bullet> Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
<bullet> Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if
the animal is dead);
<bullet> Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
<bullet> If available, photographs or video footage of the
animal(s); and
<bullet> 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

[[Page 68242]]

determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through harassment, NMFS
considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses
(e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g.,
critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as effects
on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We also
assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by
evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent
with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing regulations (54 FR
40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing
anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in the
regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where
known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise
levels).
Pile driving and removal and DTH activities have the potential to
disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the project
activities may result in take, in the form of Level A and Level B
harassment from underwater sounds generated from pile driving and
removal and DTH. Potential takes could occur if individuals are present
in the ensonified zone when these activities are underway.
The takes from Level A and Level B harassment would be due to
potential behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. No serious injury or
mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures
designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The
potential for harassment is minimized through the construction method
and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures (see Proposed
Mitigation section).
The Level A harassment zones identified in Table 6 are based upon
an animal exposed to impact pile driving multiple piles per day.
Considering the short duration to impact drive or vibe each pile and
breaks between pile installations (to reset equipment and move pile
into place), this means an animal would have to remain within the area
estimated to be ensonified above the Level A harassment threshold for
multiple hours. This is highly unlikely given marine mammal movement
throughout the area. If an animal was exposed to accumulated sound
energy, the resulting PTS would likely be small (e.g., PTS onset) at
lower frequencies where pile driving energy is concentrated, and
unlikely to result in impacts to individual fitness, reproduction, or
survival.
The nature of the pile driving project precludes the likelihood of
serious injury or mortality. For all species and stocks, take would
occur within a limited, confined area (adjacent to the project site) of
the stock's range. Level A and Level B harassment will be reduced to
the level of least practicable adverse impact through use of mitigation
measures described herein. Further the amount of take proposed to be
authorized is extremely small when compared to stock abundance.
Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile driving at the
project site, if any, are expected to be mild and temporary. Marine
mammals within the Level B harassment zone may not show any visual cues
they are disturbed by activities (as noted during modification to the
Kodiak Ferry Dock) or could become alert, avoid the area, leave the
area, or display other mild responses that are not observable such as
changes in vocalization patterns. Given the short duration of noise-
generating activities per day, any harassment would be temporary. There
are no other areas or times of known biological importance for any of
the affected species.
In addition, it is unlikely that minor noise effects in a small,
localized area of habitat would have any effect on the stocks'' ability
to recover. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as
the available body of evidence from other similar activities,
demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activities will
have only minor, short-term effects on individuals. The specified
activities are not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival
and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from
this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
<bullet> No mortality is anticipated or authorized;
<bullet> Authorized Level A harassment would be very small amounts
and of low degree;
<bullet> No important habitat areas have been identified within the
project area;
<bullet> For all species, Tongass Narrows is a very small and
peripheral part of their range;
<bullet> NOAA would implement mitigation measures such as soft-
starts, and shut downs; and
<bullet> Monitoring reports from similar work in Tongass Narrows
have documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species
impacted by the specified activities.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not
define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are
available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most
appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in
our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals. 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 amount of take NMFS proposes to authorize is below one third of
the estimated stock abundance for all species (in fact, take of
individuals is less than 10 percent of the abundance of the affected
stocks, see Table 7). This is likely a conservative estimate because we
assume all takes are of different individual animals, which is likely
not the case. Some individuals may return multiple times in a day, but
PSOs would count them as separate takes if they cannot be individually
identified. The Alaska stock of Dall's porpoise has no official NMFS
abundance estimate for this area as the most recent estimate is greater
than eight years old. Nevertheless, the most recent estimate was 83,400
animals and it is highly unlikely this number has drastically declined.
Therefore, the 60 authorized takes of this stock clearly represent
small numbers of this stock. Likewise, the Southeast Alaska stock of
harbor porpoise has no official NMFS abundance estimate as the most
recent estimate is greater than eight years old. Nevertheless, the most
recent estimate was 11,146 animals (Muto et al., 2021) and it is highly
unlikely this number has drastically declined. Therefore, the 30
authorized takes of this stock clearly

[[Page 68243]]

represent small numbers of this stock. There is no current or
historical estimate of the Alaska minke whale stock, but there are
known to be over 1,000 minke whales in the Gulf of Alaska (Muto et al.,
2018) so the 1 authorized take clearly represents small numbers of this
stock.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size
of the affected species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified
activity will not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the
subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by
Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50
CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1)
That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing
the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly
displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
Alaska Native hunters in the Ketchikan vicinity do not
traditionally harvest cetaceans (Muto et al., 2021). Harbor seals are
the most commonly targeted marine mammal that is hunted by Alaska
Native subsistence hunters within the Ketchikan area. In 2012 an
estimated 595 harbor seals were taken for subsistence uses, with 22 of
those occurring in Ketchikan (Wolfe et al., 2013). This is the most
recent data available. The harbor seal harvest per capita in both
communities was low, at 0.02 for Ketchikan. ADF&G subsistence data for
Southeast Alaska shows that from 1992 through 2008, plus 2012, from
zero to 19 Steller sea lions were taken by Alaska Native hunters per
year with typical harvest years ranging from zero to five animals
(Wolfe et al., 2013). In 2012, it is estimated 9 sea lions were taken
in all of Southeast Alaska and only from Hoonah and Sitka. There are no
known haulout locations in the project area. Both the harbor seal and
the Steller sea lion may be temporarily displaced from the action area.
However, neither the local population nor any individual pinnipeds are
likely to be adversely impacted by the proposed action beyond noise-
induced harassment or slight injury. The proposed project is
anticipated to have no long-term impact on Steller sea lion or harbor
seal populations, or their habitat no long term impacts on the
availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses is anticipated.
Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures
described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine
mammals for subsistence purposes, and the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there will
not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from NOAA's
proposed 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, in this
case with the Alaska Regional Office, whenever we propose to authorize
take for endangered or threatened species.
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of Mexico DPS of humpback
whales which are listed under the ESA. The NMFS Office of Protected
Resources has requested initiation of Section 7 consultation with the
Alaska Region for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA
consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed
issuance of the authorization.

Proposed Authorization

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to the NOAA to conduct the NOAA Port Facility Project in
Ketchikan, Alaska from 1 February 2022 through 31 January 2023,
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found
at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act</a>.

Request for Public Comments

We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and
any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed NOAA
Ketchikan Port project. We also request at this time comment on the
potential renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph
below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or
literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for this
IHA or a subsequent Renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, one-year
Renewal IHA following to the public providing an additional 15 days for
public comments when (1) up to another year of identical, or nearly
identical, activities as described in the Description of Proposed
Activity section of this notification is planned or (2) the activities
as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this
notification would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a
Renewal IHA would allow for completion of the activities beyond that
described in the Dates and Duration section of this notification,
provided all of the following conditions are met:
<bullet> A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to the needed Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that
Renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from
expiration of the initial IHA);
<bullet> The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the
requested Renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under
the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take);
and
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized; and
<bullet> Upon review of the request for Renewal, the status of the
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities,
the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.

Dated: November 26, 2021.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-26122 Filed 11-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on December 1, 2021.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.