Notice2025-20184
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of the Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas Project in Prudhoe Bay, 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
November 18, 2025
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 8 Star Alaska, LLC (8 Star Alaska) to incidentally harass marine mammals during construction activities associated with the Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas (Alaska LNG) project in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 220 (Tuesday, November 18, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 18, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51824-51854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-20184]
[[Page 51823]]
Vol. 90
Tuesday,
No. 220
November 18, 2025
Part II
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking
Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of the Alaska Liquefied
Natural Gas Project in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 18, 2025 /
Notices
[[Page 51824]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XF108]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of the Alaska
Liquefied Natural Gas Project in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 8
Star Alaska, LLC (8 Star Alaska) to incidentally harass marine mammals
during construction activities associated with the Alaska Liquefied
Natural Gas (Alaska LNG) project in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.
DATES: This authorization is effective for 1 year from the date of
notification by the IHA-holder not to exceed 1 year from the date of
issuance (November 11, 2025).
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the application and supporting
documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document,
may be obtained online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-oil-and-gas">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-oil-and-gas</a>. In
case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact
listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristy Jacobus, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and
reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA
statutory terms used above are included in the relevant sections below
and can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and NMFS
regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.
Summary of Request
On June 21, 2024, NMFS received a request from Alaska Gasline
Development Corporation (AGDC) for an IHA to take marine mammals
incidental to construction activities in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. The
application was deemed adequate and complete on February 11, 2025.
Following publication of the notice of proposed IHA (90 FR 16600, April
18, 2025) the applicant informed us that they are requesting issuance
of the IHA to 8 Star Alaska, which is jointly owned by AGDC and
Glenfarne Alaska LNG, LLC. Therefore, the applicant is hereafter
referred to as 8 Star Alaska. 8 Star Alaska's request is for take of
six species of marine mammals by Level B harassment and, for a subset
of three of these species, Level A harassment. Neither 8 Star Alaska
nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this
activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously issued an IHA to AGDC in 2021 for the same
activities (86 FR 10658, February 22, 2021). However, no work was
conducted under that IHA.
This IHA will authorize incidental take during one year of the
larger Alaska LNG project. The larger project involves a pipeline that
will span approximately 807 miles (mi) (1,299 kilometers (km)) from a
gas treatment facility on Alaska's North Slope (North Slope) to a
liquefaction and export facility in southcentral Alaska.
Description of the Specified Activity
8 Star Alaska plans to construct an integrated LNG project with
interdependent facilities to liquefy supplies of natural gas from
Alaska, in particular from the Point Thomson Unit and Prudhoe Bay Unit
production fields on the North Slope. 8 Star Alaska plans to construct
an Alaska LNG Gas Treatment Plant (GTP), which they will construct with
large, pre-fabricated modules that can only be transported to the North
Slope with barges (sealifts).
8 Star Alaska plans to modify the existing West Dock causeway and
associated dock heads in Prudhoe Bay, AK to facilitate offloading
modular construction components and transporting them to the GTP
construction site. Vibratory and impact pile driving associated with
the work at West Dock would introduce underwater sound that may result
in take by Level A and Level B harassment of marine mammals in Prudhoe
Bay, AK. 8 Star Alaska plans to conduct pile driving up to 24 hours per
day on approximately 123 days from July through October during the open
water (i.e., ice-free) season.
A detailed description of the planned construction project is
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (90 FR
16600, April 18, 2025). Since that time, no changes have been made to
the planned activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not
provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the
description of the specific activity.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to AGDC (now to 8 Star
Alaska) was published in the Federal Register on April 18, 2025 (90 FR
16600). That notice described, in detail, 8 Star Alaska's activity, the
marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, and the
anticipated effects on marine mammals. In that notice, we requested
public input on the request for authorization described therein, our
analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of the
notice of proposed IHA, and requested that interested persons submit
relevant information, suggestions, and comments.
During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments
from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the North Slope Borough
(NSB), and a member of the public. All relevant, substantive comments,
and NMFS' responses, are provided below. The comments and
recommendations are available online at: https://
[[Page 51825]]
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-
take-authorizations-oil-and-gas. Please see the comment submissions for
full details regarding the recommendations and supporting rationale.
Comment 1: CBD comments that NMFS cannot issue ``renewed'' IHAs
under the MMPA. They further argue that NMFS cannot issue a series of
IHAs without a comprehensive analysis and must analyze and mitigate the
total take it is proposing to authorize across both years. CBD further
asserts that the 15-day comment period proposed for renewals is
unlawful and places a burden on interested members of the public to
review not only the original authorization and supporting documents but
also the draft monitoring reports, the renewal request, and the
proposed renewal authorization and then to formulate comments, all
within 15 calendar days. They state that NMFS should set forth, via
proposed regulation or policy document, its rationale for the renewal
process and to allow public comment. CBD further states that NMFS
should analyze the total take it is proposing to authorize across both
years via the incidental take regulation process in section
101(a)(5)(A).
Response: The process of issuing a renewal IHA does not bypass the
public notice and comment requirements of the MMPA. The notice of the
proposed IHA initiates a 30-day public comment period and expressly
notifies the public that under certain, limited conditions an applicant
could seek a renewal IHA for an additional year. The notice describes
the conditions under which such a renewal request could be considered
and expressly seeks public comment in the event such a renewal is
sought. Importantly, any such renewals (if issued) would be limited to
where the activities are identical or nearly identical to those
analyzed in the proposed IHA, monitoring does not indicate impacts that
were not previously analyzed and authorized, and the mitigation and
monitoring requirements remain the same, all of which allow the public
to comment on the appropriateness and effects of a renewal at the same
time the public provides comments on the initial IHA.
Importantly, renewal IHAs are evaluated by NMFS on a case-by-case
basis and are not an automatic matter of right. Each 1-year IHA,
including renewal IHAs, must independently satisfy the negligible
impact standard for the authorized taking and include the means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock
and its habitat and, where relevant, on the availability of such
species or stock for taking for subsistence uses (i.e., mitigation).
Moreover, NMFS is not proposing to issue a ``series'' of IHAs. For
these reasons, a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of potential
take across two years is not necessary under the MMPA. Any renewal
request would be evaluated under the appropriate statutes (e.g., MMPA,
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Endangered Species Act
(ESA)) for compliance with relevant standards. These analyses would
consider the environmental baseline at that time, including any impacts
of the IHA we have issued.
Should a renewal request be made, additional documentation would be
required from 8 Star Alaska that NMFS would make publicly available.
NMFS would verify that the activities proposed in the renewal request
are identical to those in the initial IHA and that the appropriate
analysis and scope and scale of effects had been conducted for the
initial IHA. NMFS would also confirm, among other things, that the
activities would occur in the same location; involve the same species
and stocks; provide for continuation of the same mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements; and that no new information has
been received that would alter the prior analysis. If new information
has been received that would alter the prior analysis, that information
would be analyzed in the notice of the proposed renewal IHA. A renewal
request would also describe preliminary monitoring data, specifically
to verify that effects from the activities do not indicate impacts of a
scale or nature not previously analyzed. Any renewal request is subject
to an additional 15-day public comment period that provides the public
an opportunity to review this information, provide any additional
pertinent information and comment on whether the criteria for a renewal
have been met. Between the initial 30-day comment period on these same
activities and the additional 15 days, the total comment period for a
renewal would be 45 days.
In addition to the IHA renewal process being consistent with all
requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D), it is also consistent with
Congress' intent for issuance of IHAs to the extent reflected in
statements in the legislative history of the MMPA. Through the
provision for renewals in the implementing regulations, description of
the process and express invitation to comment on specific potential
renewals in the Request for Public Comments section of each proposed
IHA, the description of the process on NMFS' website, further
elaboration on the process through responses to comments such as these,
posting of substantive documents on the agency's website, and provision
of 30 or 45 days for public review and comment on all proposed initial
IHAs and renewals respectively, NMFS has ensured that the public has
and would have a full opportunity to meaningfully participate in the
agency's decision-making process.
Comment 2: CBD asserts that NMFS incorrectly assumes that requiring
aircraft to maintain an elevation of 457 m will fully mitigate take of
marine mammals. They assert that when it is not possible to maintain
that height due to environmental conditions, those same conditions may
not allow for mitigation of harassment due to visibility and safety
concerns. CBD therefore asserts that NMFS should consider harassment
from aircraft noise.
Response: NMFS assessed the impacts of aircraft and does not expect
aircraft noise from this project to result in the take of marine
mammals. Born et al. (1999) analyzed ``escape responses'' (i.e., hauled
out animals entering the water) from an aircraft and a helicopter
flying at an altitude of 150 meters (m) (492 feet [ft]) and determined
the probability of seals escaping in relation to distance from aircraft
using categorical data analysis and logistic regression analysis. The
results of the study indicated that if the aircraft do not approach the
seals closer than 500 m (1,640 ft) at that altitude, the risk of
flushing the seals into the water can be greatly reduced.
NMFS' requirement that all aircraft must transit at an altitude of
457 m (1,500 ft) or higher, to the extent practicable, while
maintaining Federal Aviation Administration flight rules (e.g.,
avoidance of cloud ceiling, etc.), excluding takeoffs and landing, is
significantly higher than the 150 m aircraft and helicopter altitudes
analyzed in Born et al. (1999). If flights must occur at altitudes less
than 457 m (1,500 ft) due to environmental conditions, aircraft will
make course adjustments, as needed, to maintain at least a 457 m (1,500
ft) separation from all observed marine mammals. Helicopters (if used)
will not hover or circle above marine mammals.
Further, as stated in the Acoustic Impacts section of the notice of
the proposed IHA, there are no known pinniped haulouts near the project
location. While an individual animal could haul out under a flight
path, given the lack of haulouts in the area and minimal use of
aircraft, the likelihood of that occurring at the same time that an
aircraft is passing overhead during a
[[Page 51826]]
period when implementing the required mitigation is not practicable is
discountable. NMFS, therefore, disagrees that 8 Star Alaska's use of
aircraft is likely to result in harassment.
Comment 3: CBD asserted that NMFS failed to consider additional
noise reduction technologies such as bubble curtains, pile caps,
dewatered cofferdams, and other physical barrier mitigation techniques.
CBD cited NMFS' previous statements regarding use of bubble curtains
during vibratory pile driving at the Port of Alaska (89 FR 85686,
October 29, 2024) in recommending that bubble curtains should be
required for use during vibratory driving associated with this project.
They state that, while shallower water might make bubble curtains less
effective, they are still a proven mitigation strategy and one that
NMFS must use to satisfy the least practicable adverse impact standard.
Similarly, NSB also recommends that NMFS require 8 Star Alaska to
implement the use of sound attenuation devices when pile driving at
West Dock.
Response: NMFS fully considered whether requiring the use of bubble
curtains or other sound attenuation methods was appropriate for this
IHA, and included additional explanation of these considerations below.
Where conditions are conducive to use of sound attenuation devices, it
may be appropriate to require that they be used as a mitigation
technique. However, the current conditions in the project area do not
lend themselves to the use of bubble curtains for attenuation. The
majority of the project area is in water of 3 m (9.8 ft) depth or less.
In shallow water, sound source level reductions from the use of bubble
curtains are expected to be minimal, based on a wealth of data from
similar pile driving in California (Caltrans, 2020), and CBD provides
no information to support that the use of bubble curtains in shallow
water provides any benefit. The use of bubble curtains can be time
consuming and costly, and therefore, because of their minimal
effectiveness in shallow water, their use is not practicable and 8 Star
Alaska is not required to use them under this IHA. In addition,
effective deployment of a bubble curtain system is logistically
challenging in shallow water, and there is potential for sea ice, which
would make deployment and use of sound attenuation systems even more
challenging. Sound attenuation devices have not been used for pile
driving in this area during past projects, as a result of these
concerns.
NMFS acknowledges describing bubble curtains as effective and
important mitigation measures in certain circumstances. However, the
statements referenced by CBD were made in regards to construction at
the Port of Alaska in Anchorage and in relation to the ESA-listed Cook
Inlet beluga whale distinct population segment (DPS). For the Port of
Alaska project, bubble curtains during vibratory pile driving were
expected to minimize the potential for impacts to ESA-listed Cook Inlet
beluga whales transiting through the relatively narrow Knik Arm to
critical foraging areas. This same scenario is not present in 8 Star
Alaska's project area in Prudhoe Bay, and the current action does not
present the same risks to beluga whales as those anticipated for the
Port of Alaska project. For example, 8 Star Alaska's project area in
Prudhoe Bay does not occur within a narrow strait that animals must
travel through in order to reach critical foraging area. Further,
outside this context, NMFS does not typically agree that use of a sound
attenuation device is warranted for vibratory pile driving due to the
lower potential for more harmful impact from vibratory pile driving.
NMFS notes that in some instances during the project, such as
during the gravel pouring at the barge bridge abutments, sheet piles
will act as a barrier to noise. NMFS considered this noise isolation in
its effects analysis, but did not refer to the sheet piles as a
cofferdam or mitigation measure, as they are a planned construction
component, rather than an additional mitigation measure.
Pile caps are generally used, regardless of regulatory
requirements, to protect piles and equipment during impact pile
driving. While NMFS expects that pile caps will likely be used during
this project due to their common usage for the aforementioned purposes,
we do not typically consider pile caps to be an effective noise
mitigation method. They are typically made of wood or plastic and are
designed to compress and fracture during use, limiting their
consistency with respect to noise mitigation and potentially leading to
safety issues if replaced during hammer operations (Caltrans, 2020).
When considering the least practicable adverse impact, NMFS takes
into consideration the degree to which the implementation of the
measure is expected to reduce impacts and considers the practicability
of the measures for applicant implementation. 8 Star Alaska intends to
complete as much construction as possible during the ice-free period.
Use of additional sound attenuation devices, such as dewatered
cofferdams, would likely result in delays and extension of the project,
rendering them impracticable.
Comment 4: NSB states that if sound attenuation devices are not
used by 8 Star Alaska, NMFS should require a monitoring program that
allows for protected species observers (PSOs) to observe most of the
Level A and Level B harassment zones during the open water period.
NSB further stated that it is important that industrial activities
are mitigated as much as possible to reduce possible impacts to
hunters' ability to land whales. NSB asserted if a marine mammal is
about to enter or is within the Level A harassment zone, the observer
must halt operations to prevent injury and stated that NMFS should
require 8 Star Alaska to have a monitoring plan that allows observers
to see the entire Level A harassment zone.
Response: NMFS is required to include measures that ensure the
least practicable adverse impact. The least practicable adverse impact
standard includes a practicability component, and it is not practicable
for 8 Star Alaska to observe the entire Level A and Level B harassment
zones for all species during all activities, given that the largest
Level A harassment zone is 1,190 m (3,904 ft) and the largest Level B
harassment zone is 4,642 m (15,230 ft). Monitoring the full zones would
require multiple vessels, which is a great expense, potential safety
risk to boat crew PSOs, and would result in additional vessel traffic
in the project area.
8 Star Alaska will attempt to complete construction during the
open-water period and the extended daylight on the North Slope.
Consequently, the majority of the work will be completed during
daylight hours, which allows for greater opportunities to observe
marine mammals. Additionally, as stated in the Mitigation for Marine
Mammals and Their Habitat section, PSOs will test and use night vision
devices (NVDs) and infrared (IR) for nighttime and low visibility
monitoring. The IHA also requires 8 Star Alaska to record visibility
conditions every 30 minutes throughout construction, which will inform
the portion of the estimated Level A and Level B harassment zones PSOs
were able to observe.
As stated in the Ensonified Area section of this notice, 8 Star
Alaska and NMFS modeled the Level A and Level B harassment zones using
practical spreading. NMFS expects that the calculated zone sizes are
conservative given that the water in the project area is shallow and
sound does not propagate well in shallow water. Further, 8 Star Alaska
and NMFS
[[Page 51827]]
estimated the Level A harassment isopleths using NMFS' optional User
Spreadsheet. Because of some of the assumptions included in the methods
underlying this tool, NMFS anticipates that the resulting isopleth
estimates are typically going to be overestimates. For example, the
User Spreadsheet assumes that an animal will stay stationary at a given
distance throughout the activity and will receive and accumulate energy
from all assumed pile strikes in a 24-hour period, which are unlikely
scenarios. Additionally, 8 Star Alaska intends to conduct sound source
verification (SSV) to verify sound source levels, propagation, and the
Level A and Level B harassment zone sizes. NMFS intends to update the
Level A and Level B harassment zone sizes with the verified zone sizes
and potentially the associated shutdown zones, as appropriate. It is
likely that the SSV will reflect smaller zone sizes, which would
therefore be easier for PSOs to observe a larger portion of the zones.
The monitoring required by the final IHA will allow NMFS to have an
estimate of the actual number of takes that result from the activities
relative to the number authorized. PSO observations in the area visible
to them will provide a good sample of the actual takes of marine
mammals. Additionally, the IHA also includes a requirement for 8 Star
Alaska to deploy three hydrophones during the open-water season, and
one during the contingency period (should construction be required
during that time) to conduct passive acoustic monitoring (PAM). While
these devices will not be monitored in real-time or used for the
purposes of implementing mitigation, PAM detections of marine mammals
will further inform the actual number of takes that result from the
activities relative to the number authorized. Please see the Monitoring
and Reporting section for additional information.
Comment 5: CBD asserts that NMFS' negligible impact determination
for all species relies, in large part, on mitigation measures that rely
nearly exclusively on visual monitoring measures. They assert that NMFS
assumes that the use of PSOs as mitigation will be effective and that
NMFS fails to acknowledge the difficulty of accurately observing marine
mammals from shore.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the comment. NMFS did not rely solely
on the mitigation in order to reach its findings under the negligible
impact standard. As NMFS stated in the analysis, consideration of the
implementation of prescribed mitigation is one factor but is not
determinative in any case. In certain circumstances, mitigation is more
important in reaching the negligible impact determination, e.g., when
mitigation helps to alleviate the likely significance of taking by
avoiding or reducing impacts in important areas. Our discussion in the
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section below contains the
factors NMFS considered in reaching its negligible impact
determinations. Although NMFS' implementing regulations at 50 CFR
216.104(c) state that NMFS may incorporate successful implementation of
mitigation measures to arrive at a negligible impact determination, for
issuance of an IHA to 8 Star Alaska for pile driving activities in
Prudhoe Bay, NMFS did not rely upon an assumption of set level of
effectiveness in mitigation to make our negligible impact
determinations.
In the Proposed Mitigation section of the notice of the proposed
IHA (90 FR 16600, April 18, 2025), NMFS states that placement of PSOs
on elevated structures on West Dock will allow PSOs to observe phocids
within the Level A and Level B harassment zones, to an estimated
distance of 500 m. NMFS states that due to the large Level A and Level
B harassment zones, PSOs will not be able to effectively observe the
entire zones during all activities for all species. While NMFS does not
assume total effectiveness of monitoring, NMFS expects the mitigation
based upon visual observations will be effective in minimizing impact
to marine mammals, and NMFS has appropriately determined that the total
marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible
impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Comment 6: NSB recommended that NMFS require 8 Star Alaska to
consult with NMFS, the Borough, and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling
Commission (AEWC) to ensure that there are enough acoustic monitoring
devices deployed and placed in the most appropriate locations and
distances from West Dock. In a related comment, CBD asserts that PSOs
will not be available at all times to monitor all activities, and that
even if observers were available, they cannot observe the entirety of
zones. CBD asserts that by not requiring real-time PAM, NMFS fails to
ensure the least practicable impact to marine mammals affected by this
project.
Response: NMFS and 8 Star Alaska have had extensive discussions
about potential mitigation for marine mammals, including measures
recommended by the Peer Review Panel (PRP) and by commenters. 8 Star
Alaska has consulted further with NSB and AEWC and intends to continue
to do so, as stated in the Plan of Cooperation (POC). 8 Star Alaska
will deploy three hydrophones in its PAM setup during the open-water
season. If work is required during the ice-covered contingency period,
8 Star Alaska will deploy one hydrophone during that construction.
Additional hydrophones during the contingency period are not warranted,
as we do not expect cetaceans to be present in the area during this
time (Quakenbush et al., 2018, Citta et al., 2016) and while ringed
seals likely will be present, few, if any, spotted or bearded seals are
likely to be present during that time (Bengston et al., 2005; Lowry et
al., 1998; Simpkins et al., 2003). NMFS does not expect the use of PAM
to conduct real-time mitigation to be notably more effective in
minimizing impacts than the included requirements due to the limited
expected marine mammal vocalizations expected during the project
period. Moreover, the significant additional cost and effort associated
with real-time PAM implementation are impracticable. Therefore, in
consideration of these limitations, further described in the Monitoring
Plan Peer Review section of the proposed IHA (90 FR 16600, April 18,
2025) and in this notice, NMFS did not require 8 Star Alaska to use PAM
to conduct real-time mitigation.
NMFS expects PSOs will be able to effectively monitor shutdown
zones and implement shutdown procedures as appropriate, minimizing
instances of auditory injury and reducing the duration and/or intensity
of Level B harassment events. It is unclear what CBD is referring to
when they state that PSOs will not be available at all times, as at
least two PSOs will be present during all pile driving and removal
activities. PSOs will begin monitoring 3 days prior to the onset of
pile driving and removal activities and continue through 3 days after
completion of the pile driving and removal activities. PSOs will
monitor 24 hours per day, even during periods when construction is not
occurring.
After evaluating all of the applicable information, NMFS has
concluded that the required mitigation measures will effect the least
practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and
stocks and their habitats.
Comment 7: CBD asserted that NMFS failed to consider the use of
drones, in addition to PSOs, to detect the presence of marine mammals.
Response: NMFS agrees that drones can be an effective tool for
monitoring
[[Page 51828]]
marine mammals during certain projects. NMFS believes that visual
monitoring and the related protocols NMFS has prescribed are, however,
an appropriate part of the suite of mitigation measures here that
satisfy the MMPA's least practicable adverse impact standard. The use
of drones would not substantially increase the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures or effect the least practicable adverse impact
determination. The use of drones is also not practicable for 8 Star
Alaska to implement due to operational constraints including line-of-
sight limits for operating drones, battery range/duration, the need for
Federal Aviation Administration licensed and trained staff, and the
distance limitations of some drones would render them unusable for
observing for long periods. Thus visual monitoring and related
protocols satisfy the MMPA's least practicable adverse impact standard.
Comment 8: CBD recommends that NMFS should assume that each
acoustic detection during pile driving or removal represents a take by
Level B harassment. This recommendation is based on the PRP's
recommendation that, using real-time PAM, each acoustic detection that
occurs during pile driving or removal should be considered a take by
Level B harassment.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the recommendation that NMFS should
assume that each acoustic detection during pile driving or removal
should be considered a take by Level B harassment. The PRP recommended
that 8 Star Alaska use real-time PAM to estimate takes by Level B
harassment only in the far field, assuming that each acoustic detection
that occurs during pile driving or removal represents a Level B
harassment take. However, as described in the Monitoring Plan Peer
Review section of the proposed IHA (90 FR 16600, April 18, 2025) and in
this notice, NMFS does not agree with these recommendations and is not
requiring 8 Star Alaska to use real-time PAM. Furthermore, 8 Star
Alaska does not intend to set the hydrophones up as a localization
array, and therefore, the data will not be appropriate for reporting
specific locations of marine mammal detections.
An animal's occurrence within the estimated Level B harassment zone
does not necessarily mean that it was actually taken by Level B
harassment, absent data regarding received noise levels and behavioral
response of the animal. Except with respect to certain activities not
pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``Level B
harassment'' as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which 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. As such, assuming that each acoustic detection is a take by
Level B harassment would not be appropriate, as Level B harassment may
not have occurred.
Comment 9: CBD asserts that NMFS' ``take estimates from modeling
likely underestimate or incorrectly estimate take and therefore the
negligible impact analysis is flawed.'' They state that NMFS based
estimates on assumption of uniform densities within the project area
even though NMFS acknowledges that uniform density through the Level A
and Level B harassment zones is not likely appropriate for this
project.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that ``take
estimates from modeling likely underestimate or incorrectly estimate
take and therefore the negligible impact analysis is flawed.'' As
described in the response to comment 4, the Level A and Level B
harassment zones are likely overestimates given modeling assumptions.
In addition, as described in the Marine Mammal Occurrence section, the
cetacean densities are likely overestimates given the offshore location
of the surveys relied upon. Therefore, if anything, the marine mammal
take numbers are likely overestimates.
NMFS acknowledges that given varying habitat attributes throughout
the zones such as distance from the shore and water depth, marine
mammals likely do not occur in a uniform density within the harassment
zones. NMFS used an average density over the project area, using the
best available data, to calculate estimated take numbers. These
densities are described further in the Marine Mammal Occurrence section
of the notice of proposed IHA and this final IHA. NMFS is not aware of,
nor has the commenter provided, more spatially explicit density
estimates that would allow for a more refined take estimate.
Comment 10: CBD states that NMFS' requirement for 8 Star Alaska to
initiate pile driving prior to March 1 during the contingency period to
discourage ringed seals from establishing birthing lairs near pile
driving should not be considered to mitigate harassment, but instead
should be considered as additional take.
Response: Winter and spring construction activities could result in
the disruption of a ringed seal's behavioral patterns (i.e., if a seal
would have otherwise built a lair in the project area, it could be
displaced). However, a seal which is taken by Level B harassment by
behavioral disturbance (causing it to build its lair in a different
location) would still be counted as one take by Level B harassment,
though it is important to consider how the impacts of different types
of take may impact an individual.
Tagging data suggest that ringed seals utilize multiple lairs and
Kelly et al. (1986) determined that, on average, one seal used 2.85
lairs, although the authors suggested that this is likely an
underestimate. Density estimates for the number of ringed seal ice
structures have been calculated (Frost and Burns 1989; Kelly et al.
1986; Williams et al. 2002), and the average density of ice structures
from these reports is 1.58/km\2\. As such, it is unreasonable to expect
that more than a few takes from the displacement of seal lair
construction, an above water behavior, would occur. These few specific
potential takes are adequately addressed by the take estimate and
authorization and their impacts have been appropriately considered in
the analysis. There are many other available locations for the seals to
construct their lairs away from the project area, so potentially
preventing a few individual seals from constructing lairs in the
project area is not expected to negatively affect pupping success. NMFS
also notes that construction is only expected to occur during this
contingency period if 8 Star Alaska is unable to complete construction
during the open-water season, and NMFS expects that if 8 Star Alaska
works during the contingency period, it would be because of
construction delays (and therefore, days on which they did not work)
during their planned open water work season.
Comment 11: A member of the public asserts that cumulative impacts
are being ignored. The commenter states that NEPA requires Federal
agencies to account for cumulative impacts and that NMFS must conduct a
full cumulative impacts analysis. The commenter points to plans for
expanded oil and gas development, deep sea and seabed mining, Arctic
shipping corridors, and new military infrastructure in the Arctic.
Response: NMFS participated as a cooperating agency on the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) 2020 Alaska LNG Project Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which was finalized on March 6,
2020, and is available at <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/final-environmental-impact-statement-feis">https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/final-environmental-impact-statement-feis</a>. The FEIS
[[Page 51829]]
concluded that cumulative impacts would be unlikely or minor. NMFS
independently reviewed and evaluated the 2020 Alaska LNG Project FEIS
and determined that it was adequate and sufficient to meet our
responsibilities under NEPA for the issuance of the 2020 Prudhoe Bay
IHA (86 FR 10658, February 22, 2021). NMFS therefore adopted the 2020
Alaska LNG Project FEIS on February 16, 2021. Regarding new
information, NMFS prepared a supplemental information report (SIR)
which documents NMFS' reevaluation and analysis of whether
supplementation is needed for the Alaska LNG Project FEIS pursuant to
NEPA. The SIR considered new information since the publication of the
2020 Alaska LNG Project FEIS as well as minor changes to the project
and analyses. As described in the SIR, these do not amount to a
substantial change relevant to environmental concerns, and the new
information does not alter the significance of adverse effects that
bear on the analysis in the 2020 Alaska LNG FEIS. Therefore,
supplementation of the 2020 Alaska LNG FEIS is not needed, and the 2020
Alaska LNG FEIS remains valid. Additionally, NMFS issued a Biological
Opinion under section 7 of the ESA that independently considered the
reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects of activities on ESA-listed
species and determined that 8 Star Alaska's proposed action is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed species in
the action area.
Comment 12: CBD asserts that NMFS' take estimate has not accounted
for the cumulative stresses on the species from climate change, and
that NMFS must account for how the impacts from climate change will
make ice seals more vulnerable to impacts from other stressors,
including pile driving from this project.
Response: NMFS' take estimates appropriately consider the take
anticipated to occur from 8 Star Alaska's activities in Prudhoe Bay,
Alaska. Both the statute and the agency's implementing regulations call
for analysis of the effects of the applicant's activities on the
affected species and stocks, not analysis of other unrelated activities
and their impacts on the species and stocks. That does not mean,
however, that effects on the species and stocks caused by other
activities are ignored. The preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations
under section 101(a)(5) (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989) explains in
response to comments that the impacts from other past and ongoing
anthropogenic activities are to be incorporated into the negligible
impact analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline.
Consistent with that direction, NMFS has factored into its negligible
impact analyses the impacts of other past and ongoing anthropogenic
activities via their impacts on the baseline (e.g., as reflected in the
density/distribution and status of the species, population size and
growth rate, and other relevant stressors). See the Negligible Impact
Analysis and Determination section of this notice.
NMFS' 1989 final rule for the MMPA implementing regulations also
addressed public comments regarding cumulative effects from future,
unrelated activities. There we stated that such effects are not
considered in making findings under section 101(a)(5) concerning
negligible impact. We indicated that NMFS would consider cumulative
effects that are reasonably foreseeable when preparing a NEPA analysis
and also that reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects would be
considered under section 7 of the ESA for ESA-listed species.
In this case, we have found that the total marine mammal take from
the planned activity will have a negligible impact on all affected
marine mammal species or stocks, small numbers of marine mammals will
be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or
stocks, and that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence uses from 8 Star Alaska's planned activities. Further, the
cumulative effects to listed species of the specified activity in
combination with other activities are analyzed in the ESA biological
opinion, and the cumulative impacts to the human environment are
considered in the Alaska LNG Project Final FEIS, both of which consider
changing environmental conditions.
Comment 13: NSB states that noise likely to be produced by the
project has the potential to propagate as far as the migratory path of
bowheads and possibly deflect whales to the north away from the typical
migratory path. NSB comments that due to the possible consequences to
subsistence communities, it is important that industrial activities are
mitigated as much as possible to reduce possible impacts to hunters'
ability to land whales, and that it is incumbent on NMFS to ensure that
8 Star Alaska's proposed activity will not have an unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of bowhead whales for subsistence uses.
Response: 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.
The communities of Nuiqsut, Utqia[gdot]vik and Kaktovik engage in
subsistence harvests off the North Slope of Alaska. Noise from 8 Star
Alaska's activities is not expected to affect the subsistence
activities of users from Utqia[gdot]vik and Kaktovik due to their
distance from 8 Star Alaska's activities, Kaktovik's very limited use
of waters offshore of Prudhoe Bay, and considering that the planned
activities would occur in an already developed area. Utqia[gdot]vik is
approximately 320 km (200 mi) from West Dock, and farther north, and
disruption of bowhead whale behavioral patterns as a result of 8 Star
Alaska's pile driving is not expected to impact individuals in the
vicinity of Utqia[gdot]vik's whale harvesting area. As described in the
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, only a small number of takes
of bowhead whales (a maximum of 110 takes, less than 1 percent of the
stock abundance) are expected to be disturbed by the construction
activities, and even if some subset of these individuals deflected
farther offshore near the project site, it is reasonable to predict
that most individuals would likely resume a more typical migration path
by the time they reach the Utqia[gdot]vik hunting area and, therefore,
significant impacts to the Utqia[gdot]vik hunt would not be expected.
However, 8 Star Alaska is required to continue coordinating with
subsistence groups, including the Whaling Captains Associations
(Utqia[gdot]vik, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik), as described in the POC. This
additional coordination may result in additional mitigation measures,
if agreed upon by the communities and 8 Star Alaska. 8 Star Alaska will
also conduct SSV to determine sound source levels and propagation for
the construction noise, which will further inform and refine our
understanding of the distance to which the construction noise is
expected to propagate and the likely impact on marine mammals
(including bowhead whales). As described in the notice of the proposed
IHA (90 FR 16600; April 18, 2025), even if a small subset of taken
bowhead whales were to deflect further offshore, NMFS expects that
individuals would resume a more typical migration pathway by the time
they reached Utqia[gdot]vik and Kaktovik.
As noted in NSB's letter, NMFS is requiring a number of measures to
mitigate effects to subsistence hunting as discussed in the Mitigation
for Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals or Plan of Cooperation section.
This includes robust communication with subsistence users as described
in the
[[Page 51830]]
POC, including AEWC and Whaling Captain Associations, as recommended by
the commenter and discussed further in response to Comment 15. 8 Star
Alaska must cease pile driving and limit barges to waters landward of
Cross Island during the Nuiqsut whaling season (typically August 25th
to September 15th). Further, the mitigation for marine mammals is
expected to reduce the frequency and severity of takes of marine
mammals.
8 Star Alaska is required by FERC to enter a Conflict Avoidance
Agreement (CAA) for the construction season. NMFS supports and
encourages participation of applicants in the CAA process, though it
does not require applicants to sign the CAA.
Based on the description of 8 Star Alaska's activities, the
mitigation measures for subsistence and marine mammals, and monitoring
measures, NMFS has determined that there will not be an unmitigable
adverse impact on subsistence uses from 8 Star Alaska's activities.
Please see the Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
section of this notice for further discussion.
Comment 14: NSB comments that 8 Star Alaska anticipated three Level
A harassment takes of bowhead whales, but NMFS is not authorizing any
Level A harassment takes for bowhead whales. They state that it is
unclear how NMFS reached that conclusion. NSB further expresses concern
that Level A harassment can result in injury or mortality.
Response: NMFS disagrees that it was unclear how we reached the
determination that Level A harassment of bowhead whales is not expected
to occur.
As described in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of the
proposed IHA (90 FR 16600, April 18, 2025) and this notice, NMFS does
not expect bowhead whales to occur within the Level A harassment zones
due to the shallow waters (approximately 19 ft [5.8] in depth at the
isopleth), lack of historic sightings, and required mitigation. Waters
less than 15 ft [4.6 m] deep are considered too shallow to support
these whales, and in three decades of aerial surveys by the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) (Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals
[ASAMM]), no bowhead whale has been recorded in waters less than 16.4
ft (5 m) deep (Clarke and Ferguson 2010). Further, no bowhead whales
have been observed during ASAMM surveys in Block 1a (which encompasses
the Level A harassment zone) (Clarke et al., 2017b, 2018, 2019, 2020).
Shutdown requirements within designated shutdown zones for low-
frequency (LF) cetaceans (which includes bowhead whales) are expected
to prevent take by Level A harassment given the large size and
visibility of bowhead whales. Additionally, Level A harassment zones
are calculated with an associated duration component based on the
amount of pile driving expected to occur within one day. Therefore, a
marine mammal is not taken by Level A harassment instantaneously when
it enters the Level A harassment zone, and given the shallow depths,
even if a bowhead did enter the Level A harassment zone, we would not
expect it to remain within the zone for a long enough period to incur
auditory injury. Therefore, as described in the Estimated Take of
Marine Mammals section of the notice of the proposed IHA and this final
IHA, we do not expect Level A harassment of bowhead whales to occur,
and no such take is authorized.
NMFS further notes, as described in the notice of the proposed IHA
(90 FR 16600, April 18, 2025), that Level A harassment includes any act
of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild. For this IHA, NMFS
authorized Level A harassment of bearded seal, ringed seal, and spotted
seal as individuals of these stocks are likely to incur auditory
injury. Level A harassment does not include serious injury or
mortality, and, as described in the proposed IHA (90 FR 16600, April
18, 2025), no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized.
Comment 15: NSB requests that 8 Star Alaska be directed to meet and
consult with the AEWC, respective Whaling Captains Associations, and
the Ice Seal Committee prior to any project-related activities to
ensure that the most appropriate and applicable measures are in place
to avoid impacting the availability of bowhead whales and ice seals,
respectively, for subsistence uses.
Response: The IHA includes a requirement that 8 Star Alaska must
conduct coordination with subsistence communities as described in the
POC. This includes coordination with AEWC, Whaling Captains
Associations (Utqia[gdot]vik, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik), and the Ice Seal
Committee, as recommended by the commenter. 8 Star Alaska will continue
to work with NMFS, AEWC, and the Whaling Captains Associations from
Utqia[gdot]vik, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik, to develop and agree to a
Communications Plan. The goals along with the timeline, tools, and
process for developing a robust Communications Plan are provided in
Appendix C of the revised POC, available at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-alaska-gasline-development-corporation-liquefied-natural-gas-0">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-alaska-gasline-development-corporation-liquefied-natural-gas-0</a>. The
Communications Plan will be implemented before initiating construction
operations to minimize the risk of interfering with subsistence hunting
activities. 8 Star Alaska will continue to work closely with
subsistence hunters from North Slope communities, including the Ice
Seal Committee, to minimize disturbance of subsistence hunting. If
additional measures are agreed upon, they will be added to the POC,
which 8 Star Alaska is required by the IHA to follow.
Comment 16: NSB expresses concern about takes by Level A harassment
of ringed, spotted, and bearded seals given their importance for
subsistence and that they are difficult to monitor. NSB expresses
further concern about pile driving during the ice covered season, as
seals continue to use the area for feeding and pupping. They assert
that monitoring seals under ice, especially to prevent Level A
harassment takes and avoid serious injury or mortality, is difficult.
They comment that if 8 Star Alaska is going to conduct pile driving
during the ice-covered period, adequate monitoring must be required by
NMFS, including acoustic monitoring.
Response: 8 Star Alaska has considered the potential to conduct
pile driving during its winter/spring contingency period. However, 8
Star Alaska intends to complete construction during the open-water
season when the additional ice-related concerns raised by NSB are not a
concern, and seals are not building or using lairs. If 8 Star Alaska
does conduct construction during the ice-covered season, it will
implement mitigation and monitoring measures for seals that are
expected to avoid injury of seals, and minimize potential disturbance
of seals, as described in the Mitigation section of this notice and in
the Monitoring Plan Peer Review section of this notice.
8 Star Alaska has informed NMFS that it is highly motivated to
complete work during the open-water season, as work during the ice-
covered winter/spring contingency period would require additional
equipment and include other constraints.
Regarding monitoring, if construction during the contingency period
is required, 8 Star Alaska will deploy one hydrophone for PAM of marine
mammals. Additional hydrophones during the contingency period are not
warranted, as we do not expect cetaceans to be present in the area
during this time (Quakenbush et al., 2018, Citta et al., 2016) and
while ringed
[[Page 51831]]
seals likely will be present, few, if any, spotted or bearded seals are
likely to be present during that time (Bengston et al., 2005; Lowry et
al., 1998; Simpkins et al., 2003). NMFS is not including specific
location requirements for 8 Star Alaska's hydrophone placement, as the
location will depend on conditions in the construction year. A location
for the contingency period hydrophone would be selected closer to
construction and must be reviewed by NMFS, the NSB, and the AEWC, and
approved by NMFS prior to deployment. While the device will not be
monitored in real-time or used for the purposes of implementing
mitigation, PAM detections of marine mammals will further inform the
actual number of takes that result from the activities relative to the
number authorized.
PSOs will be present for all pile driving during the contingency
period, and a subsistence advisor would be present during this period
to survey areas within a buffer zone of Dock Head 4 (DH4) where water
depth is greater than 10 ft (3m) to identify potential ringed seal
structures before activity begins.
Comment 17: A member of the public commented that the 2020 Alaska
LNG Biological Opinion is not sufficient to analyze effects to species
listed under the ESA, and that a new ESA consultation is necessary.
Response: As stated in the proposed IHA (90 FR 16600, April 18,
2025), section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (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 promulgation of regulations, NMFS
consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species, in this case with the Alaska Regional
Office (AKRO).
NMFS issued a Biological Opinion on June 3, 2020, concluding that
the issuance of an IHA for the same project activities in Prudhoe Bay
was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the threatened
and endangered species under NMFS' jurisdiction. On July 14, 2025, NMFS
OPR reinitiated consultation with NMFS AKRO pursuant to Section 7 of
the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to 8 Star Alaska. As described in
this final IHA, AKRO issued a Biological Opinion which found that the
Alaska LNG project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of the bowhead whale, bearded seal (Beringia DPS), and ringed seal
(Arctic subspecies).
Comment 18: A member of the public states that NMFS must
demonstrate that it has fully considered how disruptions to marine
mammal behavior and abundance will affect subsistence practices under
the MMPA and Executive Order (E.O.) 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments).
Response: 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.
Given the nature of the activity, and the required mitigation
measures, serious injury and mortality of marine mammals is not
expected to occur. Impacts to marine mammals would mostly include
limited, temporary behavioral disturbances of seals, however, some
slight auditory injury in seals within the lower frequencies associated
with pile driving is possible. Additionally, a small number of takes of
bowhead whales, by Level B harassment only, are predicted to occur in
the vicinity of 8 Star Alaska's activity. As described above, the
required mitigation measures, such as implementation of shutdown zones,
are expected to reduce the frequency and severity of takes of marine
mammals. The low frequency and severity of harassment effects is not
expected to result in impacts on the reproduction or survival of any
individuals, let alone have impacts on annual rates of recruitment or
survival of this stock, and therefore, impacts to stock abundance are
not anticipated.
Project activities could deter target species from Prudhoe Bay and
the area ensonified above the relevant harassment thresholds. However,
as described in the Effects of Specified Activities on Subsistence Uses
of Marine Mammals section of this notice, subsistence use of seals and
beluga whales is extremely limited in this area, as it is not within
the preferred and frequented hunting areas. Bowhead whales typically
remain outside of the area between the barrier islands and Prudhoe Bay,
minimizing the likelihood of impacts from 8 Star Alaska's project. The
proposed takes are not expected to affect the fitness of any bowhead
whales, or cause significant deflection outside of the typical
migratory path in areas where subsistence hunts occur, and the
activities are not otherwise expected to interfere with the hunt.
Additionally, during the Nuiqsut whaling season, NMFS requires 8 Star
Alaska to cease pile driving and that project vessels must transit
landward of Cross Island, therefore minimizing the potential impact to
the Nuiqsut hunt. 8 Star Alaska will continue to coordinate with local
communities and subsistence groups to minimize impacts of the project,
as described in the POC.
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 other proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures, NMFS has determined that 8 Star Alaska's proposed
activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence
uses of marine mammals.
NMFS is fully aware of and sensitive to its Federal trust
responsibilities to all Indian Tribes, including those required by E.O.
13175. However, in this case, there is no consultation requirement
triggered under E.O. 13175, as this action does not constitute a
regulation that has tribal implications or that imposes direct
compliance costs on tribal governments. Further, as described in the
2020 Alaska LNG Project FEIS, FERC engaged in government-to-government
consultation with the Alaska Native Tribes, including related to
potential subsistence impacts. Please see section 4.13.2 (Alaska Native
Tribal Consultations) of the 2020 Alaska LNG Project FEIS for
additional information on these consultations.
Comment 19: A member of the public recommended that NMFS deny the
proposed IHA or, at minimum, significantly expand its environmental
analysis before issuing an IHA.
Response: As described in this notice, NMFS has made the necessary
findings, as required by section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA and NMFS'
implementing regulations, and therefore, denying the proposed IHA was
not warranted. NMFS has conducted the appropriate analyses (e.g., as
required by the MMPA, NEPA, and ESA) and has responded to the
commenter's specific recommendations in response to Comments 11 and 17.
[[Page 51832]]
Changes From the Proposed IHA to Final IHA
The final IHA includes updated sound source levels for the impact
installation of 48-inch (122 centimeter [cm]) steel pipe piles (see
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section). These source level changes
result in new Level A and Level B harassment isopleths and shutdown
zones for impact installation of 48-inch (122 cm) steel pipe piles and
increased take estimates for bowhead whale, beluga whale, ringed seal,
spotted seal, and bearded seal (see Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
and Mitigation sections of this notice).
The source level changes are a result of comments received from the
Marine Mammal Commission (the Commission) on source levels for impact
installation of 48-inch (122 cm) steel pipe piles in the proposed rule
for Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Alaska LNG Project in Cook
Inlet (90 FR 35762, July 29, 2025). The Commission reviewed the
datasets that NMFS used to determine its proposed levels of 213 decibel
(dB) peak sound pressure level (SPLpeak), 192 dB root-mean-square sound
pressure level (SPLrms), and 179 dB single strike sound exposure level
(SELs-s) in the proposed rule (the same of which were used in the
notice of proposed IHA (90 FR 16600, April 18, 2025)) for impact
installation of 48-inch (122 cm) steel pipe piles and recommended
instead that NMFS use the median source levels of 209 dB SPLpeak, 195
dB SPLrms, and 181 dB SELs-s from Caltrans (2020; Alameda, Vallejo, and
Kitsap) and Austin et al. (2016), while omitting certain datasets that
the Commission stated are inappropriate for use in informing
appropriate proxy source levels.
NMFS agrees with the Commission that data from Antioch, Avon Wharf,
and Navy Kitsap (Caltrans, 2020) should be excluded from consideration
and that data from Austin et al. (2016) should be included. NMFS also
agrees that certain incorrect source levels from Illingworth and Rodkin
(2017) should not be used. However, NMFS disagrees that the source
levels from Illingworth and Rodkin (2017) should be entirely
disregarded. Therefore, for this final IHA, NMFS has determined it
appropriate to use median values of 208 dB SPLpeak, 195 dB SPLrms, and
180 dB SELs-s (Caltrans, 2020; Illingworth and Rodkin, 2017; Austin et
al. 2016) as source levels for impact installation of 48-inch (122 cm)
steel pipe piles. This change is consistent with NMFS' partial
concurrence with the Commission's recommendation related to the
aforementioned Cook Inlet rule related to the Alaska LNG project (90 FR
35762, July 29, 2025).
This authorization is effective from 1 year from the date of
notification by the IHA-holder, not to exceed 1 year from the date of
issuance (November 11, 2025). It will become effective upon written
notification from the applicant to NMFS, but not beginning later than 1
year from the date of issuance or extending beyond 2 years from the
date of issuance. This is a change from the proposed IHA, in which NMFS
proposed that the IHA would be effective for 1 year from June 1, 2027
or June 1, 2028. There is no change in NMFS' analysis based on this
change, which provides additional flexibility to 8 Star Alaska, given
current uncertainty regarding the project start date.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS
fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to
these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional
information regarding population trends and threats may be found in
NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; <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' website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species</a>). Additional information may be
found in the Aerial Survey of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM) reports,
which are available online at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-mammal-protection/aerial-surveys-arctic-marine-mammals">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-mammal-protection/aerial-surveys-arctic-marine-mammals</a>, with the
exception of the 2020 and 2021 reports, which are available in the NMFS
repository (<a href="https://repository.library.noaa.gov/">https://repository.library.noaa.gov/</a>).
Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the
population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA
and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by
the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while
allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or
mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious
injury and mortality (M/SI) from anthropogenic sources are included
here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and
other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS' U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs. All values presented in table 1 are
the most recent available at the time of publication (including from
the draft 2024 SARs) and are available online at: <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>.
Table 1--Marine Mammal Species \1\ With Estimated Take from the Specified Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\2\ abundance survey) \3\ SI \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Artiodactyla--Cetacea--Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray Whale...................... Eschrichtius robustus.. Eastern N Pacific...... -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 801 131
2016).
Family Balaenidae:
Bowhead whale................... Balaena mysticetus..... Western Arctic......... E, D, Y 15,227 (0.165, 13,263, 133 57
2019).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51833]]
Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Monodontidae (white whales):
Beluga Whale.................... Delphinapterus leucas.. Beaufort Sea........... -, -, N 39,258 (0.229, N/A, UND 104
1992).
Beluga Whale........................ Delphinapterus leucas.. Eastern Chukchi........ -, -, N 13,305 (0.51, 8,875, 178 56
2017).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Bearded Seal.................... Erignathus barbatus.... Beringia............... T, D, Y UND (UND, UND, 2013) UND 6,709
\5\.
Ringed Seal..................... Pusa hispida........... Arctic................. T, D, Y UND (UND, UND, 2013) UND 6,459
\6\.
Spotted Seal.................... Phoca largha........... Bering................. -, -, N 461,625 (N/A, 423,237, 25,394 5,254
2013).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Information on the classification of marine mammal species can be found on the web page for The Society for Marine Mammalogy's Committee on Taxonomy
(<a href="https://marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/">https://marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/</a>).
\2\ 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.
\3\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region</a>. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
\4\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, vessel strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A
CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\5\ Reliable population estimate for the entire stock not available. PBR is based upon the negatively biased Nmin for bearded seals in the U.S. portion
of the stock.
\6\ A reliable population estimate for the entire stock is not available. Using a sub-sample of data collected from the U.S portion of the Bering Sea,
an abundance estimate of 171,418 ringed seals has been calculated, but this estimate does not account for availability bias due to seals in the water
or in the shorefast ice zone at the time of the survey. The actual number of ringed seals in the U.S. portion of the Bering Sea is likely much higher.
Using the Nmin based upon this negatively biased population estimate, the PBR is calculated to be 4,755 seals, although this is also a negatively
biased estimate.
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the
Alaska LNG project in Prudhoe Bay, AK, including brief introductions to
the species and relevant stocks as well as available information
regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding
local occurrence, were provided in the Federal Register notice for the
proposed IHA (90 FR 16600, April 18, 2025). Since that time, we are not
aware of any changes in the status of these species and stocks;
therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to
that Federal Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer
to NMFS' website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species</a>) for
generalized species accounts.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal
hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and
Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al.
(2007, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing
groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked
potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response
data, anatomical modeling, etc.). Generalized hearing ranges were
chosen based on the ~65 decibel (dB) threshold from composite
audiograms, previous analyses in NMFS (2018), and/or data from Southall
et al. (2007) and Southall et al. (2019). We note that the names of two
hearing groups and the generalized hearing ranges of all marine mammal
hearing groups have been recently updated (NMFS 2024) as reflected
below in table 2.
Table 2--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2024]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 36 kHz.
whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
(dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
whales, bottlenose whales).
Very High-frequency (VHF) cetaceans 200 Hz to 165 kHz.
(true porpoises, Kogia, river
dolphins, Cephalorhynchid,
Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L.
australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) 40 Hz to 90 kHz.
(true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) 60 Hz to 68 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 may not be as broad. Generalized hearing range
chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from composite audiogram, previous
analysis in NMFS 2018, and/or data from Southall et al. 2007; Southall
et al. 2019. Additionally, animals are able to detect very loud sounds
above and below that ``generalized'' hearing range.
[[Page 51834]]
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2024) for a review of available information.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
The effects of underwater noise from 8 Star Alaska's construction
of the Alaska LNG facilities in Prudhoe Bay, AK have the potential to
result in harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the project
area. The notice of proposed IHA (90 FR 16600, April 18, 2025) included
a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals
and the potential effects of underwater noise from 8 Star Alaska's
construction activity on marine mammals and their habitat. That
information and analysis is referenced in this notice and is not
repeated here; please refer to the notice of proposed IHA (90 FR 16600,
April 18, 2025).
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized through the IHA, which will inform NMFS' consideration of
``small numbers,'' the negligible impact determinations, and impacts on
subsistence uses.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes will primarily be by Level B harassment, as
vibratory and impact pile driving have the potential to result in
disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There
is some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result
from impact pile driving, primarily for phocids, due to the size of the
Level A harassment zones and the difficulty in being detected by
observers. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur to cetaceans. The
mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the
severity of the taking to the extent practicable.
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the
take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by
considering: (1) acoustic criteria above which NMFS believes the best
available science indicates marine mammals will likely be behaviorally
harassed or incur some degree of auditory injury ; (2) the area or
volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day;
(3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified
areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while
these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an
initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can
qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g.,
previous monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe
the factors considered here in more detail and present the take
estimates.
Acoustic Criteria
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic criteria 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 auditory injury of some degree (equated
to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment--Though significantly driven by received level,
the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure
is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the
source or exposure context (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty
cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the
source), the environment (e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area,
predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to
predict (e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021, Ellison et al., 2012).
Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to
use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized
acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of
behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-
mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB (referenced
to 1 micropascal (re 1 [mu]Pa)) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile
driving, drilling) and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for non-
explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent (e.g.,
scientific sonar) sources. Generally speaking, Level B harassment take
estimates based on these behavioral harassment thresholds are expected
to include any likely takes by temporary threshold shift (TTS) as, in
most cases, the likelihood of TTS occurs at distances from the source
less than those at which behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of a
sufficient degree can manifest as behavioral harassment, as reduced
hearing sensitivity and the potential reduced opportunities to detect
important signals (conspecific communication, predators, prey) may
result in changes in behavior patterns that would not otherwise occur.
8 Star Alaska's construction activity includes the use of
continuous (vibratory pile driving) and impulsive (impact pile driving)
sources, and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1
[mu]Pa are applicable.
Level A harassment--NMFS' Updated Technical Guidance for Assessing
the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version
3.0) (Updated Technical Guidance, 2024) identifies dual criteria to
assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different
underwater marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a
result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources
(impulsive or non-impulsive). 8 Star Alaska's construction activity
includes the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive
(vibratory pile driving) sources.
The 2024 Updated Technical Guidance criteria include both updated
thresholds and updated weighting functions for each hearing group. The
thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, analysis,
and methodology used in the development of the criteria are described
in NMFS' 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance-other-acoustic-tools">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance-other-acoustic-tools</a>.
[[Page 51835]]
Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Auditory Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Auditory injury onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 222 dB; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 197 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 4: LE,HF,24h: 201 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 193 dB.
Very High-Frequency (VHF) Cetaceans.... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,VHF,24h: 181 dB.
LE,VHF,24h: 159 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 223 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 195 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 183 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 199 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 185 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric criteria for impulsive sounds: Use whichever criteria results in the larger isopleth for
calculating auditory injury onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound
pressure level criteria associated with impulsive sounds, the PK SPL criteria are recommended for
consideration for non-impulsive sources.
Note: Peak sound pressure level (Lp,0-pk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa, and weighted cumulative sound
exposure level (LE,p) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa \2\s. In this table, criteria are abbreviated to be
more reflective of International Organization for Standardization standards (ISO 2017). The subscript ``flat''
is being included to indicate peak sound pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range of marine mammals underwater (i.e., 7 Hz to 165 kHz). The subscript associated with cumulative
sound exposure level criteria indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, HF, and
VHF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The weighted
cumulative sound exposure level criteria 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 criteria will be exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the project. Marine
mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary
components of the project (i.e., pile driving and removal). The maximum
(underwater) area ensonified above the thresholds for behavioral
harassment referenced above is 67.7 km\2\ (26.1 mi\2\), and the
calculated distance to the farthest behavioral isopleth is
approximately 4.6 km (2.9 mi).
The project includes vibratory pile installation and removal and
impact pile installation. Source levels for these activities are based
on reviews of measurements of the same or similar types and dimensions
of piles available in the literature. Source levels for each pile size
and activity are presented in table 4. Source levels for vibratory
installation and removal of piles of the same diameter are assumed to
be the same.
Table 4--Sound Source Levels for Pile Driving
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source level (at 10 m)
---------------------------------------
Pile size and type Hammer type SEL (dB re Literature source
Peak (dB re RMS (dB re 1 [mu]Pa
1 [mu]Pa) 1 [mu]Pa) \2\ sec)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.5-inch (29.2 cm) H-Pile.............. Impact..................... 200 183 170 Caltrans (2015) (12-inch (30 cm) H-Pile).
14-inch (36 cm) H-Pile.................. Impact..................... 200 183 170 Caltrans (2015) (12-inch (30 cm) H-Pile).
Vibratory.................. 165 150 150 Caltrans (2015) (12- to 16-inch (30 to 40
cm) H-Pile).
48-Inch (122 cm) Pipe Pile *............ Impact..................... 208 195 180 Caltrans (2020); Austin, et al. (2016);
Illingworth & Rodkin (2017); (48-inch
(122 cm) Steel Pipe Pile).
Sheet Piles (19.69 and 25-inch (50 and Vibratory.................. 175 160 160 Caltrans (2015) (AZ Steel Sheet).
64 cm).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source levels for impact installation of 48-inch (122 cm) steel pipe piles have changed since publication of the proposed IHA due to comments received
from the Commission on the proposed rule for Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Alaska LNG Project in Cook Inlet (90 FR 35762, July 29, 2025) (see
Changes from Proposed IHA to Final IHA section of this notice).
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
topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
TL = B * Log10 (R<INF>1</INF>/R<INF>2</INF>),
Where
TL = transmission loss in dB;
B = transmission loss coefficient;
R<INF>1</INF> = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven
pile; and
R<INF>2</INF> = the distance from the driven pile of the initial
measurement.
Absent site-specific acoustical monitoring with differing measured
transmission loss, a practical spreading value of 15 is used as the
transmission loss coefficient in the above formula. Project and site-
specific transmission loss data for the Prudhoe Bay portion of 8 Star
Alaska's Alaska LNG project are not available; therefore, the default
coefficient of 15 is used to determine the distances to the Level A and
Level B harassment thresholds. However, as discussed in the Monitoring
and Reporting section, 8 Star Alaska will conduct SSV for pile driving.
Following the analysis of SSV results, 8 Star Alaska may propose
adjusted shutdown zones and revised Level A and Level B harassment
zones (for the purpose of monitoring and reporting) for NMFS
[[Page 51836]]
review and approval. All Level B harassment isopleths are reported in
table 6. The maximum (underwater) area ensonified above the thresholds
for behavioral harassment is 67.7 km\2\ (42 mi\2\).
The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more
technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a
duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User
Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance that
can be used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use
in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict
potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions
included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate
that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be
overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of
potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool
offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more
sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For
stationary sources, such as pile driving, the optional User Spreadsheet
tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at
that distance for the duration of the activity, it would be expected to
incur auditory injury. Inputs used in the optional User Spreadsheet
tool are provided in table 5, and the resulting estimated isopleths are
reported in table 6.
Table 5--User Spreadsheet Input Parameters Used for Calculating Level A Harassment Isopleths
[Source levels provided in table 4]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration to Weighting
Pile size Piles per day Strikes per drive pile factor
\a\ pile (min) adjustment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.5-inch (29.2 cm) H-Pile...................... \b\ 26.09 1,000 N/A 2
14-inch (36 cm) H-Pile.......................... 4 1,000 N/A 2
48-inch (122 cm) Pipe Pile...................... 1.25 1,000 N/A 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-inch (36 cm) H-Pile.......................... 8 N/A 15 2.5
19.69-inch (50 cm) Sheet Pile................... \b\ 15.24 N/A 18.9 2.5
25-inch (64 cm) Sheet Pile...................... 12 N/A 24 2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These estimates include contingencies for weather, equipment, workflow, and other factors that affect the
number of piles per day and are assumed to be a maximum anticipated per day. Given that 8 Star Alaska plans to
pile drive up to 24 hours per day, it is appropriate to assume that the number of piles installed within the
24-hour period may not be a whole number.
\b\ These averages assume that 8 Star Alaska will drive 11.5-inch (29.2-cm) H-piles and sheet piles at a rate of
25 ft (7.6 m) per day.
Table 6--Calculated Distances to Level A and Level B Harassment Isopleths
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment zone (m) Level B
Pile type Hammer type ------------------------------------------------ harassment
LF cetaceans HF cetaceans Phocids zone (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.5-inch (29.2 cm) H-Pile.... Impact.......... 1,190 152 1,057 342
14-inch (36 cm) H-Pile........ Impact.......... 341 44 303 341
Vibratory..................... 3............... 1 4 1,000
48-inch (122 cm) Pipe Pile *.. Impact.......... 729 93 647 2,154
19.69-inch (50.01 cm) Sheet Vibratory....... 23 9 29 4,642
Pile.
25-inch (64 cm) Sheet Pile.... Vibratory....... 23 9 29 4,642
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Level A and Level B harassment isopleths for impact installation of 48-inch steel pipe piles have changed
since the publication of the proposed IHA due to changes in source levels (see Changes from Proposed IHA to
Final IHA section of this notice and table 4).
Level A harassment zones are typically smaller than Level B
harassment zones. However, in rare cases such as the impact pile
driving of the 11.5-inch (29.2 cm) H-piles by 8 Star Alaska, the
calculated Level A harassment isopleth is greater than the calculated
Level B harassment isopleth for LF cetaceans and phocids. Calculation
of Level A harassment isopleths include a duration component, which in
the case of impact pile driving, is estimated through the total number
of daily strikes and the associated pulse duration. For a stationary
sound source such as impact pile driving, we assume here that an animal
is exposed to all of the strikes expected within a 24-hour period.
Calculation of a Level B harassment zone does not include a duration
component. Depending on the duration included in the calculation, the
calculated Level A harassment isopleths can be larger than the
calculated Level B harassment isopleth for the same activity.
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of
marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which
will inform the take calculations.
From 2011-2019, each fall and summer, NMFS and BOEM conducted
aerial surveys in the Arctic, the ASAMM surveys (Clarke et al., 2012,
2013, 2014, 2015a, 2017a, 2017b, 2018, 2019, and 2020). The goal of
these surveys was to document the distribution and relative abundance
of bowhead, gray, right, fin, and beluga whales and other marine
mammals in the area of potential oil and natural gas exploration,
development, and production activities in the Alaskan Beaufort and
northeastern Chukchi Seas. In 2020 and 2021, NMFS conducted aerial
surveys during the fall in the western Beaufort Sea focusing on
[[Page 51837]]
Point Barrow to Prudhoe Bay (Brower et al., 2022a, 2022b). These
surveys were conducted within blocks that overlay the Beaufort and
Chukchi Seas oil and gas lease sale areas offshore of Alaska (figure 16
in 8 Star Alaska's application), and provide sighting data for bowhead,
gray, and beluga whales. NMFS used data from these surveys from 2011-
2021 to estimate seasonal densities of cetaceans in the project area.
During the summer, NMFS observed for marine mammals on effort for
15,127 km from 2011-2019 and 15,968 km during the fall from 2011 to
2021. We note that the Prudhoe Bay portion of the Alaska LNG project is
in ASAMM survey block 1; the inshore boundary of this block terminates
at the McClure Island group. It was not until 2016 that on-effort
surveys began inside the McClure Island group (including Prudhoe Bay)
since bowhead whales, the focus of the surveys, are not likely to enter
this area, given its shallow depth. However, no bowheads and only one
beluga whale have been observed in block 1a (including Prudhoe Bay).
Therefore, the density estimates provided here are likely an
overestimate because they rely on offshore surveys where marine mammals
are more likely to be present.
Cetaceans
8 Star Alaska calculated summer and fall density estimates for
bowhead whale, gray whale, and beluga whale by dividing the average
number of whales observed per km of transect effort in ASAMM Block 1 by
two times the effective strip width (ESW) to encompass both sides of
the transect line (whales per km/(2xESW) (table 7 and table 8). The ESW
for bowhead whale, gray whale, and beluga whale from the Aero Commander
aircraft are 1.15 km (0.71 mi), 1.2 km (0.75 mi), and 0.613 km (0.38
mi), respectively (Ferguson and Clarke, 2013). Fall sighting data is
available from 2011-2021. Surveys were not conducted in the summer of
2020 and 2021, and therefore sighting data for the summer is only
available from 2011-2019. Additionally, although beluga whale sighting
data was available from 2011-2013, it was only summarized by depth
zone, rather than by survey block. Therefore, and given that more
recent data is available, data from 2011-2013 was excluded for beluga
whales.
Table 7 and table 8, below, include calculated summer and fall
densities for each species. All resulting densities are expected to be
overestimates for the Alaska LNG analysis because the data are based on
sighting effort outside of the barrier islands and these species rarely
occur within the barrier islands. To estimate take of each cetacean
species, 8 Star Alaska used the higher density in an effort to avoid
underestimating take. Therefore, NMFS estimated take of gray whale and
beluga whale using the summer densities, 0.00003 and 0.009 whales/km\2\
respectively, and estimated take using the fall density of 0.017
whales/km\2\ for bowhead whale.
As noted in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (90 FR
16600, April 18, 2025), we do not expect cetaceans to be present during
8 Star Alaska's winter/spring contingency pile driving period.
Table 7--Summer Sighting and Density Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# sightings
Year Transect (km) -----------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale Gray whale Beluga whale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................................ 346 1 0 \a\ N/A
2012............................................ 1,493 5 0 \a\ N/A
2013............................................ 1,582 21 0 \a\ N/A
2014............................................ 1,393 17 0 13
2015............................................ 1,262 15 0 37
2016............................................ 1,914 97 1 0
2017............................................ 3,003 8 0 4
2018............................................ 2,491 2 0 6
2019............................................ 1,643 6 0 63
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 15,127 172 1 123
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encounter Rate (whales/km)...................................... 0.01137 0.00007 \b\ 0.01051
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density (whales/km\2\) \c\...................................... 0.0049 0.00003 0.009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Beluga sighting data from 2011 to 2013 was only summarized by depth zone, rather than by survey block.
Therefore, data from 2011-2013 was excluded for beluga whales.
\b\ Encounter rate for beluga whales was calculated using total transect from 2014-2019, which was 11,706 km.
\c\ Density was calculated with the formula of Encounter rate/(2xESW). ESW for each species are as follows:
Bowhead whale: 1.15, Gray whale: 1.201, Beluga whale: 0.614 (Ferguson and Clarke, 2013).
Table 8--Fall Sighting and Density Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# sightings
Year Transect (km) -----------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale Gray whale Beluga whale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................................ 1,130 24 0 \a\ N/A
2012............................................ 1,696 17 0 \a\ N/A
2013............................................ 1,121 21 0 \a\ N/A
2014............................................ 1,538 79 1 9
2015............................................ 1,663 17 0 3
2016............................................ 2,360 23 0 1
2017............................................ 1803 255 0 0
2018............................................ 1,535 69 0 0
[[Page 51838]]
2019............................................ 2,055 45 0 1
2020............................................ 379 54 0 0
2021............................................ 668 15 0 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 15,968 619 1 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encounter Rate (whales/km)...................................... 0.03877 0.00006 \b\ 0.00141
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density (whales/km\2\) \c\...................................... 0.017 0.00002 0.00115
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Beluga sighting data from 2011 to 2013 was only summarized by depth zone, rather than by survey block.
Therefore, data from 2011-2013 was excluded for beluga whales.
\b\ Encounter rate for beluga whales was calculated using total transect from 2014-2021, which was 12,021 km.
\c\ Density was calculated with the formula of Encounter rate/(2xESW). ESW for each species are as follows:
Bowhead whale-1.15, Gray whale-1.201, Beluga whale-0.614 (Ferguson and Clarke, 2013).
Ringed Seal
Ringed seals are the most abundant species in the project area.
They haul out on the ice to molt between late May and early June, and
spring aerial surveys provide the most comprehensive density estimates
available. Spring surveys are expected to provide the best ringed seal
density information, as the greatest percentage of seals have abandoned
their lairs and are hauled out on the ice (Kelly et al., 2010). Spring
aerial surveys conducted in the central Beaufort Sea from 1996-1999
(Frost et al., 2004) and around the West Dock area as part of industry
monitoring programs for the construction of the Northstar production
facility from 1997-2002 (Richardson and Williams, 2003, Richardson and
Williams, 2002) were considered the best data available to determine
spring density in the area of the project. The yearly densities from
these spring aerial surveys were averaged to determine spring ringed
seal density. The average observed spring ringed seal density from this
monitoring effort was 0.634 seals/km\2\ (table 9). While more recent
ASAMM surveys have been conducted in the project area, these surveys
did not identify observed pinnipeds to species, and therefore these
data are not included.
Table 9--Ringed Seal Densities Estimated Using Spring Aerial Surveys
Conducted From 1996 to 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density (seals/
Survey year km\2\) Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996........................... 0.81 Frost et al. (2004).
1997........................... 0.73 Frost et al. (2004).
1997........................... 0.43 Richardson and Williams
(2002).
1998........................... 0.64 Frost et al. (2004).
1998........................... 0.39 Richardson and Williams
(2002).
1999........................... 0.87 Frost et al. (2004).
1999........................... 0.63 Richardson and Williams
(2002).
2000........................... 0.47 Richardson and Williams
(2002).
2001........................... 0.54 Richardson and Williams
(2002).
2002........................... 0.83 Richardson and Williams
(2003).
----------------
Average.................... 0.634
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to generate a summer density, as 8 Star Alaska expects
that the majority of their work will occur during the summer, we first
begin with the spring density. Summer densities of ringed seals in the
project area are expected to significantly decrease as ringed seals
range considerable distances during the open water season. Summer
density was estimated to be 50 percent of the spring density (0.634
seals/km\2\), resulting in a summer density of 0.317 seals/km\2\. Given
that 8 Star Alaska will only pile drive during the winter if they are
unable to complete the work during the summer and fall open water
season, NMFS estimated ringed seal takes using the summer density of
0.317 seals/km\2\ rather than winter.
Spotted Seal
The spotted seal occurs in the Beaufort Sea in small numbers during
the summer open water period. At the onset of freeze-up in the fall,
spotted seals return to the Chukchi Sea and then Bering Sea to spend
the winter and spring. As such, 8 Star Alaska does not expect spotted
seals to occur in the project area during 8 Star Alaska's winter/spring
contingency period, and NMFS concurs.
Only a few of the studies referenced in calculating the ringed seal
densities also include data for spotted seals. Given the limited
spotted seal data, NMFS expects that relying on this data may result in
an underestimate, and that it is more appropriate to calculate the
spotted seal density as a percentage of ringed seal density. Therefore,
summer spotted seal density was estimated as a percentage of ringed
seal sightings observed during monitoring during seismic exploration in
this area from 2006-2008 (Funk et al., 2010). Spotted seals comprised
34.8 percent of ringed seal sightings during these monitoring efforts.
Therefore, summer spotted seal density was calculated as 34.8 percent
of the ringed seal density of 0.317 seals/km\2\, which results in an
estimated spotted seal summer density of 0.11
[[Page 51839]]
seals/km\2\. This density will be used to estimate take of spotted
seal.
Bearded Seal
The majority of bearded seals spend the winter and spring in the
Chukchi and Bering Seas; however, some remain in the Beaufort Sea year-
round. A reliable population estimate for the bearded seal stock is not
available, and occurrence in the Beaufort Sea is less known than in the
Bering Sea. Spring aerial surveys conducted as part of industry
monitoring for the Northstar production facility provide limited
sighting numbers from 1999-2002 (Richardson and Williams, 2002, 2003).
Bearded seals occur in the Beaufort Sea more frequently during the
open water season, rather than other parts of the year. They prefer
water farther offshore. Only a few of the studies referenced in
calculating the ringed seal densities also include data for bearded
seals. Given the limited bearded seal data, NMFS expects that relying
on this data may result in an underestimate, and that it is more
appropriate to calculate the bearded seal density as a proportion of
the ringed seal density. Therefore, summer bearded seal density was
estimated as a percentage of ringed seal sightings observed during
seismic exploration in this area from 2006-2008 (Funk et al., 2010).
Bearded seals comprised 21.3 percent of ringed seal sightings during
these monitoring efforts. Therefore, summer bearded seal density was
calculated as 21.3 percent of the summer ringed seal density of 0.317
seals/km\2\, which results in an estimated bearded seal density of
0.068 seals/km\2\. NMFS used this density to estimate take of bearded
seal.
As noted in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (90 FR
16600, April 18, 2025), bearded seals could potentially occur in the
project area during 8 Star Alaska's winter/spring contingency period.
However, we would expect very few, if any bearded seals to be present
during this time. In consideration of this species presence information
and 8 Star Alaska's plan to conduct most construction during the open-
water season, NMFS estimated take of bearded seal using the summer
density.
Take Estimation
Here we describe how the information provided above is synthesized
to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably
likely to occur and that has been authorized.
To estimate take by Level A and Level B harassment, 8 Star Alaska
multiplied the area (km\2\) estimated to be ensonified above the Level
A or Level B harassment thresholds (table 10 and table 11) for each
species, respectively, for pile driving (and removal) of each pile size
and hammer type by the duration (days) of that activity in that season
by the seasonal density for each species (number of animals/km\2\).
NMFS generally concurs with, and has adopted this method, with the
exception of the estimated duration of the activity (described below).
NMFS also used updated densities as described in the Marine Mammal
Occurrence section.
Table 10--Level B Harassment Zones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile type Area (km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.5-inch (29.2 cm) H-Pile.............................. 0.37
14-inch (36 cm) H-Pile.................................. 0.37
48-inch (122 cm) Pipe Pile *............................ 14.58
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-inch (36 cm) H-Pile.................................. 3.14
Sheet Piles (19.69- and 25-Inch (50.01 and 64 cm))...... 67.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Level B harassment zones for impact installation of 48-inch (122
cm) steel pipe piles have changed since the publication of the
proposed IHA due to changes in source levels (see Changes from
Proposed IHA to Final IHA section of this notice and table 6).
Table 11--Level A Harassment Zones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area (km\2\)
Pile type -----------------------------------------------
LF cetacean HF cetacean Phocids
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.5-inch (29.2 cm) H-Pile...................................... 4.45 0.073 3.51
14-inch (36 cm) H-Pile.......................................... 0.37 0.006 0.29
48-inch (122 cm) Pipe Pile *.................................... 1.67 0.025 1.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-inch (36 cm) H-Pile.......................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00
19.69-inch (50.01 cm) Sheet Pile................................ 0.00 0.00 0.00
25-inch (64 cm) Sheet Pile...................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Level A harassment zones for impact installation of 48-inch (122 cm) steel pipe piles have changed since
the publication of the proposed IHA due to changes in source levels (see Changes from Proposed IHA to Final
IHA section of this notice and table 6).
NMFS calculated take using summer densities for all species except
for bowhead whale (table 12). For bowhead whales, NMFS conservatively
calculated take using the fall density.
Table 12--Marine Mammal Densities Used To Estimate Take
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density (animals/
Species km\2\) Season
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale................... 0.017 Fall (September-
October).
Gray whale...................... 0.00003 Summer (July-
August).
Beluga whale.................... 0.009 Summer (July-
August).
Ringed seal..................... 0.317 Summer (July-
August).
Spotted seal.................... 0.11 Summer (July-
August).
[[Page 51840]]
Bearded seal.................... 0.068 Summer (July-
August).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 13--Estimated Take by Level B Harassment by Species, Pile Size and Type, and Installation/Removal Method
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Activity duration Bowhead whale Gray whale Beluga whale Ringed seal Spotted seal Bearded seal
(days)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DH4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchor Pile (11.5-inch (29.2 cm) H-Pile) 9 0.06 0.00 0.03 1.04 0.36 0.22
(impact)...............................
25-inch (64 cm) Sheet Pile (Vibratory).. 36 41.43 0.07 21.93 772.54 268.07 165.72
Mooring Dolphins (48-inch (122 cm) Pipe 10 2.48 0.00 1.31 46.21 16.03 9.91
Pile) (Impact).........................
Spud Piles (14-inch (36 cm) H-Pile) 12 0.64 0.00 0.34 11.95 4.15 2.56
(vibratory)............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Bridge Abutment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dock Face (19.69-inch (50 cm) Sheet 23 26.47 0.05 14.01 493.57 171.27 105.88
Pile) (Vibratory)......................
Tailwall (19.69-inch (50 cm) Sheet Pile) 23 26.47 0.05 14.01 493.57 171.27 105.88
(Vibratory)............................
Anchor Pile (14-inch (36 cm) H-Pile) 1 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.04 0.02
(Impact)...............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Bridge Abutment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dock Face (19.69-inch (50 cm) Sheet 24 27.62 0.05 14.62 515.03 178.72 110.48
Pile) (Vibratory)......................
Tailwall (19.69-inch (50 cm) Sheet Pile) 17 19.56 0.03 10.36 364.81 126.59 78.26
(Vibratory)............................
Anchor Pile (14-inch (36 cm) H-Pile 1 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.04 0.02
(Impact)...............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barge Bridge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mooring Dolphins (48-inch (122 cm) Pipe 4 0.99 0.00 0.52 18.48 6.41 3.96
Pile) (Impact).........................
Spud Pile (14-inch (36 cm) H-Pile) 4 0.21 0.00 0.11 3.98 1.38 0.85
(vibratory)............................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 164 145.94 0.25 77.26 2,721.41 944.34 583.77
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
75 percent of Total..................... 123 109.46 0.19 57.95 2,041.06 708.25 437.83
Authorized take by Level B Harassment... 110 \a\ 2 \b\ 58 \a\ 2,041 \a\ 708 \a\ 438 \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Level B harassment takes have increased for bowhead whale, beluga whale, ringed seal, spotted seal, and bearded seal since the publication of the
proposed IHA due to changes in source levels and Level B harassment zones for impact installation of 48-inch (122 cm) steel pipe piles (see Changes
from Proposed IHA to Final IHA section of this notice and table 10).
\b\ Although 75 percent of the calculated total is 0.2, in order to account for group size (Clarke et al., 2017b), NMFS is authorizing two takes by
Level B harassment of gray whale.
8 Star Alaska expects that construction will likely be completed
during the open-water construction season. 8 Star Alaska calculated
that the construction would require approximately 164 days of in-water
work; however, this estimate does not take into account that different
pile types would be installed on the same day, therefore reducing the
total number of pile driving days. Therefore, NMFS expects that the
take calculation using the method described above overestimates take.
Taking into consideration the number of calendar days, construction
occurring 6 days per week, and no work occurring on days during the
whaling season, there are 123 days in the months of July through
October on which the work is expected to occur (75 percent of the 164
days estimated by 8 Star Alaska). As such, for each species, NMFS is
authorizing 75 percent of the take estimate calculated using the
estimated 164 work days (except for Level A harassment take of bowhead
whales and beluga whales, and Level B harassment of gray whales as
noted below).
NMFS recognizes that 8 Star Alaska may work outside of this period
in their February to April contingency period; however, we expect that
if 8 Star Alaska works during the contingency period, it would be
because of construction delays (and therefore, days on which they did
not work) during their planned open water work season. Additionally, we
recognize that ringed seals may be present in ice lairs during the
contingency period. However, 8 Star Alaska must initiate pile driving
prior to March 1, as described in the Mitigation section. Initiating
pile driving before March 1 is expected to discourage seals from
establishing birthing lairs near pile driving. As such, we expect that
this measure will eliminate the potential for physical injury to ringed
seals during this period. Therefore, NMFS expects that the take
estimates described herein are reasonable even if 8 Star Alaska must
pile drive during their contingency period.
[[Page 51841]]
Table 14--Estimated Take by Level A Harassment by Species, Pile Size and Type, and Installation/Removal Method
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Activity duration Bowhead whale Gray whale Beluga whale Ringed seal Spotted seal Bearded seal
(days)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DH4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchor Pile (11.5-inch (29.2 cm) H-Pile) 9 0.68 0.00 0.01 10.01 3.47 2.15
(impact)...............................
25-inch (64 cm) Sheet Pile (Vibratory).. 36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01
Mooring Dolphins (48-inch (122 cm) Pipe 10 0.28 0.00 0.00 4.17 1.45 0.89
Pile) (Impact).........................
Spud Piles (14-inch (36 cm) H-Pile) 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(vibratory)............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Bridge Abutment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dock Face (19.69-inch (50 cm) Sheet 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00
Pile) (Vibratory)......................
Tailwall (19.69-inch (50 cm) Sheet Pile) 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00
(Vibratory)............................
Anchor Pile (14-inch (36 cm) H-Pile) 1 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.02
(Impact)...............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Bridge Abutment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dock Face (19.69-inch (50 cm) Sheet 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00
Pile) (Vibratory)......................
Tailwall (19.69-inch (50 cm) Sheet Pile) 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
(Vibratory)............................
Anchor Pile (14-inch (36 cm) H-Pile 1 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.02
(Impact)...............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barge Bridge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mooring Dolphins (48-inch (122 cm) Pipe 4 0.11 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.58 0.36
Pile) (Impact).........................
Spud Pile (14-inch (36 cm) H-Pile) 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(vibratory)............................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 164 1.09 0.00 0.01 16.14 5.6 3.46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
75 percent of Total..................... 123 0.82 0.00 0.01 12.1 4.2 2.6
Authorized Take by Level A Harassment... \a\ 0 0 0 \b\ 12 4 \b\ 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ NMFS does not expect bowhead whales to occur within the Level A harassment zone, and therefore NMFS did not authorize take by Level A harassment of
bowhead whales.
\b\ Level A harassment takes have increased for ringed seals and bearded seals since the publication of the proposed IHA due to changes in source levels
and Level A harassment zones for impact installation of 48-inch (122 cm) steel pipe piles (see Changes from Proposed IHA to Final IHA section of this
notice and table 11).
NMFS does not expect bowhead whales to occur within the Level A
harassment zones due to the shallow waters (approximately 19 ft [5.8 m]
in depth at the isopleth), lack of historic sightings, and required
mitigation. Waters less than 15 ft [4.6 m] deep are considered too
shallow to support these whales, and in three decades of aerial surveys
by BOEM (ASAMM), no bowhead whale has been recorded in waters less than
16.4 ft (5 m) deep (Clarke and Ferguson 2010). Further, no bowhead
whales have been observed during ASAMM surveys in Block 1a (which
encompasses the Level A harassment zone) when surveys were conducted in
Block 1a (Clarke et al., 2017b, 2018, 2019, 2020). Shutdown
requirements within designated shutdown zones for LF cetaceans (which
includes bowhead whales) are expected to prevent take by Level A
harassment given the large size and visibility of bowhead whales.
Additionally, Level A harassment zones are calculated with an
associated duration component based on the amount of pile driving
expected to occur within 1 day. Therefore, a marine mammal is not taken
by Level A harassment instantaneously when it enters the Level A
harassment zone, and given the shallow depths, even if a bowhead did
enter the Level A harassment zone, we would not expect it to remain
within the zone for a long enough period to incur auditory injury.
Therefore, we do not expect Level A harassment of bowhead whales to
occur, and are not authorizing Level A harassment take of bowheads.
The likelihood of gray whales occurring in the Level A harassment
zone is extremely low, as evidenced by the very low densities included
in the Marine Mammal Occurrence section and the lack of modeled takes
in table 14. Further, shutdown requirements within designated shutdown
zones for LF cetaceans (which include gray whales) are expected to
prevent take by Level A harassment given the large size and visibility
of gray whales, and the duration component associated with the Level A
harassment zones. Even if a gray whale did enter the Level A harassment
zone, NMFS would not expect it to remain within the zone for a long
enough period to incur auditory injury, given the mitigation and
visibility. Therefore, NMFS does not expect Level A harassment of gray
whales to occur and is not authorizing Level A harassment take of gray
whale.
The largest Level A harassment isopleth for high-frequency
cetaceans (including the beluga whale) extends 152 m from the source
during impact driving of the 11.5-inch (29.2 cm) H pile (table 6).
Considering the small size of the Level A harassment zones, and the low
likelihood that a beluga whale will occur in this area, as evidenced by
the estimated values in table 14, Level A harassment is unlikely to
occur. Additionally, 8 Star Alaska is planning to implement a 150 m
shutdown zone during this activity. NMFS expects shutdown zones (table
16) will eliminate the potential for Level A
[[Page 51842]]
harassment take of the beluga whale. Therefore, NMFS has not authorized
takes of beluga whale by Level A harassment.
Table 15--Authorized Take by Level A and Level B Harassment, by Species and Stock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Species Stock Level A Level B instances of Stock Percent of
harassment harassment take abundance stock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead Whale............................. Western Arctic.............. 0 110 110 15,227 0.7
Gray Whale................................ Eastern North Pacific....... 0 2 2 26,960 0.01
Beluga Whale \*\.......................... Beaufort Sea................ 0 58 58 39,258 0.15
Eastern Chukchi............. 0 58 58 13,305 0.44
Ringed Seal............................... Arctic...................... 12 2,041 2,053 UND N/A
Spotted Seal.............................. Bering...................... 4 708 712 461,625 0.15
Bearded Seal.............................. Beringia.................... 3 438 441 UND N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Beluga whales in the project area are likely to be from the Beaufort Sea stock. However, NMFS has conservatively attributed all takes to each stock
for their analysis.
Effects of Specified Activities on Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals
The availability of the affected marine mammal stocks or species
for subsistence uses may be impacted by this activity. The subsistence
uses that may be affected and the potential impacts of the activity on
those uses are described below. Measures included in this IHA to reduce
the impacts of the activity on subsistence uses are described in the
Mitigation section. Last, the information from this section and the
Mitigation section is analyzed to determine whether the necessary
findings may be made in the Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and
Determination section.
The communities of Nuiqsut, Utqia[gdot]vik and Kaktovik engage in
subsistence harvests off the North Slope of Alaska. Alaska Native
communities have harvested bowhead whales for subsistence and cultural
purposes with oversight and quotas regulated by the International
Whaling Commission (IWC). The NSB Department of Wildlife Management has
been conducting bowhead whale subsistence harvest research since the
early 1980's to collect the data needed by the IWC to set harvest
quotas. Bowhead whale harvest (percent of total marine mammal harvest),
harvest weight, and percent of households using bowhead whale are
presented in table 25 of 8 Star Alaska's application.
Due to ongoing oil and gas activities in the North Slope, the
Department of the Interior funded a subsistence mapping study conducted
in 2004 (Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2010) and the Alaska LNG
Project funded a study, conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game in 2014 (Brown et al., 2016), to characterize and describe the
harvests and uses of wild foods by subsistence communities on the North
Slope. These are the most recent and applicable studies that NMFS is
aware of and are used to describe the harvests of Utqia[gdot]vik,
Kaktovik, and Nuiqsut below.
Most of the Beaufort Sea population of beluga whales migrate from
the Bering Sea into the Beaufort Sea in April or May. The spring
migration routes through ice leads are similar to those of the bowhead
whale. Fall migration through the western Beaufort Sea occurs in
September or October. Surveys of the fall distribution strongly
indicate that most belugas migrate offshore along the pack ice front
beyond the reach of subsistence harvesters. Beluga whales are harvested
opportunistically during the bowhead harvest and throughout ice-free
months. No beluga whale harvests were reported in 2006 survey
interviews conducted by Stephen R. Braund & Associates in any community
(Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2010). Beluga harvests were also not
reported in Nuiqsut and Kaktovik, although households did report using
beluga whale, likely through sharing from other communities (Brown et
al., 2016). We do not expect the planned activities at the Alaska LNG
project site to affect beluga whale subsistence harvests, as none are
expected.
Gray whale harvests were not reported by any of the communities
surveyed by Stephen R. Braund & Associates (2010) or Brown et al.
(2016) in any of the survey years, and therefore are not included as an
important subsistence species and are not further discussed.
Utqia[gdot]vik
Utqia[gdot]vik (formerly known as Barrow) is the northernmost
community on the North Slope and the United States and is approximately
320 km (200 mi) northwest of Prudhoe Bay. According to Brown et al.
(2016), 71 percent of households reported using marine mammals as a
resource. Of the marine mammals harvested, bowhead whale made up the
largest composition of marine mammals harvested at 54 percent by
weight, while bearded seals represented 30 percent, ringed seals 2
percent, and beluga whale 2 percent of total marine mammal weight
harvested (Brown et al., 2016). Bowhead whale was reported as a
resource used in 70 percent of households, bearded seal in 44 percent
of households, ringed seal in 19 percent of households, beluga whale in
15 percent of households, and spotted seals in 5 percent.
The spring hunt of bowhead whales occurs while bowheads are making
their migration east toward the eastern Beaufort Sea. Crews begin to
camp on the ice in mid- to late-April and stay out on the edge of the
ice for about 2-6 weeks, depending on the condition of the ice (Brown
et al., 2016). During the fall bowhead migration west, crews travel on
open boat, making day trips from the community. During the summer
months of July and August, bearded seals and ringed seals are targeted
offshore near ice floes (Brown et al., 2016).
The community of Utqia[gdot]vik's subsistence activities occur
outside of the area impacted by activities considered in this
authorization. We do not expect impacts to Utqia[gdot]vik's subsistence
activities, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation
provided here. Impacts to marine mammals from the planned construction
will mostly include limited, temporary behavioral disturbances of
seals, however, some slight auditory injury within the lower
frequencies associated with pile driving is possible. Additionally a
small number of takes of bowhead whales, by Level B harassment only,
are predicted to occur in the vicinity of 8 Star Alaska's activity.
Even if some subset of taken individuals deflected farther offshore
near the project site, it is reasonable to
[[Page 51843]]
predict that most individuals would likely resume a more typical
migration path by the time they reach the Utqia[gdot]vik hunting area,
and therefore, significant impacts to the Utqia[gdot]vik hunt would be
unlikely.
The planned activities and associated harassment of marine mammals
are not expected to impact marine mammals in numbers or locations
sufficient to render them unavailable for Utqia[gdot]vik subsistence
harvest given the short-term, temporary, and localized nature of
construction activities, and the planned mitigation measures.
Additionally, no serious injury or mortality of marine mammals is
expected or authorized, and the activities are not expected to have any
impacts on reproductive or survival rates of any marine mammal species.
Kaktovik
Kaktovik is the easternmost village in the NSB. Kaktovik is located
on the north shore of Barter Island, situated between the Okpilak and
Jago rivers on the Beaufort Sea coast. Kaktovik's subsistence-harvest
areas are to the east of the project area and target marine mammal
species migrating eastward during spring and summer occur seaward of
the project area and westward in the fall.
Bowhead whale hunters report traveling between Camden Bay to the
west and Nuvagapak Lagoon to the east. This range does not include the
project area impacted by the activities analyzed for this IHA. The
small number of takes of bowhead whales, by Level B harassment only,
predicted to occur in the vicinity of 8 Star Alaska's activity are not
expected to have any impacts on the fitness of any bowhead whales.
Further, we do not expect construction activities to deflect the
bowhead whale migration offshore in the Kaktovik hunting area, given
the distance from the western extent of the hunting area (Camden Bay)
to the predicted Level B harassment isopleths. Even if some subset of
taken individuals deflected farther offshore near the project site, it
is reasonable to predict that most individuals will likely resume a
more typical migration path by the time they reach the Kaktovik hunting
area during the eastbound migration, and during the westbound
migration, a bowhead exposed to construction noise would have already
passed the hunting area prior to exposure. Significant impacts to the
Kaktovik hunt would be unlikely, and Kaktovik bowhead whale hunting is
not discussed further. Please refer to 8 Star Alaska's application for
additional information.
Ringed, spotted, and bearded seals are harvested by the community
of Kaktovik. Residents hunt seals in rivers during ice-free months,
primarily July-August. Ringed seals are an important subsistence
resource for Native Alaskans living in communities along the Beaufort
Sea coast. Kaktovik hunters travel by boat to look for ringed seals on
floating ice (often while also hunting for bearded seal) or sometimes
along the ice edge by snow machine before break-up, during the spring
(Stephen R. Braund & Associates 2010). In 2006, 7 people (18 percent of
survey respondents) indicated that they had recently hunted for ringed
seals in Kaktovik (Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2010). Residents
reported looking for ringed seal, usually while also searching for
bearded seal, offshore between Prudhoe Bay to the west and Demarcation
Bay to the east (Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2010). Ringed seal
hunting typically peaks between March and August but continues into
September, as well (Stephen R. Braund & Associates. 2010). Although
residents reported hunting ringed seals up to approximately 30 mi (48
km) from shore, the highest numbers of overlapping use areas generally
occur within a few miles from shore (Stephen R. Braund & Associates,
2010). The total use area for ringed seal from 1995-2006 encompassed
approximately 2,139 mi\2\ (5540 km\2\). Harvest of ringed seals by
Kaktovik hunters does not typically occur to the west of Camden Bay.
Additionally, impacts to ringed seals are expected to include temporary
behavioral disturbances and some slight auditory injury within the
lower frequencies associated with pile driving. Serious injury or
mortality of ringed seals is not anticipated from the planned
activities, and the activities are not expected to have any impacts on
ringed seal reproductive or survival rates, or to impact availability
of ringed seals. Therefore, Alaska LNG project activities are not
expected to impact Kaktovik ringed seal harvests.
Kaktovik hunters harvested 126 pounds of spotted seals in 1992
(ADF&G Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS); retrieved and
analyzed August 15, 2018). Spotted seals were not reported harvested in
2006 survey interviews conducted in Nuiqsut (Stephen R. Braund &
Associates, 2010).
Hunting of bearded seals is more common than that of ringed seals
by Kaktovik residents, with 68 percent of respondents reporting the
hunting of bearded seals over the previous 10 years (Stephen R. Braund
& Associates, 2010). Kaktovik bearded seal hunting occurs along the
coast as far west as Prudhoe Bay and as far east as the United States/
Canada border (Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2010). Residents
reported looking for bearded seal as far as approximately 30 mi (48 km)
from shore, but generally hunt them closer to shore, up to 5 mi (8 km;
Stephen R. Braund & Associates 2010). Between 1994-2003, 29 bearded
seals were taken in Kaktovik. Bearded seal hunting activities, like
ringed seal, begin in March, peaking in July and August, and then
conclude in September (Stephen R. Braund & Associate, 2010).
The community of Kaktovik is approximately 100 (direct) mi (161 km)
from the planned project at Prudhoe Bay; subsistence activities for
these communities primarily occur outside of the project construction
area and the associated Level A and Level B harassment zones. The
planned construction and use of improvements to West Dock will occur in
Prudhoe Bay, adjacent to existing oil and gas infrastructures, and in
an area that is not typically used for subsistence other than extremely
limited bearded seal hunting by residents of Kaktovik.
Because of the distance from Kaktovik, and Kaktovik's very limited
use of waters offshore of Prudhoe Bay, and because the planned
activities will occur in an already-developed area, it is unlikely that
the planned activities will have any effects on the use of marine
mammals for subsistence by residents of Kaktovik. Further, the planned
activities are not expected to impact marine mammals in numbers or
locations sufficient to render them unavailable for subsistence harvest
given the short-term, temporary, and localized nature of construction
activities, and the planned mitigation measures. Impacts to marine
mammals will mostly include limited, temporary behavioral disturbances
of seals, with limited auditory injury associated with pile driving.
Serious injury or mortality of marine mammals is not anticipated from
the planned activities, and the activities are not expected to have any
impacts on reproductive or survival rates of any marine mammal species.
Therefore, we do not discuss Kaktovik's subsistence activities further.
Nuiqsut
The construction activities will occur closest to the marine
subsistence use area used by the Native Village of Nuiqsut. Nuiqsut is
located on the west bank of the Nechelik Channel on the lower Colville
River, about 25 mi (40 km) from the Arctic Ocean and approximately 150
mi (242 km) southeast of Utqia[gdot]vik. Nuiqsut subsistence hunters
utilize an extensive search area, spanning 16,322 mi\2\ (42,274 km\2\)
across the central Arctic Slope (see figure 19 of 8 Star Alaska's
[[Page 51844]]
application, Brown et al., 2016). Marine mammal hunting is primarily
concentrated in two areas: (1) Harrison Bay, between Atigaru Point and
Oliktok Point, including a northward extent of approximately 50 mi (80
km) beyond the Colville River Delta (Brown et al., 2016); and (2) east
of the Colville River Delta between Prudhoe and Foggy Island bays,
which includes an area of approximately 100 mi\2\ (259 km\2\)
surrounding the Midway Islands, McClure Island and Cross Island (Brown
et al., 2016). The community of Nuiqsut uses subsistence-harvest areas
adjacent to the construction area; however, West Dock is not a common
hunting area, nor is it visited regularly by Nuiqsut subsistence
hunters primarily because of its industrial history.
The most important seal hunting area for Nuiqsut hunters is off the
Colville Delta, an area extending as far west as Fish Creek and as far
east as Pingok Island. Seal hunting search areas by Nuiqsut hunters
also included Harrison Bay, and a 30-mi (48-km) stretch northeast of
Nuiqsut between the Colville and Kuparuk rivers, near Simpson Lagoon
and Jones Islands (Brown et al., 2016). Cross Island is a productive
area for seals, but is too far from Nuiqsut to be used on a regular
basis. Seal subsistence use areas of Nuiqsut from 1995 through 2006 are
depicted in figure 21 of 8 Star Alaska's application.
Ringed seals are an important subsistence resource for Native
Alaskans living in communities along the Beaufort Sea coast. Nuiqsut
residents commonly harvest ringed seal in the Beaufort Sea during the
summer months (Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2010). There are a
higher number of use areas extending east and west of the Colville
River delta. Residents reported traveling as far as Cape Halkett to the
west and Camden Bay to the east in search of ringed seal. Survey
respondents reported traveling offshore up to 30 mi (48 km; Stephen R.
Braund & Associates, 2010). Residents reported hunting ringed seals
throughout the late spring, summer, and early fall with a higher number
of use areas reported in June, July, and August (Stephen R. Braund &
Associates, 2010). In 2006, 12 people (36 percent of survey
respondents) indicated that they had recently hunted for ringed seals
in Nuiqsut (Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2010).
Nuiqsut bearded seal use areas extend as far west as Cape Halkett,
as far east as Camden Bay, and offshore up to 40 mi (64 km). In 2006,
12 people (69 percent of survey respondents) indicated that they had
recently hunted for bearded seals in Nuiqsut (Stephen R. Braund &
Associates, 2010). Nuiqsut hunters reported hunting bearded seal during
the summer season in open water as the seals are following the ice
pack. Residents reported hunting bearded seal between June and
September, although a small number of use areas were reportedly used in
May and October (Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2010). The number of
reported bearded seal use areas peak in July and August, when the
majority of seals are available along the ice pack (Stephen R. Braund &
Associates, 2010).
Nuiqsut's bowhead whale hunt occurs in the fall at Cross Island, a
barrier island located approximately 12 mi (19 km) northwest of West
Dock. Nuiqsut whalers base their activities from Cross Island
(Galginaitis 2014), and the whaling search and the harvest areas
typically are concentrated north of the island. Hunting activities
between 1997 and 2006 occurred almost as far west as Thetis Island, as
far east as Barter Island (Kaktovik), and up to approximately 50 mi (80
km) offshore (Stephen R Braund & Associates, 2010). Harvest locations
in 1973-2011 and GPS tracks of 2001-2011 whaling efforts are shown in
figure 19 of 8 Star Alaska's application.
Bowhead whales are harvested by Nuiqsut whalers during the fall
whaling season. Nuiqsut residents typically hunt bowhead whales in
September, although a small number of use areas were reported in August
and extending into October (Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2010). Pile
driving will not occur during Nuiqsut whaling.
Nuiqsut subsistence hunting crews operating from Cross Island have
harvested three to four bowhead whales per year (Bacon et al., 2009;
Galginaitis 2014). In 2014, the AEWC allocated Nuiqsut a quota of four
bowhead whales each year; however, through transfers of quota from
other communities, in 2015 Nuiqsut was able to harvest five whales
(Brown et al., 2016). In 2006, 10 people (30 percent of survey
respondents) in Nuiqsut indicated that they had recently hunted for
bowhead whales (Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2010). In 2016, Nuiqsut
whaling crews harvested four bowhead whales (Suydam et al., 2017).
Nuiqsut is 70 mi (112 km) away from the project and is likely to be
the community that has the greatest potential to experience any impacts
to subsistence practices. The primary potential for Alaska LNG project
impacts to Nuiqsut's subsistence use of marine mammals is associated
with barge activity, which could interfere with summer seal and fall
bowhead whale hunting (Alaska LNG 2016). Barge activity is beyond the
scope of this IHA, but noise associated with barging could deflect
bowhead whales as they migrate through Nuiqsut's fall whaling grounds
or cause temporary disturbances of seals, making successful harvests
more difficult. Barge traffic will occur from July through September.
Although barging activities will not cease during Nuiqsut's fall
bowhead whale hunting activities, 8 Star Alaska plans to keep vessels
landward of Cross Island during the August 25-September 15 period,
avoiding the high use areas offshore of the island during the entire
whaling season in most years and greatly reducing the impact to the
whale hunt (Alaska LNG 2016, 2017).
Pile driving associated with construction at West Dock could also
affect subsistence hunting of bowhead whales, as the Level B harassment
zones extend up to 4.6 km from the pile driving site for some pile and
hammer type combinations. As such, 8 Star Alaska will not pile drive
during the Nuiqsut whaling season (see Mitigation). 8 Star Alaska has
consulted with AEWC and NSB on mitigation measures to limit impacts
(Alaska LNG 2016) and has continued to provide formal and informal
project updates to these groups, as recently as July 2023.
The activities are not expected to impact marine mammals in numbers
or locations sufficient to render them unavailable for subsistence
harvest given the short-term, temporary, and localized nature of
construction activities, and the mitigation measures. Impacts to marine
mammals will mostly include limited, temporary behavioral disturbances
of seals, however, some auditory injury is possible. Serious injury or
mortality of marine mammals is not anticipated from the activities, and
the activities are not expected to have any impacts on reproductive or
survival rates of any marine mammal species.
In summary, impacts to subsistence hunting are not expected due to
the distance between West Dock construction and primary seal hunting
areas, and mitigation during the Nuiqsut bowhead whale hunt.
Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for
[[Page 51845]]
incidental take authorizations to include information about the
availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment,
methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected
species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS
considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat, as
well as subsistence uses. This considers the nature of the potential
adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further
considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if
implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if
implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation
(probability implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost and impact on
operations.
The mitigation requirements described in the following section were
proposed by 8 Star Alaska in its adequate and complete application or
are the result of subsequent coordination between NMFS and 8 Star
Alaska. 8 Star Alaska has agreed that all of the mitigation measures
are practicable. NMFS has fully reviewed the specified activities and
the mitigation measures to determine if the mitigation measures will
result in the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals and
their habitat, as required by the MMPA, and has determined the measures
are appropriate. NMFS describes these below as mitigation requirements,
and has included them in the IHA.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
In addition to the measures described later in this section, 8 Star
Alaska will employ the following mitigation measures:
<bullet> Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and
crews and the marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start of all
pile driving activity and when new personnel join the work, to explain
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, and operational procedures;
<bullet> For in-water construction, heavy machinery activities
other than pile driving, if a marine mammal comes within 10 m (33 ft),
operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum
level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions;
<bullet> For those marine mammals for which take by Level B
harassment has not been requested, in-water pile installation/removal
will shut down immediately when it is safe to do so if such species are
observed within or entering the Level B harassment zones; and
<bullet> If take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized
species, pile installation will be stopped as these species approach
the Level B harassment zone to avoid additional take.
Aircraft
Aircraft will transit at an altitude of 457 m (1,500 ft) or higher,
to the extent practicable, while maintaining Federal Aviation
Administration flight rules (e.g., avoidance of cloud ceiling, etc.),
excluding takeoffs and landing. If flights must occur at altitudes less
than 457 m (1,500 ft) due to environmental conditions, aircraft must
make course adjustments, as needed, to maintain at least a 457 m (1,500
ft) separation from all observed marine mammals. Helicopters (if used)
must not hover or circle above marine mammals. A minimum transit
altitude is expected to reduce the potential for disturbance to marine
mammals from transiting aircraft.
The following mitigation measures will apply to 8 Star Alaska's in-
water construction activities. In addition, 8 Star Alaska will be
required to implement all mitigation measures described in the
reinitiated biological opinion.
Establishment of Shutdown Zones
8 Star Alaska will establish shutdown zones for all pile driving
and removal activities. The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to
define an area within which shutdown of the activity would occur upon
sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering
the defined area). Shutdown zones will vary based on the activity type
and marine mammal hearing group (see table 16). A minimum shutdown zone
of 10 m will be required for all in-water construction activities to
avoid physical interaction with marine mammals. The largest shutdown
zones are generally for low frequency cetaceans as shown in table 16.
In this instance, the largest shutdown zone for low frequency cetaceans
is 1,200 m. 8 Star Alaska expects that they will be able to effectively
observe phocids at distance up to 500 m, large cetaceans at 2-4 km, and
belugas at 2-3 km.
Table 16--Shutdown Zones During Pile Installation and Removal (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile Size Hammer type LF cetaceans HF cetaceans Phocids
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.5-inch (29.2 cm) H-Pile...................... Impact 1,200 150 500
14-inch (36 cm) H-Pile.......................... Impact 350 50 300
Vibratory 10 10 10
48-inch (122 cm) Pipe Pile...................... Impact * 750 100 500
Sheet Piles..................................... Vibratory 20 10 30
-----------------------------------------------
Screeding....................................... .............. 215
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This shutdown zone has changed from the proposed IHA due to a change to the Level A harassment isopleth (see
table 6).
The placement of PSOs during all pile driving and removal
activities (described in detail in the Monitoring and Reporting
section) will ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible during
pile installation. If visibility degrades to where the PSO determines
that they cannot effectively monitor the entire shutdown zone during
pile driving, the applicant may continue to drive the pile section that
was being driven to its target depth when visibility degraded to
unobservable conditions, but will not drive additional sections of pile
until conditions improve. Pile driving may continue during low light
conditions to allow for the evaluation of night vision devices (NVDs)
and
[[Page 51846]]
infrared (IR) sensing devices, as described in the Monitoring and
Reporting section, below.
If marine mammals are observed within the shutdown zone, pile
driving will be delayed until the animal has moved out of the shutdown
zone, either verified by an observer or after 15 minutes (small
cetaceans and pinnipeds) or 30 minutes (large cetaceans) has elapsed
without redetection of the animal. If a marine mammal approaches or
enters the shutdown zone during pile driving, the activity will be
halted. If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a
species which has been granted but the authorized takes are met, is
observed approaching or within the Level B harassment zone during pile
driving or tension anchoring, the activity will be halted. Pile driving
may resume after the animal has moved out of and is moving away from
the shutdown zone or after at least 15 or 30 minutes (described above)
has passed since the last observation of the animal.
Pre- and Post-Activity Monitoring
Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of
pile driving activities (i.e., pre-clearance monitoring) through 30
minutes post-completion of pile driving. Prior to the start of daily
in-water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of
30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs must observe the shutdown and
monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. If a marine mammal is
observed within the shutdown zone, a soft-start (described below)
cannot proceed until the animal has left the zone or has not been
observed for 15 minutes (pinnipeds) or 30 minutes (cetaceans). When a
marine mammal for which Level B harassment take is authorized is
present in the Level B harassment zone, activities may begin and Level
B harassment take will be recorded. Pile driving or removal activities
can begin if the entire Level B harassment zone is not visible at the
start of construction, as long as the shutdown zone may be effectively
monitored, as described above.
Monitoring for Level A and Level B Harassment
8 Star Alaska will monitor for marine mammals in the Level B
harassment zones and Level A harassment zones, to the extent
practicable, and throughout the area as far as visual monitoring can
occur. Monitoring enables observers to be aware of, and communicate the
presence of marine mammals in the project area outside the shutdown
zone and thus prepare for a potential shutdown of activity should the
animal enter the shutdown zone. Placement of PSOs on elevated
structures on West Dock will allow PSOs to observe phocids within the
Level A and Level B harassment zones, to an estimated distance of 500
m. Due to the large Level A and Level B harassment zones (table 6),
PSOs will not be able to effectively observe the entire zones during
all activities for all species. All marine mammals observed within the
visible portion of the harassment zones will be recorded. 8 Star Alaska
will also conduct acoustic monitoring as described in the Monitoring
and Reporting section, below.
Nighttime Monitoring
PSOs will use NVDs and IR for nighttime and low visibility
monitoring. 8 Star Alaska will select devices for monitoring, and will
test the devices to determine the efficacy of the monitoring equipment
and technique. For a detailed explanation of 8 Star Alaska's plan to
test the NVDs and IR equipment, please see 8 Star Alaska's Marine
Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, available online at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable</a>. (Please note
that 8 Star Alaska will not assess object detection at distance
intervals using buoys as stated in the Marine Mammal Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan. Rather, they will test object detection on land using
existing landmarks at known distances from PSOs, such as road signs.)
Soft Start
Soft-start procedures provide additional protection to marine
mammals by providing warning and/or giving marine mammals a chance to
leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity. For
impact pile driving, contractors will be required to provide an initial
set of three strikes from the hammer at reduced energy, followed by a
30-second waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets before
initiating continuous driving. Soft start will be implemented at the
start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following
cessation of impact pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer.
Pile Driving During Contingency Period
In the event that 8 Star Alaska must continue pile driving or
removal during their contingency period (February- April), 8 Star
Alaska must begin pile driving before March 1, the approximate onset of
ice seal lairing season. Initiating pile driving before March 1 is
expected to discourage seals from establishing birthing lairs near pile
driving. Discouraging seals from establishing birthing lairs near pile
driving will likely reduce potential instances of take by Level B
harassment by reducing the likelihood of an individual seal occurring
within the Level B harassment zone on multiple occasions, which would
be far more likely if seals established lairs within the zone.
Additionally, a subsistence advisor will survey areas within a buffer
zone of DH4 where water depth is greater than 10 ft (3 m) to identify
potential ringed seal structures before activity begins. Construction
crews must avoid identified ice seal structures by a minimum of 500 ft
(150 m). NMFS expects these measures to prevent physical interaction
between seals and construction equipment.
8 Star Alaska does not plan to use a bubble curtain or other sound
attenuation devices, and NMFS concurs that sound attenuation devices
are not appropriate for this project. Conditions in the project area
mean that the common practice of using bubble curtains for attenuation
is not appropriate, as the water is shallow and therefore sound source
level reductions are likely to be minimal (Caltrans, 2020), effective
deployment of a bubble curtain system is logistically challenging in
shallow water, and there is potential for sea ice, which would make
deployment and use of sound attenuation systems even more challenging.
Sound attenuation devices have not been used for pile driving in this
area during past projects.
Mitigation for Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals or Plan of
Cooperation
Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) further require IHA applicants
conducting activities in or near a traditional Arctic subsistence
hunting area and/or that may affect the availability of a species or
stock of marine mammals for Arctic subsistence uses to provide a Plan
of Cooperation or information that identifies what measures have been
taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the
availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes. A plan must
include the following:
<bullet> A statement that the applicant has notified and provided
the affected subsistence community with a draft plan of cooperation;
<bullet> A schedule for meeting with the affected subsistence
communities to discuss activities and to resolve potential conflicts
regarding any aspects
[[Page 51847]]
of either the operation or the plan of cooperation;
<bullet> A description of what measures the applicant has taken
and/or will take to ensure that activities will not interfere with
subsistence whaling or sealing; and
<bullet> What plans the applicant has to continue to meet with the
affected communities, both prior to and while conducting the activity,
to resolve conflicts and to notify the communities of any changes in
the operation.
8 Star Alaska provided a draft POC to NMFS on March 27, 2019 and
submitted revised versions on February 7, 2020, November 16, 2020,
December 21, 2020, January 4, 2021, and, most recently, June 20, 2024.
The POC outlines 8 Star Alaska's extensive coordination with
subsistence communities that may be affected by the Alaska LNG project.
It includes a brief description of the project, community outreach that
has already been conducted, as well as the concerns raised in those
discussions and how they were addressed, and project mitigation
measures. 8 Star Alaska will continue coordination with subsistence
communities throughout the project duration, and will develop a
Communications Plan in coordination with subsistence groups, as
described below and in the POC. The POC is a living document and has
been updated throughout the project review and permitting process. 8
Star Alaska will continue to coordinate with subsistence communities as
additional project information, such as the expected construction
period, becomes available and will provide NMFS with an updated POC
when additional coordination occurs. The IHA includes a requirement
stating that 8 Star Alaska must conduct the communication and
coordination as described in the POC, which is available on our website
at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable</a>.
8 Star Alaska continues to document its communications with the
North Slope subsistence communities, as well as the substance of its
communications with subsistence stakeholder groups, and has developed
mitigation measures that include measures suggested by community
members as well as industry standard measures. 8 Star Alaska will
continue to routinely engage with local communities and subsistence
groups. Multiple user groups are often consulted simultaneously as part
of larger coalition meetings such as the Arctic Safety Waterways
Committee meetings. Local communities and subsistence groups identified
by 8 Star Alaska are listed in the POC. 8 Star Alaska will develop a
Communication Plan and will implement this plan before initiating
construction operations to coordinate activities with local subsistence
users, as well as Village Whaling Captains' Associations, to minimize
the risk of interfering with subsistence hunting activities, and keep
current as to the timing and status of the bowhead whale hunt and other
subsistence hunts. A project informational mailer with a request for
community feedback (traditional mail, email, phone) will be sent to
community members prior to construction. Following the construction
season, 8 Star Alaska intends to have a post-season co-management
meeting with the commissioners and committee heads to discuss results
of mitigation measures and outcomes of the preceding season. The goal
of the post-season meeting is to build upon the knowledge base, discuss
successful or unsuccessful outcomes of mitigation measures, and
possibly refine plans or mitigation measures if necessary.
The AEWC works annually with industry partners to develop a CAA.
This agreement implements mitigation measures that allow industry to
conduct their work in or transiting the vicinity of active subsistence
hunters, in areas where subsistence hunters anticipate hunting, or in
areas that are in sufficient proximity to areas expected to be used for
subsistence hunting where the planned activities could potentially
adversely affect the subsistence bowhead whale hunt through effects on
bowhead whales, while maintaining the availability of bowheads for
subsistence hunters. 8 Star Alaska is required to enter the CAA for the
construction year by an order from the FERC.
8 Star Alaska will not conduct pile driving during the Nuiqsut
whaling season in an effort to eliminate effects on the availability of
bowhead whales for subsistence hunting that could occur as a result of
project noise. Nuiqsut whaling is approximately August 25-September 15,
though the exact dates may change.
Barging activities could potentially impact Nuiqsut's fall bowhead
whale hunt and possibly other marine mammal harvest activities in the
Beaufort Sea. As mentioned previously, barging activities are beyond
the scope of this IHA, and no take is expected to occur as a result of
barging activities. However, NMFS will require 8 Star Alaska to limit
barges to waters landward of Cross Island during the Nuiqsut whaling
season (approximately August 25-September 15, though the exact dates
may change) in an effort to avoid any potential impacts on subsistence
uses. 8 Star Alaska has consulted with AEWC and NSB on mitigation
measures to limit impacts and has continued to provide formal and
informal project updates to these groups.
As described above in the Effects of Specified Activities on
Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals section, 8 Star Alaska's
construction activities at West Dock do not overlap with the areas
where subsistence hunters typically harvest ice seals, and given the
extent of impacts to seals described in that section, these activities
are not expected to impact subsistence hunts of ice seals. Therefore,
NMFS has not included mitigation measures for subsistence harvest of
ice seals; however, 8 Star Alaska will continue to meet with
subsistence groups, including the Ice Seal Committee, as described in
the POC.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's mitigation measures,
NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the
availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while
conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
<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
[[Page 51848]]
environment (e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient
noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3)
co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the activity; or (4)
biological or behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or
feeding areas);
<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.
The monitoring and reporting requirements described in the
following were proposed by 8 Star Alaska in its adequate and complete
application and/or are the result of subsequent coordination between
NMFS and 8 Star Alaska. 8 Star Alaska has agreed to the requirements.
NMFS describes these below as requirements and has included them in the
IHA.
Visual Monitoring
Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the
Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, available online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable</a>. Marine mammal
monitoring during pile driving and removal must be conducted by NMFS-
approved PSOs in a manner consistent with the following:
<bullet> PSOs must be independent of the activity contractor (for
example, employed by a subcontractor) and have no other assigned tasks
during monitoring periods.
<bullet> At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the
duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued
incidental take authorization;
<bullet> Other PSOs may substitute other relevant experience,
education (degree in biological science or related field), or training
for prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction
activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization. PSOs
may also substitute Alaska native traditional knowledge for experience
(NMFS recognizes that PSOs with traditional knowledge may also have
prior experience, and therefore be eligible to serve as the lead PSO).
<bullet> Where a team of three or more PSOs is required, a lead
observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead
observer must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO
during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take
authorization; and
<bullet> PSOs must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any
activity subject to this IHA.
PSOs must have the following additional qualifications:
<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 mammal 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.
At least two PSOs will be present during all pile driving/removal
activities. PSOs will have an unobstructed view of all water within the
shutdown zones. PSOs will observe as much of the Level A and Level B
harassment zone as possible. PSO locations are as follows:
<bullet> Dock Head 4--During impact pile driving at DH4, two PSOs
must be stationed to view toward the east, north, and west of the
sweater treatment plan. During vibratory pile driving at DH4, two PSOs
must monitor from each PSO location (four PSOs); and
<bullet> Barge Bridge--During work at the barge bridge, two PSOs
must be stationed at the north end of the bridge.
PSOs will be stationed on elevated platforms at DH4, and on the
elevated bridge during work at the barge bridge. They will possess the
equipment described in the Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation
Plan, including NVDs during nighttime monitoring. However, during the
primary construction season, nighttime on the North Slope will be
brief. Given the elevated PSO sites and equipment, 8 Star Alaska
expects that they will be able to effectively observe phocids at
distances up to 500 m, large cetaceans at 2-4 km, and belugas at 2-3
km, however, PSOs will not be able to effectively observe the entire
area of the Level A harassment (seals only) or Level B harassment zones
during all pile driving activities.
PSOs will begin monitoring 3 days prior to the onset of pile
driving and removal activities and continue through three days after
completion of the pile driving and removal activities. PSOs will
monitor 24 hours per day, even during periods when construction is not
occurring. In addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine
mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall
document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles
being driven or removed. Pile driving activities include the time to
install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the
elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 30
minutes.
Acoustic Monitoring
Acoustic monitoring, to be conducted for purposes of measuring
sound source levels and sound propagation, must be conducted in
accordance with accepted methodology as described in an Acoustic
Monitoring Plan, which 8 Star Alaska must develop after its contractor
is selected. The plan must be reviewed by NMFS, the NSB, and the AEWC,
and approved by NMFS. 8 Star Alaska must conduct acoustic monitoring
for the number of each pile type and size indicated in the approved
plan. 8 Star Alaska may request that NMFS adjust the shutdown zones and
revise the Level A and Level B harassment zones, as appropriate,
pending NMFS' review and approval of the results of acoustic
monitoring.
8 Star Alaska will also conduct PAM for marine mammals. 8 Star
Alaska will deploy three hydrophones during the open-water season to
monitor for marine mammals, in accordance with a Marine Mammal
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan and Acoustic Monitoring Plan. This PAM
is intended to inform the estimate of marine mammals in the Level B
harassment zone, given that PSOs are not able to observe the entire
zone for all species and activities.
8 Star Alaska will deploy the hydrophones as recommended by the
PRP, located between the 1,400 m and 4,700 m zones (noting that the
1,400 m zone was updated since the PRP report to reflect an updated
acoustic analysis
[[Page 51849]]
(formerly 2,200 m)), as described below, and will adjust the locations
as appropriate if the Level B harassment zones are adjusted following
SSV results. 8 Star Alaska will deploy the PAM recorders 3 days prior
to the start of pile driving and will retrieve them three days after
completion of pile driving during the open-water season.
Should construction be required during the contingency period when
there will be ice-cover, 8 Star Alaska will deploy one hydrophone at
the end of the open-water season located in between the 1,400 m and
4,700 m zones, perpendicular to the pile driving site. The location
must be reviewed by NMFS, the NSB, and the AEWC, and approved by NMFS
prior to deployment. Additional hydrophones during the contingency
period are not warranted, as we do not expect cetaceans to be present
in the area during this time (Citta et al., 2017, Quakenbush et al.,
2018), and while ringed seals likely will be present, few, if any,
spotted or bearded seals are likely to be present during that time
(Bengtson et al., 2005, Lowry et al., 1998, Simpkins et al., 2003).
Reporting
A draft marine mammal monitoring report will be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of marine mammal and acoustic
monitoring or 60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for
this project, 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 precise start and stop time of each type
of construction operation mode, how many and what types of piles were
driven or removed and by what method (i.e., impact or vibratory);
<bullet> Total number of hours during which each construction
activity type occurred;
<bullet> Total number of hours that PSOs were on duty during each
construction activity, and total number of hours that PSOs were on duty
during periods of no construction activity;
<bullet> Weather parameters and water conditions during each
monitoring period (e.g., wind speed, percent cover, visibility, sea
state), and number of hours of observation that occurred during various
visibility and sea state conditions;
<bullet> The number of marine mammals observed, by species and
operation mode, relative to the pile location, and if pile driving or
removal was occurring at time of sighting;
<bullet> The number of marine mammals observed (including periods
with no construction);
<bullet> Age and sex class, if possible, of all marine mammals
observed;
<bullet> PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring, including
elevation above sea level;
<bullet> Distances and bearings of each marine mammal observed to
the pile being driven or removed for each sighting (if pile driving or
removal was occurring at time of sighting);
<bullet> Description of any marine mammal behavior patterns during
observation, including direction of travel and estimated time spent
within the Level A and Level B harassment zones while the source was
active;
<bullet> Number of individuals of each species (differentiated by
month as appropriate) detected within the Level A and Level B
harassment zones;
<bullet> Histograms of perpendicular distances to PSO sightings, by
species (or species group if sample sizes are small);
<bullet> Sighting rates summarized into daily or weekly periods for
the before, during, and after construction periods;
<bullet> Maps showing visual detections by species and construction
activity type.
<bullet> Detailed information about any implementation of any
mitigation triggered (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of
specific actions that ensued, and resulting behavior of the animal, if
any;
<bullet> Description of attempts to distinguish between the number
of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take, such
as ability to track groups of individuals;
<bullet> An estimation of potential takes, by species, by Level A
and Level B harassment based on the number of observed exposures within
the Level A and Level B harassment zones and the percentages of the
Level A and Level B harassment zones that were not visible;
<bullet> Submit all PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data (in a
separate file from the Final Report referenced immediately above).
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft
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.
For the SSV, 8 Star Alaska's acoustic monitoring report must, at
minimum, include the following:
<bullet> Hydrophone equipment and methods: Recording device,
sampling rate, distance (m) from the pile where recordings were made,
depth of recording device(s);
<bullet> Type and size of pile being driven, substrate type, method
of driving during recordings;
<bullet> For impact pile driving: Pulse duration and mean, median,
and maximum sound levels (dB re: 1[mu]Pa): Cumulative sound exposure
level (SELcum), peak sound pressure level (SPLpeak), root-mean-square
sound pressure level (SPLrms), and single-strike sound exposure level
(SELs-s).
<bullet> For vibratory driving/removal: Mean, median, and maximum
sound levels (dB re: 1[mu]Pa): SPL<INF>rms</INF>, SELcum, and timeframe
over which the sound is averaged.
<bullet> Number of strikes (impact) or duration (vibratory) per
pile measured, one-third octave band spectrum, power spectral density
plot;
<bullet> Estimated source levels referenced to 10 m, transmission
loss coefficients, and estimated Level A and Level B harassment zones.
For the PAM for marine mammals, 8 Star Alaska's acoustic monitoring
report must, at minimum, include the following:
<bullet> Number of marine mammal detections (including species,
date and time of detections, and type of pile driving underway during
each detection, if applicable);
<bullet> Detection rates summarized into daily or weekly periods
for the before, during, and after construction periods;
<bullet> Received sound levels from pile driving activity;
<bullet> The following hydrophone equipment and method information:
Recording devices, sampling rate, sensitivity of the PAM equipment,
locations of the hydrophones, duty cycle, distance (m) from the pile
where recordings were made, depth of recording devices, and depth of
water in area of recording devices.
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the Holder must report the
incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fdadafd3b4a9add3b092939489928f94939aaf988d928f898ebd93929c9cd39a928b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2070720e6974700e6d4f4e49544f52494e477245504f525453604e4f41410e474f56">[email protected]</span></a> and <a
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on November 18, 2025.
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.