[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10416-10421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03630]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XR077]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Gustavus Ferry Terminal
Improvements Project
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to
the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF)
to incidentally harass, by Level A and Level B harassment only, marine
mammals during pile driving and removal activities associated with the
Gustavus Ferry Terminal Improvements Project in Gustavus, Alaska.
DATES: This authorizations is effective for one year from February 15,
2020 through February 14, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pauline, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. In case of problems
accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public
for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
Summary of Request
On November 20, 2019, NMFS received a request from the ADOT&PF for
an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to in-water construction
activities in Gustavus, Alaska. NMFS previously issued an IHA to
ADOT&PF to incidentally take seven species of marine mammal, by Level A
and Level B harassment, during construction activities associated with
this same project. The IHA, issued on April 4, 2017 (82 FR 17209; April
10, 2017), had effective dates of December 15, 2017 through December
14, 2018. However, ADOT&PF was unable to conduct any of the work and,
therefore, requested a new IHA. NMFS issued a second IHA with effective
dates of December 15, 2018 through December 14, 2019 (83 FR 55348;
November 5, 2018) to cover the incidental take analyzed and authorized
in the first IHA. There were minor modifications to the number of piles
driven but these had no effect on authorized take numbers, monitoring
requirement, or reporting measures, which remained the same as stated
in the original 2017-2018 IHA.
ADOT&PF was unable to meet the fall pile driving window (September
1 through November 30, 2019) as originally anticipated. Due to this
setback, construction is planned to begin in spring 2020. ADOT&PF
submitted an addendum to the original application requesting that a
supplementary two-week timeframe be included in the spring window from
February 15 through May 31, 2020. During this two-week timeframe, the
contractor will begin vibratory removal of structures in order to get
ahead of schedule while also accommodating for one last sailing of the
ferry to the community before the ferry terminal's
[[Page 10417]]
closure for the remainder of construction. The only difference between
this IHA and previously issued IHAs is a construction start date of
February 15 instead of March 1. Take numbers remain the same as
authorized for the 2018-2019 IHA referenced above.
Description of Activity
The 2020-2021 IHA is nearly identical to the 2018-2019 IHA with the
most significant change being an earlier in-water pile driving start
date of February 15, 2020 instead of March 1, 2020. Specifically, over
approximately 50 days of in-water activity a total of 59 permanent
piles ranging in size from 12.75 inches to 30 inches would be installed
by vibratory and impact driving. A total of 30 temporary or pre-
existing piles would undergo vibratory removal. A detailed description
of planned activities may be found in the Federal Register proposing
authorization of this IHA (85 FR 2403; January 15, 2020). Therefore, a
detailed description is not provided here.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to ADOT&PF was
published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2020 (85 FR 2403).
During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comment letters
from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) and Defenders of
Wildlife (Defenders).
Comment 1: The Commission recommended that NMFS use at least 165 dB
re 1 [mu]Pa while Defenders recommended use of 166 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
rather than 157.7 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 10 m as the source level (SL) for
vibratory driving of 30-in steel piles at Gustavus. The Commission and
Defenders recommended that NMFS re-estimate the extent of the Level A
and B harassment zones as well as increase the number of Level A and B
harassment takes appropriately during both impact and vibratory pile
driving.
NMFS Response: As noted in responses to the comments submitted by
the Commission for the previous IHAs, NMFS used a proxy source level of
157.7 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for vibratory driving of 30-in steel piles during
the estimated take analysis. NMFS also previously noted that ADOT&PF
will be using the same type of vibratory hammers at Gustavus as were
used at Kake and that the pile types and sizes are comparable between
the two sites. NMFS does not dispute that the SL used in the Gustavus
analysis is generally lower than others that have been recorded across
various sites. However, SLs for similar piles measured at different
locations tend to cover a range of values. For example, SL measurements
from Kodiak for vibratory driving of the same size and type of pile
were even lower than those recorded at Kake, although the researchers
speculated that the low values be due to the drilling/socketing of
piles or sediment composition at Kodiak (Denes et al., 2017). For the
Gustavus analysis, NMFS elected to use a value from the lower end of
recorded ranges. In order to confirm that the SLs adopted by NMFS are
appropriate for use at Gustavus, NMFS will still require ADOT&PF to
conduct sound source verification (SSV) testing. If the recorded SLs at
Gustavus are appreciably greater than those measured at Kake, ADOT&PF
will increase the shutdown and harassment zones as appropriate.
Comment 2: The Commission and Defenders recommended that NMFS
require ADOT&PF to use at least three Protected Species Observers
(PSOs) to monitor the full extent of the Level B harassment zones.
NMFS Response: As has been noted in the previous Gustavus IHAs,
NMFS believes that the existing Level B harassment zone can be
adequately measured utilizing two PSOs. The option of adding more PSOs
stationed on boats or nearby islands was originally discussed with
ADOT&PF before the first IHA was issued. However, due to the frequency,
severity and unpredictability of weather in Icy Passage, ADOT&PF was
reluctant to employ vessels for monitoring purposes since the safety of
PSOs could be at risk. Additionally, island-based PSOs could be
stranded on these uninhabited islands overnight, or longer, if
retrieval vessels are unable to pick up observers due to adverse
weather conditions.
Comment 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS ensure that ADOT&PF
keep a running tally of the total takes, both observed and
extrapolated, to confirm that the numbers of authorized takes are not
exceeded.
Response: We agree that ADOT&PF must ensure they do not exceed
authorized takes. We have included in the authorization that ADOT&PF
must include extrapolation of the estimated takes by Level B harassment
based on the number of observed exposures within the Level B harassment
zone and the percentage of the Level B harassment zone that was not
visible in the draft and final reports.
Comment 4: The Commission and Defenders recommended that NMFS
require all action proponents that would be required to or propose to
conduct hydroacoustic monitoring to provide their proposed
hydroacoustic monitoring plans prior to publication of the proposed
authorization in the Federal Register notice and ensure all such plans
are posted on its website the day the notice publishes in the Federal
Register.
Response: During the initial application review period, NMFS
requests that applicants provide basic information regarding proposed
hydroacoustic monitoring plans. We also generally ask for more fully
detailed, near-final monitoring plans for review prior to publication
of the final IHA. If NMFS has received the finalized monitoring plan
before publication of the final IHA, it is shared with the Commission
and posted to our website. However, the MMPA does not require
submission of the final monitoring plan prior to publication of the
final IHA, as long as the basic plan, with sufficient details for
review by NMFS and the public, is approved prior to issuance of the IHA
and NMFS is kept apprised of any subsequent revisions and provided the
final plan for final approval prior to the start of work. Under these
conditions, NMFS indicates in the final IHA that a hydroacoustic
monitoring plan must be submitted to NMFS and approved prior to
initiation of the monitoring.
Note that the hydroacoustic monitoring plan for this issued IHA is
currently posted on our website.
Comment 5: The Commission recommended that NMFS update templates
for draft authorizations to include all the relevant minimum reporting
requirements for hydroacoustic monitoring reports as described in the
Description of Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Measures section
consistent with the Commission's recommendations. Defenders recommended
that hydroacoustic monitoring plans should incorporate the best
available science.
Response: The Commission's recommendations have been included in
this IHA. NMFS will consider these recommendations and ensure that
templates include the appropriate minimum reporting requirements for
hydroacoustic monitoring reports. NMFS also reviews every hydroacoustic
monitoring plan to ensure that the most current monitoring protocols
and methodologies are incorporated.
Comment 6: The Commission recommended that NMFS finish reviewing
and finalize its recommended proxy source levels for both impact and
vibratory installation of the various pile types and sizes. If the
proxy source levels for impact pile driving are finalized prior to
those for vibratory pile
[[Page 10418]]
driving and removal, they should be made available to action proponents
and the public when completed and should not be retained until the
vibratory source levels are finalized. Defenders also recommended that
NMFS complete the guidance.
Response: As the Commission notes, NMFS is developing proxy source
level recommendations and guidance for impact and vibratory pile
driving based on all available data, and we intend to make that
information available to the public as it is developed. Until that
time, NMFS has advised applicants and the Commission that Caltrans 2015
represents the most complete pile driving source level compilation, and
applicants should defer to these data absent any project site specific
data. Once the guidance has been finalized, it will be posted on NMFS's
incidental take authorization website, as appropriate.
Comment 7: The Commission has asserted in the past and continues to
consider that the renewal process is inconsistent with the statutory
requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. As such, the
Commission recommends that NMFS refrain from issuing renewals for any
authorization and instead use its abbreviated Federal Register notice
process. That process, as was used for ADOT&PFs proposed authorization,
is similarly expeditious and fulfills NMFS's intent to maximize
efficiencies.
Response 8: NMFS appreciates the streamlining achieved by the use
of abbreviated Federal Register notices and intends to continue using
them for proposed IHAs that include minor changes from previously
issued IHAs, but which do not satisfy the Renewal requirements.
However, we believe our method for issuing Renewals meets statutory
requirements and maximizes efficiency, and we plan to continue
considering requests for Renewals.
Comment 9: The Commission recommends that it (1) stipulate that a
Renewal is a one-time opportunity (a) in all Federal Register notices
requesting comments on the possibility of a Renewal, (b) on its web
page detailing the Renewal process, and (c) in all draft and final
authorizations that include a term and condition for a Renewal.
Response: NMFS' website indicates that Renewals are good for ``up
to another year of the activities covered in the initial IHA.'' NMFS
has never issued a Renewal for more than one year, and in no place have
we implied that Renewals are available for more than one year. Any
given Federal Register notice considering a Renewal clearly indicates
that it is only being considered for one year. Accordingly, changes to
the Renewal language on the website, Federal Register notices, or
authorizations is not necessary.
Comment 10: Defenders noted that NMFS used a categorical exclusion
to satisfy NEPA requirements for this action since no mortality or
serious injury is expected. Defenders asserted that if no injury or
mortality were expected by NMFS, there would be no need to authorize
takes of several species by Level A harassment. Since NMFS has
authorized take by Level A harassment mortality or injury is
anticipated and, therefore, an environmental assessment should be
prepared to analyze potential impacts associated with the action.
Response: NMFS does not anticipate that mortality or serious injury
would occur. Defenders is using the terms injury and serious injury
interchangeably. Note that NMFS defines serious injury in regulations
(50 CFR 229.2) as ``any injury that will likely result in mortality,''
whereas injury that will not likely result in mortality is considered
``Level A Harassment.'' NMFS acknowledges the possibility that a marine
mammal could experience limited auditory injury in the form of
permanent threshold shift (PTS), which is considered Level A
Harassment. Animals that experience PTS would likely only experience
minor degradation of hearing capabilities, such as the loss of a few
decibels in its hearing sensitivity. In most cases such a loss is not
likely to meaningfully affect the ability to forage and communicate
with conspecifics. Additionally, NMFS has authorized take of marine
mammals by Level A harassment for numerous pile driving actions and is
unaware of any instances that resulted in mortality or serious injury
of marine mammals. Therefore, NMFS determined that this action is
consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical
Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with no anticipated
serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA
Administrative Order 216-6A and that the issuance of this IHA qualifies
to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
Comment 11: Defenders expressed concerned that the public comment
period for this IHA closes on February 14th, 2020 and that the IHA
would be effective on February 15th, 2020, there is not adequate time
for NMFS to consider public input.
Response: While NMFS was targeting an issuance date of February
15th, issuance of the final IHA would be delayed, if necessary, to
adequately address any comments that arrive at the end of the public
comment period.
Changes From the Proposed IHA to the Final IHA
NMFS has included in the final IHA additional detail regarding
hydroacoustic monitoring plan and reporting requirements for the final
IHA. ADOT&PF is required to conduct monitoring of three 24-in and three
36-in piles during both impact and vibratory installation. The proposed
IHA only required a single pile of each size. Updated hydroacoustic
monitoring reporting requirements may be found in the Description of
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Measures section. NMFS has removed
the 30-minute clearance time for cetaceans from the final IHA while
retaining the standard 15-minute clearance time applicable to all
marine mammals in shallow waters. NMFS has also revised the final IHA
to include the most current standard marine mammal reporting
requirements.
Analysis
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by
ADOT&PF's planned project, including brief introductions to the species
and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding
population trends and threats, and information regarding local
occurrence, may be found in the Federal Register notice for the
proposed IHA (85 FR 2403; January 15, 2020); as well as previous IHAs
issued for this project (82 FR 17209, April 10, 2017; 83 FR 55348,
November 5, 2018). We are not aware of any changes in the status of
these species and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions are not
provided here.
Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
A description of the potential effects of the specified activities
on marine mammals and their habitat may be found in these previous
documents. There is no new information on potential effects.
Estimated Take
A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate
authorized take is found in these previous documents. The methods of
estimating take for the 2020-2021 IHA are identical to those used in
the 2017-2018 IHA. The source levels also remain unchanged from the
previously issued IHAs. Observational data was used to calculate daily
take rates in the absence
[[Page 10419]]
of density data. Since the number of pile-driving days (50) estimated
for the 2017-2018 IHA, 2018-2019 IHA and 2020-2021 IHA remains the
same, the total estimated take projections will be identical. Note that
marine mammal occurrences are more frequent in the late spring near the
Gustavus ferry terminal. Moving the start date forward by two weeks
will reduce the amount of in-water construction occurring later in the
spring when animal occurrences are elevated. Therefore, the total
recorded take amounts may be reduced. Note that since abundance
estimates of some stocks have been updated in the Draft 2019 SAR (Muto
et al. 2019b) the percentage of stock taken has also changed. These
changes are shown in Table 1.
Table 1--Estimated Number of Instances of Exposures That May Be Subject to Level A and Level B Harassment and Percentage of Stocks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Level B Total
Species authorized authorized authorized Stock(s) abundance estimate Instances of take as a
takes takes takes percentage of total stock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller Sea Lion...................... 0 709 709 53,624 (western distinct 1.3 */1.6.*
population segment in Alaska)/
43,201 (eastern stock).
Humpback whale........................ 0 600/(36 \1\) 600/(36 \1\) 10,103 (Central North Pacific 5.9/1.1.
Stock)/3,264 (Mexico DPS).
Harbor Seal........................... 38 616 654 7,455 (Glacier Bay/Icy Strait) 8.7.*
Harbor Porpoise....................... 26 127 153 11,146 (Southeast Alaska)..... 1.37.
Killer whale.......................... 0 126 126 302 (Northern resident)/587 41.7 */21.4/51.8.
(Gulf of Alaska transient)/
243 (West Coast transient).
Minke whale........................... 0 42 42 Unknown....................... Unknown.
Dall's Porpoise....................... 7 35 42 83,400........................ <0.01.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 6.1 percent of humpbacks whales in southeast Alaska (36) are from Mexico DPS (Wade et al. 2016).
* Updated information from Muto et al. 2019. Draft Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2019. Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports.
Description of Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Measures
A description of required mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures is found in the previous documents, which are nearly identical
to those contained in this 2020-2021 IHA. The following measures apply
to ADOT&PF's mitigation requirements:
1. Implementation of Shutdown Zone--For all pile driving
activities, ADOT&PF will implement a shutdown zone. The purpose of a
shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of
activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in
anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). In this case,
shutdown zones (Table 2) are intended to contain areas in which sound
pressure levels (SPLs) equal or exceed acoustic injury criteria for
some authorized species, based on NMFS' acoustic technical guidance
(NMFS 2018).
2. Implementation of Monitoring Zones--ADOT&PF must monitor Level A
harassment zones as shown in Table 2. These zones are areas beyond the
shutdown zones where animals may be exposed to sound levels that could
result in PTS. ADOT&PF must also monitor the Level B harassment
disturbance zones as shown in Table 4 which are areas where SPLs equal
or exceed 160 dB rms for impact driving and 120 dB rms during vibratory
driving. Observation of monitoring zones enables observers to be aware
of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project area
and outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for potential shutdowns
of activity, and also allows for the collection of marine mammal and
effects data. NMFS has established monitoring protocols described in
the Federal Register notice of the issuance (82 FR 17209; April 10,
2017) which are based on the distance and size of the monitoring and
shutdown zones. These same protocols are contained in the issued 2020-
2021 IHA.
Table 2--Shutdown, Injury and Behavioral Harassment Isopleths From Impact and Vibratory Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Level B
Shutdown zone-- harassment harassment
Species impact/ zone--impact zone-impact/
vibratory (m) (m) vibratory (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller Sea Lion................................................ 25/10 n/a 2,090/3,265
Humpback whale.................................................. 550/20 n/a 2,090/3,265
Harbor Seal..................................................... 100/10 285 2,090/3,265
Harbor Porpoise................................................. 100/20 630 2,090/3,265
Killer whale.................................................... 25/10 n/a 2,090/3,265
Minke whale..................................................... 550/20 n/a 2,090/3,265
Dall's Porpoise................................................. 100/20 630 2,090/3,265
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Temporal and Seasonal Restrictions--Work may only occur during
daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be
conducted and all in-water construction will be limited to the periods
February 15 through May 31, 2020, and September 1 through November 30,
2020.
4. Soft Start--The use of a soft-start procedure is believed to
provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning
and/or giving marine mammals a chance to
[[Page 10420]]
leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity. For
impact pile driving, contractors will be required to implement soft
start procedures. Soft Start is not required during vibratory pile
driving and removal activities.
5. Visual Marine Mammal Observation--Visual monitoring must be
conducted by qualified PSOs. In order to effectively monitor the pile
driving monitoring zones, two PSOs must be positioned at the best
practical vantage point(s). If waters exceed a sea-state which
restricts the observers' ability to make observations within the
shutdown zone (e.g., excessive wind or fog), pile installation and
removal will cease. Pile driving will not be initiated until the entire
shutdown zone is visible. PSOs shall record specific information on the
sighting forms as described in this issued IHA which contains current
standards. At the conclusion of the in-water construction work, ADOT&PF
will provide NMFS with a monitoring report, which includes summaries of
recorded takes and estimates of the number of marine mammals that may
have been harassed.
6. ADOT&PF must conduct SSV testing of impact and vibratory pile
driving for this project within 7 days after underwater pile driving
work is initiated. ADOT&PF is required to conduct monitoring of three
24-in and three 36-in piles during both impact and vibratory
installation according to methodology described in hydroacoustic
monitoring plan. The SSV testing must be conducted by an acoustical
firm with prior experience conducting SSV tests in Alaska. Results must
be sent to NMFS no later than 14 days after field testing has been
completed. If necessary, the shutdown, Level A, and Level B harassment
zones will be adjusted to meet MMPA requirements within 7 days of NMFS
receiving results. The following data, which was not included in the
draft IHA, must be collected during acoustic monitoring and reported:
(a) Hydrophone equipment and methods: Recording device, sampling
rate, distance from the pile where recordings were made; depth of
recording device(s);
(b) Type of pile being driven, method of driving, and use of bubble
curtain or other noise abatement device (e.g., driving behind the
cofferdam) during recordings;
(c) Mean, medium, 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); and
(d) Number of strikes per pile measured, one-third octave band
spectrum and/or power spectral density.
Determinations
ADOT&PF plans to conduct activities similar to those covered in the
previous 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 IHAs. As described above, the number
of estimated takes of the same stocks of marine mammals are the same as
those authorized in the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 IHAs that were found to
meet the negligible impact and small numbers standards. Our analysis
showed that less than 9 percent of the populations of affected stocks,
with the exception of minke and killer whales, could be taken by
harassment. For Northern resident and West Coast transient killer
whales, the percentages, when instances of take are compared to
abundance, are 41.7 percent and 51.8 percent, respectively. However,
the takes estimated for these stocks (up to 126 instances assuming all
takes are accrued to a single stock) are not likely to represent unique
individuals. Instead, we anticipate that there will be multiple takes
of a smaller number of individuals and that the total number of
individuals will fall below one third of the abundance.
The Northern resident killer whale stock are most commonly seen in
the waters around the northern end of Vancouver Island, and in
sheltered inlets along British Columbia's Central and North Coasts.
They also range northward into Southeast Alaska in the winter months.
Pile driving operations are not permitted from December through
February. It is unlikely that such a large portion of Northern resident
killer whales with ranges of this magnitude would be concentrated in
and around Icy Passage, which is a shallow, narrow channel connected to
the deeper waters of Icy Strait and separates Gustavus and the rest of
the mainland from Pleasant Island.
NMFS believes that small numbers of the West coast transient killer
whale stock would be taken based on the limited region and duration of
exposure in comparison with the known distribution of the transient
stock. The West coast transient stock ranges from Southeast Alaska to
California, while the planned project activity would be stationary. A
notable percentage of West coast transient whales have never been
observed in Southeast Alaska. Only 155 West coast transient killer
whales have been identified as occurring in Southeast Alaska according
to Dahlheim and White (2010). The same study identified three pods of
transients, equivalent to 19 animals that remained almost exclusively
in the southern part of Southeast Alaska (i.e., Clarence Strait and
Sumner Strait). This information indicates that only a small subset of
the entire West coast Transient stock would be at risk for take in the
Icy Passage area because a sizable portion of the stock has either not
been observed in Southeast Alaska or consistently remains far south of
Icy Passage.
There is no current abundance estimate for minke whale since
population data on this species is dated. However, the authorized take
of 42 minke whales may be considered small. A visual survey for
cetaceans was conducted in the central-eastern Bering Sea in July-
August 1999, and in the southeastern Bering Sea in 2000. Results of the
surveys in 1999 and 2000 provide provisional abundance estimates of 810
and 1,003 minke whales in the central-eastern and southeastern Bering
Sea, respectively (Moore et al., 2002). Additionally, line-transect
surveys were conducted in shelf and nearshore waters in 2001-2003 from
the Kenai Fjords in the Gulf of Alaska to the central Aleutian Islands.
Minke whale abundance was estimated to be 1,233 for this area (Zerbini
et al., 2006). However, these estimates cannot be used as an estimate
of the entire Alaska stock of minke whales because only a portion of
the stock's range was surveyed. (Allen and Anglis, 2012). Clearly, 42
authorized takes should be considered a small number, as it constitutes
only 5.2 percent of the smallest abundance estimate generated during
the surveys just described and each of these surveys represented only a
portion of the minke whale range.
Note that the numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all
species, with the exception of Northern resident and West coast
transient killer whales, would be considered small relative to the
relevant stocks or populations even if each estimated taking occurred
to a new individual--an extremely unlikely scenario.
The issued 2020-2021 IHA includes mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements that are nearly identical to those depicted in
the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 IHAs, and there is no new information
suggesting that our analysis or findings should change.
Based on the information contained here and in the referenced
documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) The required
mitigation measures will affect the least practicable impact on marine
mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes
will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or
stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine
[[Page 10421]]
mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; and (4) ADOT&PF's
activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for
subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals
are implicated by this action.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment. This action is consistent with categories of
activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental
harassment authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or
mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-
6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined
that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species.
In order to comply with the ESA, NMFS Alaska Regional Office (AKR)
Protected Resources Division issued a Biological Opinion on March 21,
2017 under section 7 of the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to ADOT&PF
under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. This consultation concluded
that the project was likely to adversely affect but unlikely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the threatened Mexico DPS of
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) or the endangered western DPS
of Steller sea lion (Eumatopias jubatus), or adversely modify
designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions. In a memo dated
January 7, 2020 NMFS AKR concluded that re-initiation of section 7
consultation was not necessary for the issuance of the 2020-2021 IHA
and extended the Gustavus incidental take statement (ITS). All of the
terms and conditions listed in the ITS issued March 21, 2017 still
apply to this action.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to
ADOT&PF for conducting the described construction activities related to
city dock and ferry terminal improvements from February 15, 2020
through February 14, 2021, provided the previously described
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: February 18, 2020.
Donna Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-03630 Filed 2-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P