FINAL BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR THE GENERAL 

NPDES PERMIT FOR OFFSHORE SEAFOOD PROCESSORS 

IN ALASKA 

Permit No. AK-G52-4000 

Prepared By: 

U.S. EPA, Region 10 

1200 Sixth Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98101 

August 2009 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

(this page intentionally left blank) 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

CONTENTS 

1.0. BACKGROUND/HISTORY........................................................................................ 1 

1.1 PROJECT HISTORY ..................................................................................... 1 

1.2 FEDERAL ACTION HISTORY ...................................................................... 1 

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION AND ACTION AREA.................................................... 2 

2.1 FEDERAL ACTION AND LEGAL AUTHORITY ........................................... 2 

2.1.1 Endangered Species Act................................................................ 2 

2.1.2 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and 

 Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. § 1801 et. al.] ................................... 3 

2.2 PERMIT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................... 3 

2.2.1 Seafood Processing Procedures and Discharge 

Characterization.............................................................................. 3 

 2.2.1.1 Seafood Processing ........................................................... 4 

 2.2.1.2 Seafood Processing Discharge Characterization.......... 12 

2.2.2 Distribution and Discharge of Permitted Facilities.................... 13 

 2.2.2.1 Distribution of Permitted Facilities.................................. 13 

 2.2.2.2 Discharge Characterization for Permitted Facilities...... 13 

2.3 PERMIT DESCRIPTION............................................................................. 15 

2.3.1 Facilities......................................................................................... 15

 2.3.1.1 Authorized Facilities......................................................... 15 

 2.3.1.2 Unauthorized Facilities..................................................... 15 

2.3.2 Pollutants....................................................................................... 15 

 2.3.2.1 Covered Pollutants ........................................................... 15 

 2.3.2.2 Unauthorized Discharges................................................. 16 

2.3.3 Areas Excluded from Authorization............................................ 16 

2.3.4 Effluent Limitations ...................................................................... 22 

 2.3.4.1 Technology Based Limitations........................................ 22 

 2.3.4.2 Water Quality Based Limitations..................................... 23 

 2.4 ACTION AREA ......................................................................................... 23 

2.4.1 Gulf of Alaska................................................................................ 23 

2.4.2 Bering Sea ..................................................................................... 24 

2.4.3 Aleutian Islands ............................................................................ 24 

2.4.4 Anadromous Fisheries Waters .................................................... 25 

3.0 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ..................................................... 25 

3.1 FISH.................................................................................................... 27

 3.1.1Chinook Salmon.................................................................... 28 

3.1.2 Steelhead .............................................................................. 29 

 3.1.3 Southeast Alaska DPS Pacific Herring .............................. 31 

3.2 BIRDS................................................................................................ 31 

3.2.1 Short-tailed Albatross ......................................................... 31 

3.2.2 Steller’s Eider ....................................................................... 32 

3.2.3 Spectacled Eider .................................................................. 35 

3.2.4 Kittlitz’s Murrelet.................................................................. 38 

3.3 MARINE MAMMALS ......................................................................... 39 

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

3.3.1 Polar Bear ............................................................................. 39 

3.3.2 Northern Sea Otter (SW Alaska Population)...................... 42 

3.3.3 Steller Sea Lion (Eastern and Western Stocks) ................ 43 

3.3.4 North Pacific Right Whale ................................................... 46 

3.3.5 Bowhead Whale ................................................................... 48 

3.3.6 Sei Whale .............................................................................. 49 

3.3.7 Blue Whale............................................................................ 50 

3.3.8 Fin Whale .............................................................................. 51 

3.3.9 Humpback Whale ................................................................. 52 

 3.3.10 Sperm Whale ...................................................................... 52 

 3.3.11 Beluga Whale (Cook Inlet Stock)...................................... 53 

3.4 AMPHIBIANS .................................................................................... 56 

3.4.1 Leatherback Sea Turtle ....................................................... 56 

3.4.2 Loggerhead Sea Turtle ........................................................ 56 

3.4.3 Green Sea Turtle .................................................................. 57 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ............................................................................... 59 

4.1 WATER QUALITY ......................................................................................... 59 

5.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 60 

5.1 Impacts Associated with Solid Seafood Process Wastes....................... 60 

5.1.1 Burial and Habitat Modification ................................................... 60

 5.1.2 Effects of Deposited Solids ......................................................... 62 

5.1.3 Alteration of Sediment.................................................................. 63 

5.1.4 Decay of Solid Wastes.................................................................. 64 

5.1.5 Cumulative Impacts of Solid Deposition .................................... 64 

5.1.6 Indirect Effects through Food Supply Reduction ...................... 65

 5.2 Exposure to Suspended Solids ................................................................. 65 

5.3 Liquid Seafood Process Wastes ............................................................... 66 

5.3.1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand/Dissolved Oxygen ..................... 66

 5.3.2 Nutrients and Dissolved Oxygen................................................. 67 

5.3.3 Enhanced Productivity ................................................................. 67 

5.3.4 Alteration in Phytoplankton Species Composition/ 

 Toxic Phytoplankton..................................................................... 68 

5.3.5 Disinfection/Residual Chlorine.................................................... 69 

5.4 Secondary Impacts Due to Seafood Processing Wastes........................ 69 

5.4.1 Attraction of Organisms to the Discharge.................................. 70 

5.4.2 Bacteria from Decaying Onshore Waste Accumulations.......... 71 

5.5 Summary...................................................................................................... 71

 5.6 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES.......................................... 72 

5.6.1 Fish................................................................................................. 72

 5.6.2 Birds............................................................................................... 72

 5.6.2.1 Short-tailed Albatross ...................................................... 72 

 5.6.2.2 Steller’s Eider .................................................................... 73 

 5.6.2.3 Spectacled Eider ............................................................... 74 

5.6.3 Marine Mammals ........................................................................... 76

 5.6.3.1 Polar Bear .......................................................................... 76 

 5.6.3.2 Northern Sea Otter (SW Alaska Population)................... 76 

 5.6.3.3 Steller Sea Lion (Eastern and Western Stocks) ............. 78 

iv
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

 5.6.3.4 North Pacific Right Whale ................................................ 79 

 5.6.3.5 Bowhead Whale ................................................................ 80 

 5.6.3.6 Sei Whale ........................................................................... 80 

 5.6.3.7 Blue Whale......................................................................... 81 

 5.6.3.8 Fin Whale ........................................................................... 81 

 5.6.3.9 Humpback Whale .............................................................. 81 

 5.6.3.10 Sperm Whale ................................................................... 82 

 5.6.3.11 Beluga Whale (CI stock) ................................................. 82 

5.6.4 Amphibians ................................................................................... 83 

 5.7EFFECTS ON CANDIDATE SPECIES ......................................................... 84

 5.8 EFFECT OF PROPOSED ACTION ON TRIBAL RESOURCES................... 85 

6.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ......................................................................................... 86 

7.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 87 

8.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 88 

9.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT.................................................................................. 110 

9.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................................. 110 

9.2 EFH FOR APPROPRIATE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS............. 110 

9.2.1 Walleye Pollock........................................................................... 112 

9.2.2 Pacific Cod .................................................................................. 112 

9.2.3 Yellowfin Sole.............................................................................. 113 

9.2.4 Greenland Turbot........................................................................ 113 

9.2.5 Arrowtooth Flounder .................................................................. 113 

9.2.6 Rock Sole..................................................................................... 113 

9.2.7 Alaska Plaice ............................................................................... 113 

9.2.8 Dover Sole ................................................................................... 114 

9.2.9 Flathead Sole............................................................................... 114 

9.2.10 Sablefish .................................................................................... 114 

9.2.11 Pacific Ocean Perch ................................................................. 114 

9.2.12 Shortraker/Rougheye Rockfish ............................................... 115 

9.2.13 Northern Rockfish..................................................................... 115 

9.2.14 Thornyhead Rockfish ............................................................... 115 

9.2.15 Yelloweye Rockfish .................................................................. 115 

9.2.16 Dusky Rockfish ......................................................................... 115 

9.2.17 Atka Mackerel............................................................................ 116 

9.2.18 Skates ........................................................................................ 116

 9.2.19 Sculpins ..................................................................................... 116 

9.2.20 Sharks ........................................................................................ 116

 9.2.21 Forage Fish Complex ............................................................... 117 

9.2.22 Squid .......................................................................................... 117 

9.2.23 Octopi......................................................................................... 117 

9.2.24 Red King Crab ........................................................................... 118 

9.2.25 Blue King Crab .......................................................................... 118 

9.2.26 Golden King Crab ..................................................................... 118 

9.2.27 Tanner Crab............................................................................... 118 

9.2.28 Snow Crab ................................................................................. 119 

9.2.29 Weathervane Scallop................................................................ 119 

9.2.30 Salmon ....................................................................................... 119 

 9.2.30.1 Pink Salmon ............................................................... 119 

 9.2.30.2 Chum Salmon............................................................. 120 

v
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

 9.2.30.3 Sockeye Salmon ........................................................ 120 

 9.2.30.4 Chinook Salmon......................................................... 120 

 9.2.30.5 Coho Salmon.............................................................. 121 

9.3 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON EFH................................... 121 

9.3.1 Potential Effects of Action on BSAI Groundfish EFH.............. 121 

9.3.2 Potential Effects of Action on GOA Groundfish EFH .............. 124 

9.3.3 Potential Effects of Action on BSAI King and Tanner Crab 

EFH............................................................................................... 124 

9.3.4 Potenital Effects of Action on Alaska Scallop EFH ................. 125 

9.3.5 Potential Effects of Action on Alaska Stocks of Pacific Salmon 

EFH............................................................................................... 125 

9.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION ......................................................................... 125 

9.5 CONCLUSIONS BY EFH ........................................................................... 126 

9.6 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 127 

vi
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 3.1: Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species in Alaska Pursuant to 

 the Endangered Species Act ..................................................................... 26 

Table 3.2: Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon and 

 Steelhead ...................................................................................................... 27 

Table 7.1: Effect Conclusions for Threatened and Endangered Species............... 87 

Table 9.1: Fisheries Management Plan (FMP)-Managed Species in Alaska.......... 111 

vii 
 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2.1: Typical processing procedure and waste streams for frozen salmon 

production .................................................................................................. 6 

Figure 2.2: Typical processing procedure and waste streams for canned salmon 

production................................................................................................... 7 

Figure 2.3: Typical processing procedure and waste streams from groundfish..... 8 

Figure 2.4: Typical processing procedure and waste streams for shrimp............. 10 

Figure 2.5: Typical processing procedure and waste streams for crab ................. 11 

Figure 2.6: Frequency distributions of annual seafood waste disposal (millions lbs) 

for seafood processors covered under NPDES General Permit AK-G52-0000 

filing annual reports for the year 2005 ................................................... 14 

Figure 2.7: National parks, monuments, and preserves .......................................... 17 

Figure 2.8: National wildlife refuges .......................................................................... 18 

Figure 2.9: State sanctuaries, refuges and critical habitat areas............................ 20 

Figure 3.1: Short-tailed albatross distribution mapped predominately from Alaskan 

fishing vessels from 1940-2003 .............................................................. 32 

Figure 3.2: Distribution of the Pacific population of Steller’s eider........................ 33 

Figure 3.3: ESA critical habitat for the Steller’s eider .............................................. 34 

Figure 3.4: Distribution of breeding pairs of spectacles eiders. Current breeding range 

indicated areas where surveys have confirmed breeding pair occurrence. 

Low-density breeding may still occur outside these 

areas.......................................................................................................... 36 

Figure 3.5: ESA Critical Habitat for the Spectacled Eider........................................ 37 

Figure 3.6: Distribution of Polar bears in Alaskan waters ....................................... 39 

Figure 3.7: Approximate distribution of northern sea otters in Alaskan waters.... 42 

Figure 3.8: Designated critical habitat for the western DPS of Steller sea lion in Alaska 

(50 CFR 226.202)....................................................................................... 45 

Figure 3.9: Designated critical habitat for the eastern DPS of Steller sea lion (50 CFR 

226.202) ..................................................................................................... 45

Figure 5.1: Composition of subsistence harvest by rural Alaska residents ........... 86 

viii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

ACRONYMS 

AAC Alaska Administrative Code 

ACMP Alaska Coastal Management Program 

ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

AI Aleutian Islands 

BAT Best available pollution control technology economically achievable 

BCT Best conventional pollution control technology 

BOD Biochemical oxygen demand 

BPT Best practicable control technology 

BPJ Best professional judgement 

BS Bering Sea 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMP Coastal Management Plan 

COD Chemical oxygen demand 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Program 

DO Dissolved oxygen 

DPS Distinct Population Segment 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

ELG Effluent limitations guidelines 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit 

FC Fecal coliform 

GC/MS Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry 

GOA Gulf of Alaska 

HPC Habitat of Particular Concern 

mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram 

mg/L Milligrams per liter 

MLLW Mean lower low water 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Act 

nm Nautical mile 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

ODCE Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation 

ppm Parts per million 

ppt Parts per thousand 

TSS Total suspended solids 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

ZOD Zone of Deposit 

ix 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

(this page intentionally left blank) 

x 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

1.0. BACKGROUND 

1.1 PROJECT HISTORY 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) is proposing to issue the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit (Permit No. AK-G52-4000) for the 

discharge of seafood processing wastes by offshore seafood processors in Alaska pursuant to 

the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251. The Seafood General Permit expired 

July 27, 2006 and has been administratively extended. EPA proposes that the general permit be 

reissued with the modification that offshore seafood processors will be covered in a separate 

permit than onshore seafood processors. EPA previously consulted with the services on the 

last NPDES General Permit for Seafood Processors in Alaska (AK-G52-0000) which was 

approved in 2001. 

Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides that the discharge of pollutants to 

surface waters of the United States is unlawful except in accordance with a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. EPA’s regulations authorize the issuance of 

general NPDES permits, as opposed to individual NPDES permits, to categories of discharges 

when a number of point source discharges: 

 Involve the same or substantially similar types of operations; 

 Discharge the same types of wastes; 

 Are located within a geographic area; 

 Require the same effluent limitations; 

 Require the same operating conditions; 

 Require the same or similar monitoring requirements; and 

 In the opinion of EPA, are more appropriately controlled under a general permit than 

under individual permits (40 CFR 122.28). 

EPA has determined that the owners and operators of offshore seafood processing facilities 

described in Part 1 of NPDES permit AK-G52-4000 are authorized to discharge seafood 

processing wastes and the concomitant wastes set out in Part II of the permit to waters of the 

United States as described in Part III of the permit, in accordance with effluent limitations, 

monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth in the permit under the provisions of a 

general permit (EPA 2009). 

1.2 FEDERAL ACTION HISTORY 

This section summarizes exchanges between EPA, the National Marine Fisheries Services 

(NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (“Services”), and DEC concerning the 

NPDES general permit for offshore seafood processors in Alaska (AK-G52-4000). 

EPA has previously consulted with the Services on the NPDES General Permit for Seafood 

Processors (AK-G52-0000) under the Endangered Species Act or the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Mar 6, 2008 Teleconference with NMFS and USFWS to begin informal consultation on 

proposed permit 

June 23, 2008 Submit proposed permit, Fact Sheet, Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish 

Habitat Evaluation to NMFS and USFWS for review 

1
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Oct 31, 2008 EPA approves the State of Alaska program for NPDES permits 

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION AND ACTION AREA 

2.1 DISCUSSION OF FEDERAL ACTION AND LEGAL AUTHORITY 

The federal action that is the subject of this biological evaluation is EPA’s approval of the 

NPDES General Permit for Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska (AK-G52-4000). NPDES 

permits are written for a term of five years after which the permit conditions are reviewed and a 

renewed permit is issued subject to any applicable regulatory changes, changes to water quality 

standards, or changes deemed acceptable by EPA. 

On October 31, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the State of 

Alaska’s application to take over issuing and enforcing permits for wastewater discharges 

issued under the Clean Water Act. Following this approval, the NPDES permit for AK offshore 

seafood processors was separated into two actions. The federal NPDES permit (AK-G52-4000) 

which will cover the mobile seafood processors located in federal waters 3nm or more from 

shore. The State of Alaska will be issueing the permit for onshore and nearshore seafood 

processors located in state waters within 3 nm from shore. 

For more information on the state delegation of the NPDES program, see the State of Alaska 

APDES program page at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/npdes/index.htm. 

2.1.1 Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. § 1531 et al.] 

Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. Section 1536(a), requires that 

each federal agency: 

 in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) and NOAA Fisheries 

(NMFS)(Services) insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of any designated critical habitat of each such species (Section 

7(a)(2)); and 

 confer with the Service on any agency action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species that is proposed for listing or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of any critical habitat proposed to be designated for any such 

species (Section 7(a)(4)). (emphasis added) 

A biological evaluation provides an analysis of the potential effects of a proposed federal 

agency action on any proposed and listed species or the designated critical habitat of any such 

species based on the best scientific or commercial information available. This biological 

evaluation has been prepared to assist the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 

(EPA or Agency) and the Services in carrying out their activities pursuant to ESA Sections 

7(a)(2) and 7(a)(4) as they pertain to EPA’s proposed approval of the NPDES General Permit 

for Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska. The ESA requires federal agencies to review their 

actions as they apply to proposed and listed species. 

2
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

2.1.2 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act [U.S.C. § 1801 et al.] 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq.) authorized the U.S. to manage 

its fishery resources in an area extending from a State’s territorial sea (to 3 nm from shore) to 

200 nm (4.8 km to 320 km) off its coast (termed the Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ). The 

management of these marine resources is vested in the Secretary and in regional Fishery 

Management Councils. In the Alaska Region, the Council is responsible for preparing Fisheries 

Management Plans (FMPs) for marine fishery resources requiring conservation and 

management. 

The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (SFA; Public Law 104-297) reauthorized and made 

significant amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. While the original focus of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act was to Americanize the fisheries off the coasts of the U.S., the SFA 

included provisions aimed at the development of sustainable fishing practices in order to 

guarantee a continued abundance of fish and continued opportunities for the U.S. fishing 

industry. The SFA included provisions to prevent overfishing, ensure the rebuilding of overfished 

stocks, minimize bycatch, identify and conserve essential fish habitat, and address impacts on 

fish habitat. 

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and 

Conservation Act set forth a number of new mandates for the NMFS, regional fishery 

management councils, and other federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and 

anadromous fish habitat. The Councils, with assistance from NMFS, are required to delineate 

“essential fish habitat” (EFH) for all managed species. Federal action agencies that may 

adversely impact EFH are required to consult with NMFS regarding the potential effects of their 

actions on EFH, and respond in writing to the fisheries service’s recommendations. 

The EFH regulations define an adverse effect as “any impact which reduces quality and/or 

quantity of EFH and may include direct (e.g. contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g. 

loss of prey, reduction in species’ fecundity), site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including 

individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions”. NMFS or a Council may 

recommend measures for attachment to the federal action to protect EFH; such 

recommendations are advisory, not proscriptive, in nature. 

2.2 PERMIT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 

2.2.1 Seafood Processing Procedures and Discharge Characterization 

The quantity and character of the seafood wastes generated in Alaska vary due to the types of 

fish processed, seasonal variation in their abundance, and the openings and closings of fishing 

seasons that are used to manage the target and non-target stocks of fish and shellfish species. 

Target species of commercial fishing operations in Alaska include groundfish (e.g. pollock, 

Pacific cod, sablefish, rockfish, Pacific halibut, and other species of flatfish), five species of 

salmon, herring, crab (Dungeness and species of king and Tanner crab), shrimp, clams, 

scallops, abalone, sea urchins, and sea cucumbers (EPA 1994b). The commercial fisheries in 

Alaska are discussed in more detail in Section 2.5.2. This section describes the typical 

processing of salmon, groundfish, herring and shellfish products 

3
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

2.2.1.1 Seafood Processing 

Seafood processing facilities use a variety of techniques and equipment to produce marketable 

seafood products ranging from the packaging of whole fresh or frozen seafood for shipment, 

which produces relatively little solid or liquid waste, to mechanical filleting or deboning 

processes that produce much higher concentrations and loads of contaminants. For example, 

the butchering process contributes most of the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), nitrogen 

content, total settleable solids, and up to 60% of oil and grease residues due to the high blood 

and slime content in the wastewater streams. The material remaining after processing (e.g. 

heads, tail fins, guts) is typically ground and discharged as solid and liquid waste (EPA 1994b, 

NovaTec Consultants 1994a). 

The following provides an overview of typical seafood processing operations (NovaTec 

Consultants 1994a, NovaTec Consultants 1994b): 

Vessel Unloading 

Vessel unloading is common to all fish processing. It can be done with wet or dry pumps or with 

buckets or baskets if only a small quantity of fish needs to be moved. Dry pumps result in rough 

handling of the fish and are generally only used for groundfish due to the relatively low 

commercial value of the fish. Wet pumps are gentler and typically used for freshly caught 

salmon, which are kept in water inside the holds of fishing boats and fish packer vessels during 

transport. The pumps use large diameter hoses to pump water and whole fish out of the 

vessels’ holds, which are then discharged onto grating to allow the separation of fish and water. 

Conveyors pick up the fish after their separation from the vessel hold water and transport then 

to grading stations, where the fish are manually sorted according to their species. After sorting, 

fish are kept in chilled water or ice for intermediate storage until they can be further processed. 

Salmon Processing 

Salmon products include fresh, frozen, and canned salmon, as well as salmon roe and milt. 

Dressing (butchering) salmon for freezing involves removing the head and gutting the fish. 

Dressing can be done manually or with semiautomatic dressing lines utilizing iron butcher 

machines, which cut off heads, collar bones, tails, and fins. The fish are cleaned with suction 

hoses or with spoons attached to small water hoses. 

Dressing for canning is generally done solely with an iron butcher machine. Gutting and 

washing machines further clean the fish while constantly running water hoses rinse off any offal 

(non-edible fish parts) and blood. The wash water, mixed with guts and blood, drains out the 

bottom of the gutting machines. The fish are inspected after the gutting process and are further 

manually cleaned if necessary. Typically, each manual cleaning station is equipped with a small, 

constantly running, water hose to rinse off any offal and/or blood (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). 

The roe of the female fish may be removed for further processing, and the milt of the male fish 

may also be removed at this stage. The roe is processed by washing and curing in a 

concentrated brine solution in agitated circular tubs. Milt processing involves washing the milt in 

water and freezing prior to shipment. 

To further process salmon for canning, the fish are fed into cutting machines which cut the fish 

into sections of appropriate size for the cans. Canning machines press the salmon sections into 

cans which are sealed in seamers which operate under vacuum. Following sealing, the cans are 

4
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

washed and pressure cooked in large retorts. After the cooking process the cans are cooled 

with water (Figure 2.2). 

After live-hauling to a processing facility, the fish are removed from the water with a wet pump, 

cut behind the gill arch on one side of the head and placed in water-filled totes for bleeding. 

Further processing consists of eviscerating, cleaning, and washing, which may be done 

manually or with vacuum suction. 

5
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Figure 2.1: Typical processing procedure and waste streams for frozen salmon 

production. Source: NovaTec Consultants 1994a. 

6
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Figure 2.2: Typical processing procedure and waste streams for canned salmon production. 

Source: NovaTec Consultants 1994a. 

7
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Groundfish Processing 

Groundish are typically processed for frozen fillets. Halibut is also processed for whole frozen 

fish or fletches (skinless, boneless pieces). Generally, the fish are either stored whole on the 

ship or are eviscerated prior to storage, the viscera and blood being washed overboard. In small 

plants, the fish are processed by hand. The fillets are cut on a board, washed and immediately 

iced in boxes for distribution. However, most plants process fillets using mechanized equipment. 

The fish are first washed in large wash tanks or by water sprays. Next, the fish pass to filleting 

machines or hand filleting tables. The skin is removed from fillet by hand or machines. The 

skinned fillets are transported by conveyor belt through a washing tank. After inspection and 

candling (shining a light through the fillets for the detection of parasites) the fillets are packed 

into containers by hand or are frozen and then packed (Figure 2.3). 

Figure 2.3: Typical processing procedure and waste streams from groundfish. 

Source: NovaTec Consultants 1994a. 

8
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Herring Processing 

Herring is processed for a number of products, including fillets and herring roe. Processing for 

fillets is similar to the procedure for groundfish. Herring roe processing generally involves 

freezing the herring for later thawing and processing in order to retain the quality of the roe. Roe 

removal may be by hand or with automatic roe popping (removal) machines. The roe is then 

washed and cured with brine solutions. 

Shellfish Processing 

Shrimp processing: 

Shrimp can be processed for freezing or canning. To process shrimp for freezing, the packing 

plant receives the shrimp either whole or deheaded, deheads them if necessary, and packs 

them in ice. 

For further processing, frozen shrimp may be separated from ice and processed in a precooker, 

where steam is injected to provide optimum peeling and recovery of meat. The precooked 

shrimp falls onto oscillating rollers in a peeler, which pulls extraneous parts from the meat. 

Water sprays loosen and wash away waste, which is flumed to floor drains. From the peeler the 

shrimp fall into the first of several flumes, which lead to cleaning and separating steps. After 

mechanical cleaning operations, the shrimp are flumed onto a table or “picking belt” where 

workers may hand sort and further clean the shrimp. Shrimp meat is then salted by spraying it 

with a salt solution or immersing it in a salt tank. Shrimp meat is often hand-packed into cans, 

vacuum-sealed, and refrigerated or frozen (Figure 2.4). 

Crab processing: 

The crabs are loaded into baskets, briefly rinsed with tap water and then loaded into cookers 

and steamed. After cooling, the backs and claws are removed and remaining viscera washed 

away. The crabmeat in then manually or mechanically picked. Claws may be canned whole or 

the meat extracted and canned as described for salmon canning. Figure 2.5 illustrates the crab 

processing procedure. 

Clam processing: 

After the clams are shucked, the meat is washed, minced and packaged for distribution or 

canned as above. 

9
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Figure 2.4: Typical processing procedure and waste streams for shrimp. Source: NovaTec 

Consultants 1994a.
 

10
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Figure 2.5: Typical processing procedure and waste streams for crab. Source: NovaTec Consultants 

1994a. 

11
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

2.2.1.2 Seafood Processing Discharge Characterization 

Discharges from seafood processing facilities may be solid or dissolved wastes. Solid wastes 

consist primarily of unused portions of fish and shellfish that have been processed. The unused 

portions of processed raw fish and shellfish can include heads, skin, scales, viscera, fins, and 

shells discarded during cleaning and butchering operations (offal). Dissolved wastes can include 

soluble organic matter and nutrients leached from blood and fish and shellfish tissues during 

processing. The wastes are primarily organic matter that is, except for the bones and shells, 

highly biodegradable (EPA 1994a, EPA 1994b, Islam et al. 2004). 

Major pollutants in the discharge consist of total suspended solids (TSS), settleable solids, 

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), non-petroleum oil and grease and nitrogen (EPA 1994a, 

EPA 1994b, and Islam et al. 2004). Additionally, smaller amounts of ammonia, which is present 

in blood and slime of most fish and shellfish species, as well as chlorine/chlorides and other 

disinfectants used to maintain sanitary conditions, may be present in the discharge. There may 

also be traces of fecal coliforms in the discharge resulting from masses of seabirds attracted to 

the outfall. However, there is no indication in the literature that fecal coliforms occur in fish offal 

(NPAART 2003). 

Liquid Wastes 

Wastewater is generated at seafood processing facilities from a variety of processes, such as 

vessel unloading, intermediate fish storage, fish cleaning, fish transport (e.g. in wet pumps), fish 

freezing, fish thawing, preparation of brines, equipment sprays, offal transport, cooling water 

from the canning process, and equipment and floor cleaning (NovaTec Consultants 1994b). 

Water is used to remove fish processing wastes from work areas and processing equipment. 

Permanently installed water sprays are used to keep automated processing equipment clean, 

reduce bacterial loading on contact surfaces, for lubrication, and to flush away offal (Carawan et 

al. 1979). Disinfectants and detergents may be added to these waters to facilitate the removal of 

wastes and to maintain sanitary standards during production. The disinfectants that may be 

used to sanitize seafood processing areas include hypochlorite solutions (chlorine-based), 

iodophor solutions (iodine-based), and quaternary ammonium chloride solutions (chlorine- and 

ammonium-based) (EPA 1994b). 

In addition to added disinfectants, wastewater carries soluble organic wastes such as blood and 

other soluble fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. The amount of soluble organic wastes dissolved 

in the washdown waters depends on 1) the amount of processing which damages the fish tissue 

and releases soluble wastes and 2) the contact time of the water with the tissue (EPA 1994b); 

thus those processes that involve butchering result in higher contaminant loads. 

Solid Wastes 

Solid waste is generated from vessel unloading, fish dressing and cleaning which vary 

depending upon the seafood processing procedure. For some types of seafood, solid waste 

accounts for a large proportion of landed weight and a sizeable solid waste stream. For 

example, crab processing can result in 75 to 80% of landed weight being discharged as solid 

waste (ACAP 1999). 

In general, yields (the proportion of landed weight resulting in usable product) for finfish 

processing may range across a low of 25% - 50% (boneless and skinless filleting), 60% - 70% 

12
 
 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

(canning) to nearly 100% (whole or dressed fish) (EPA 1994b, Crapo 1993). One study found 

that salmon processing had an average yield of 76% and halibut 60% (Carawan et al. 1979). 

Yields from shellfish depend on if the meat is separated from the shell. For example, the 

preparation of whole crabs or whole cooked shrimp results in yields of approximately 90%. 

However, the separation of cooked meat from the shell may result in yields as low as 30% - 

38% for shrimp and 17% - 25% for crabs (Carawan et al. 1979). The recovery of marketable 

products from clams, abalone, and scallops is generally also very low (typically less than 60%) 

because the heavy shells are usually discarded. However, shell wastes from these species are 

not typically ground and discharged through the waste handling system of the processing 

facility. Shell wastes are typically disposed of in landfills or returned to the shellfish beds (EPA 

1994b). 

2.2.2 Distribution and Discharge of Permitted Facilities 

This section provides a summary of available data on the character and quantity of discharge by 

facilities operating under the Alaska Seafood Processors General NPDES Permit. Processors 

are categorized as offshore facilities that discharge at distances greater than 3 nm from shore 

as delineated by mean lower low water (MLLW). 

2.2.2.1 Distribution of Permitted Facilities 

Currently there are approximately 98 offshore processing facilities administratively extended 

under the general NPDES permit for seafood processors in Alaska (EPA facility list provided 

January 2007) that would qualify for coverage in the NPDES general permit for offshore seafood 

processors in Alaska (AK-G52-4000). Offshore processors covered under this permit may be 

found only in offshore federal waters (greater than 3m from shore) across much the same range 

with a few vessels as far north as Norton Sound. While facilities completed annual reports for 

2006 (ADEC 2006a), it is difficult to provide succinct locations for each offshore processor as 

these vessels are mobile and can discharge in multiple locations within the action area. 

2.2.2.2 Discharge Characterization for Permitted Facilities 

Vessels 

The annual waste discharges from the offshore/nearshore vessels submitting 2006 annual 

reports ranged from 153,104 to 112,000,000 pounds. Like the shore-based processors, the 

frequency distribution of vessels is also positively skewed with 77 percent of the facilities 

discharging less than 10 million pounds. The median annual waste discharge for vessels was 

3,262,214 pounds. Total discharge for all offshore and nearshore vessels reporting in 2006 was 

1,085,369,321 pounds. 

Of the facilities submitting 2006 annual reports, vessels discharge is recorded by month, not by 

location. It is estimated, based on probable vessel location at various times of the year, that the 

vessels discharged approximately 1,034,075,080 pounds in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands 

area, 40,496,677 pounds in the Gulf of Alaska area, and 1,051,977 pounds in SE Alaska. 

Vessels do not provide a breakdown of the species caught in their annual report, however it is 

estimated that the majority of seafood processed on vessels was groundfish (approximately 

93%). Of the groundfish processed, pollock constituted approximately 58% and Pacific cod 

approximately 11%; species caught also included sablefish, arrowtooth flounder, Pacific hake, 

13
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

jack mackerel, Pacific Ocean perch, rockfish (canary, chilipepper, darkblotched, shortraker, 

widow and yellowtail), sculpin, spiny dogfish shark, skate, sole (butter, flathead, rex, rock and 

yellowfin), and Greenland turbot (ADEC 2006a). 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Figure 2.6: Frequency distributions of annual seafood waste disposal for seafood processors 

covered under NPDES General Permit AK-G52-5000 filing annual reports for the year 2006. Source 

Data: ADEC Data Submittal to EPA Regarding the Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation for the NPDES 

General Permit for Alaskan Seafood Processors (2006a). Number of vessels 

0-2.5 >2.5-5 >5-10 >10-15 >15-20 >20-40 >40-80 >80-100 >100 

Range of Annual Waste Discharge (millions of pounds) 

14
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

2.3. PERMIT DESCRIPTION 

EPA’s Region 10 proposes to issue the NPDES General Permit for Offshore Seafood 

Processors in Alaska (Permit No. AK-G52-4000). Offshore seafood processing facilities covered 

under this permit are those facilities discharging seafood waste at distances greater than 3 nm 

from shore. 

2.3.1 Facilities 

2.3.1.1 Authorized Facilities 

Subject to the restrictions of this Permit, the following categories of dischargers are 

authorized to discharge the pollutants set out in Part II of this Permit once a Notice of 

Intent has been filed with and a written authorization is received from EPA: 

1. Operators of off-shore vessels, operating and discharging “seafood processing 

waste” greater than 3 nautical mile (NM) from shore as delineated by mean lower 

low water (MLLW), engaged in the processing of fresh, frozen, canned, smoked, 

salted or pickled seafood or the processing of seafood mince, paste, or meal and 

other secondary by-products. 

2.3.1.2 Unauthorized Facilities 

1. All discharges occurring less than 3.0 nm from shore. 

2.3.2. Pollutants 

2.3.2.1 Covered Pollutants 

This Permit authorizes the discharge of the following pollutants subject to the limitations 

and conditions set forth herein: 

1. Seafood processing wastewater and wastes, including the waste fluids, heads, 

organs, flesh, fins, bones, skin, chitinous shells, and stickwater produced by the 

conversion of aquatic animals from a raw form to a marketable form. 

a. Treatment of waste solids. Permittees must grind solid seafood processing 

wastes to 0.5 inch or smaller in any dimension prior to discharge. This 0.5 inch 

effluent requirement does not apply to (1) the calcareous shells of scallops, 

clams, oysters and abalones, (2) the calcareous shells (i.e., tests) of sea urchins, 

or (3) incidental catches of prohibited and by-catch species which are neither 

retained nor processed. 

Permittees must discharge effluents into hydrodynamically energetic waters with 

a high capacity of dilution and dispersion. 

Total pounds of by-catch and prohibited species discharged, per day, and daily 

location must be reported in the Annual Discharge Report per VI.B.2.f of this 

permit. 

15
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

2. Wash-down water, which include EPA-approved disinfectants added to wash-down 

water to facilitate the removal of wastes and to maintain sanitary standards during 

processing or to sanitize seafood processing areas. 

3. Sanitary wastewater must be discharged in accordance to U.S. Coast Guard 

regulations [33 CFR Part 159] through a certified and operable Type I or Type II 

Marine Sanitation Device prior to discharge. 

4. Other wastewater generated in the seafood processing operation, including, seafood 

catch transfer water, live tank water, refrigerated seawater, cooking water, boiler 

water, gray water cooling water, refrigeration condensate, freshwater pressure relief 

water, clean-up water, and scrubber water. 

The current permit does not authorize any pollutants, which are not expressly authorized in the 

permit. These pollutants include, but are not limited to, petroleum hydrocarbons and toxic 

pollutants listed in 40 CFR 401.15 (EPA 2009). 

2.3.2.2 Unauthorized discharges 

1. The discharge of pollutants not specifically set out in this Part is not authorized under 

this Permit. 

2. This general NPDES permit does not authorize any discharges from facilities that 

(1) have not submitted a Notice of Intent and received written authorization to 

discharge under this Permit from EPA or (2) have not been notified in writing by EPA 

that they are covered under this Permit as provided for in the 40 CFR 

122.28(b)(2)(vi). 

3. The discharge of petroleum (e.g., diesel, kerosene, and gasoline) or hazardous 

substances into or upon the navigable waters of the U.S., adjoining shorelines, into 

or upon the waters of the contiguous zone which may affect natural resources 

belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the 

U.S., is prohibited under 33 U.S.C.A. 1321(b)(3). Any person in charge of an 

offshore vessel must, as soon as (s)he has knowledge of any discharge of oil or a 

hazardous substances from such vessel, immediately notify the U.S. Coast Guard's 

Command Center (1-800-478-5555). 

2.3.3 Areas Excluded from Authorization under this General NPDES Permit 

The Permit does not authorize the discharge of pollutants in the following circumstances: 

A. Protected water resources, critical habitats and special areas: 

16
 
 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

1. Waters within one (1) nautical mile of the boundary of a National Park, 

Monument, or Preserve (Figure 2.7), any bay, fjord, or harbor enclosed by a 

National Park, Monument, or Preserve are excluded from coverage by the 

current permit. 

Congressional mandates and Presidential proclamations have provided that 

federal parks, monuments, and preserves be maintained to provide the scenic 

beauty and quality of landscapes in their natural state, to protect environmental 

integrity and habitat for and populations of fish and wildlife, including marine 

mammals, seabirds, and waterfowl, and to provide continued opportunities for 

wilderness recreational activities (16 U.S.C. 1 et. seq.). Of the national parks, 

monuments, and preserves in Alaska, only four coastal units (Aniakchak, Glacier 

Bay, Katmai Fjord, and Kenai Fjord) are proximal to commercial fisheries (EPA 

2001a). 

Figure 2.7: National parks, monuments, and preserves. Sources: National Parks 

Service and ESRI. 

2. Waters within one (1) nautical mile of the boundary of a National Wildlife Refuge 

(Figure 2.8) are excluded from coverage under the current permit. 

National Wildlife Refuges are maintained to protect environmental integrity and 

populations of fish and wildlife and their habitats, as well as to provide the scenic 

beauty and quality of landscapes in their natural state and opportunities for 

wilderness recreational activities (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). Of the national wildlife 

refuges in Alaska, six coastal units (Alaska Maritime, Alaska Peninsula, Kenai, 

17
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Kodiak, Togiak, and Yukon Delta) are proximal to commercial fisheries (EPA 

2001a). 

Figure 2.8: National wildlife refuges. Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

ESRI. 

3. Waters within one (1) nautical mile of a National Wilderness Area 

There are 48 designated Wilderness Areas in Alaska. The largest is the 

Wrangell-Saint Elias Wilderness and the smallest is the Hazy Islands 

Wilderness. The discharge of pollutants is not authorized within one (1) nm 

of a National Wilderness Area. The managing agencies in Alaska are U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service and the National Park Service. All 

the Alaskan Wilderness Areas are listed as follows: 

18
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

1. Aleutian Islands Wilderness 

2. Andreafsky Wilderness 

3. Becharof Wilderness 

4. Bering Sea Wilderness 

5. Bogoslof Wilderness 

6. Chamisso Wilderness 

7. Chuck River Wilderness 

8. Coronation Island Wilderness 

9. Denali Wilderness 

10.Endicott River Wilderness 

11.Forrester Island Wilderness 

12.Gates of the Arctic Wilderness 

13. Glacier Bay Wilderness 

14. Hazy Islands Wilderness 

15.Innoko Wilderness 

16.Izembek Wilderness 

17.Karta River Wilderness 

18.Katmai Wilderness 

19. Kenai Wilderness 

20. Kobuk Valley Wilderness 

21.Kootznoowoo Wilderness 

22.Koyukuk Wilderness 

23.Kuiu Wilderness 

24.Lake Clark Wilderness 

25.Maurille Islands Wilderness 

26. Misty Fjords National Monument 

Wilderness 

27.Mollie Beattie Wilderness 

28.Noatak Wilderness 

29.Nunivak Wilderness 

30.Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck 

Wilderness 

31.Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands 

Wilderness 

32.Russell Fjord Wilderness 

33.Saint Lazaria Wilderness 

34.Selawik Wilderness 

35.Semidi Wilderness 

36.Simeonof Wilderness 

37.South Baranof Wilderness 

38.South Etolin Wilderness 

39.South Prince of Wales Wilderness 

40.Stikine-LeConte Wilderness 

41.Tebenkof Bay Wilderness 

42.Togiak Wilderness 

43.Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness 

44.Tuxedni Wilderness 

45.Unimak Wilderness 

46.Warren Island Wilderness 

47.West Chichagof-Yakobi Wilderness 

48.Wrangell-Saint Elias Wilderness 

4. Waters within one (1) nautical mile of the boundary of a State Game 

Sanctuary, Game Refuge, Park, Marine Park or Critical Habitat (Figure 2.7) are 

excluded from coverage by the current permit. 

The Alaska State Legislature has classified certain areas, designated as a 

sanctuary, refuge, or critical habitat, as being essential to the protection of fish 

and wildlife habitat (5 ACC Part 95). The three State sanctuaries are Walrus 

Islands, McNeil River, and Stan Price. The twelve State refuges include Cape 

Newenham, Izembek, Trading Bay, Susitna Flats, Anchorage Coastal, Goose 

Bay, Palmer Hay Flats, Minto Flats, Cramer’s Filed, Yakataga, Mendenhall 

Wetlands, and McNeil River. The sixteen State critical habitat areas include 

Egegik, Pilot Point, Cinder River, Port Heiden, Port Moller, Tugidak Island, Kalgin 

Island, Redoubt Bay, Willow Mountain, Clam Gulch, Anchor River and Fritz 

Creek, Fox River Flats, Kachemak Bay, Copper River Delta, Dude Creek, and 

Chilkat River (ADFG 1991). 

19
 
 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Figure 2.9: State sanctuaries, refuges and critical habitat areas (Legislatively 

Designated Areas). Sources: Alaska Dept of Fish and Game, ESRI. 

5. Waters within three (3) nautical miles of a rookery or major haulout of the 

Steller sea lion are excluded from coverage by the current permit. In 1997, 

the Steller sea lion population was split into a western distinct population 

segment (DPS) and an eastern DPS based on demographic and genetic 

dissimilarities (FR 62(86):24345-24356). These National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) designated critical habitat for the eastern DPS Steller sea 

lion, a “threatened species”, as waters withink three nautical miles of a 

rookery or major haulout of the Steller sea lion pursuant to the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.). Critical habitat for the western 

DPS Steller sea lion, an “endangered” species, is designated as waters within 

20 nm of each major rookery and major haulout in Alaska that is west of 

longitude 144°W. 

Pinniped rookeries and haulouts are vulnerable to disturbance and degradation 

by seafood processor discharges (EPA 2001b) and should be protected (Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq; 50 CFR 226). 

For regulatory purposes, the waterway boundary of rookeries and haulouts has 

been defined as MLLW. However, biologically, the boundaries are not easily 

delineated, for the surrounding nearshore waters are an integral component of 

these habitats, especially for foraging by post-parturient females and by young 

animals which are developing swimming and hunting behaviors. Conservation of 

20
 
 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

rookeries, haulouts, and foraging areas are essential to the maintenance of 

pinniped populations in general and to the recovery of the “threatened” 

population of Steller sea lions in particular (EPA 2001a). Rookeries and major 

haulouts and adjacent marine waters to a minimum of three (3) nautical miles 

offshore have been designated as critical habitat for eastern DPS Steller sea 

lions while Rookeries and major haulouts and adjacent marine waters to a 

minimum of twenty nautical miles offshore have been designated as critical 

habitat for western DPS Steller sea lions (FR 58 (165): 45269-45285; 50 CRF 

Part 226 and 227.12). 

6. Waters within one (1) nautical mile of designated critical habitat for the 

Steller’s eider or spectacled eider, including nesting, molting and 

wintering units. During breeding season (May through August) Steller’s 

and spectacled eider nesting critical habitat units are located on the 

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and North Slope. Molting habitat (July through 

October) for Steller’s eiders includes Izembek Lagoon, Nelson Lagoon 

and Seal Islands. Molting habitat for spectacled eider includes Ledyard 

Bay and Norton Sound. Wintering habitat (October through March) for 

Steller’s eider includes Nelson Lagoon, Izembek Lagoon, Cold Bay, 

Chignik Lagoon and several other locations along the Aleutian Islands. 

Wintering habitat for spectacled eider is in the Bering Sea between St. 

Lawrence and St. Matthews Islands. For complete lists and maps of 

Steller’s eider and spectacled eider critical habitat see Appendices A and 

B. 

7. “Living substrates”, such as submerged aquatic vegetation, kelp and 

eelgrass in shallow coastal waters (generally less than minus 60 ft. depth 

MLLW). 

B. At risk resources and waterbodies. 

This Permit does not authorize the discharge of pollutants in the following at-risk 

water resources and waterbodies: 

1. A discharge to less than 60 feet MLLW, with inadequate flushing. 

Areas with poor or inadequate flushing may include but are not limited to 

sheltered waterbodies such as bays, harbors, inlets, coves, lagoons, and 

semi-enclosed water basins bordered by sills. For the purposes of this 

section, “poor flushing,” means average currents of less than 0.33 of a knot at 

any point in the receiving water within 300 feet of the outfall. It is the 

responsibility of the permitee to prove adequate flushing in all cases where 

the discharge is less than 60 feet MLLW. 

C. Areas covered by other NPDES permits. 

1. This Permit does not authorize the discharge of pollutants to receiving waters 

covered by other general or individual NPDES permits. 

21
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

2.3.4 Effluent Limitations 

Sections 101, 301(b), 304, 308, 401, and 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provide the basis 

for the effluent limitations and conditions of the permit. EPA first determines which technologybased limits apply to the discharges in accordance with the national effluent guidelines and 

standards (30 CFR 408). EPA then determines which water quality-based limits apply to the 

discharges. 

2.3.4.1 Technology Based Limitations 

The CWA requires particular categories of industrial dischargers to meet effluent limitation 

established by EPA. CWA initially focused on the control of “traditional” pollutants (conventional 

pollutants and some metals) through the use of Best Practicable Control Technology Currently 

Available (BPT). Permits issued after March 31, 1989, must include any conditions necessary to 

ensure that the BPT level of control is achieved. BPT limitations are based on effluent 

guidelines developed by EPA for specific industries. Where EPA has not yet developed 

guidelines for a particular industry, permit conditions must be established using Best 

Professional Judgment (BPJ) procedures (40 CFR 122.43, 122.44 and 125.3). 

Section 301(b)(2) of the CWA also requires further technology-based controls on effluents. After 

March 31, 1989, all permits are required by CWA 301(b)(2) and 301(b)(3) to contain effluent 

limitations for all categories and classes of point sources which: (1) control toxic pollutants and 

nonconventional pollutants through the use of Best Available Technology Economically 

Achievable (BAT), and (2) represent Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT). 

BCT effluent limitations apply to conventional pollutants (pH, BOD, oil and grease, suspended 

solids, and fecal coliform). BAT applies to toxic and nonconventional pollutants. Toxic pollutants 

are those listed in 40 CFR 401.15. Nonconventional pollutants include all pollutants not included 

in the toxic and conventional pollutant categories. In any case BCT or BAT may not be less 

stringent than BPT. Like BPT requirements, BAT and BCT permit conditions must be 

established using BPJ procedures in the absence of effluent limitations guidelines for a 

particular industry. 

1. Process and process-associated wastes 

Offshore Alaska seafood processors of fresh, frozen, canned and cured fish and shellfish 

are covered by the effluent guidelines and described in 40 CFR Part 408 for “remote” 

Alaskan locations. EPA evaluated seafood processors across the nation in the early 1970s 

in order to establish technology-based effluent limitation guidelines (EPA 1975). In 

consideration of the expense and logistical difficulties associated with much of Alaska, the 

technology-based limitations for Alaskan seafood processors in remote locations were 

limited to the requirement that no pollutants may be discharged which exceed 0.5 inch (1.27 

cm) in any dimension. 

2. Sanitary wastewaters 

The permit requires that sanitary wastewaters shall be treated in wastewater treatment 

systems that comply with 33 CFR 159 for Marine Sanitation Devices. 

22
 
 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

2.3.4.2 Water Quality Based Limitations 

Section 301(b)(1) of the CWA requires the establishment of limitations in permits necessary to 

meet water quality standards by July 1, 1977. All discharges to state waters must comply with 

state and local coastal management plans as well as with state water quality standards, 

including the state's anti-degradation policy. 

Discharges to state waters must also comply with limitations imposed by the state as part of its 

coastal management program consistency determination and of its certification of NPDES 

permits under CWA § 401. 

Alaska State Water Quality Standards (18 AAC Part 70) marine and estuarine receiving waters 

as Classes (II)(A)(i-iii), (II)(B)(i-ii), (II)(C) and (II)(D) for use in aquaculture, seafood processing, 

water recreation, the growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, aquatic life and wildlife, and the 

harvesting for consumption of raw mollusks and other raw aquatic life. Marine and estuarine 

waters are designated for all beneficial uses and the most stringent of the water quality 

standards for these uses must be met. 

2.4 ACTION AREA 

Alaska is the largest state in the United States with a total area of 1,593,438 square kilometers 

(km2

), including 70,849 km2 of coastal waters and approximately 690,000 km2 of wetlands with 

more than 8,000 km2

 of estuarine wetlands (low-wave energy environments), approximately 190 

km2

 of marine wetlands (high-energy wave environments), and 15,000 identified anadromous 

waterbodies. Alaska’s major offshore marine fisheries include the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands 

and Gulf of Alaska (NMFS 2005). 

2.4.1 Gulf of Alaska 

The Gulf of Alaska (GOA) has approximately 160,000 km2

 of continental shelf and a relatively 

open marine system with landmasses to the east and the north. The fish fauna of the GOA 

consists of a mix of temperate and subarctic species, resulting in a large gradient in species 

composition along the shelf from the eastern to the western GOA (Mueter and Norcross 2002) 

and at least 384 fish species have been reported (Mueter 2004). 

Commercial species are more diverse in the GOA than in the Bering Sea, but less diverse than 

in the Washington-California region. The most diverse set of species in the GOA is the rockfish 

group; 30 species have been identified in this area (NMFS 2005). GOA also supports other 

commercially important fisheries including pollock, salmon, Pacific halibut, Pacific herring, crab 

and shrimp (Mueter 2004). Additionally, at least 18 species of marine mammals and 38 species 

of marine birds use the shelf and offshore habitats of the GOA (Hunt et al. 2000). 

The dominant circulation in GOA (Musgrave et al. 1992) is characterized by the cyclonic flow of 

the Alaska gyre. The circulation consists of the eastward-flowing Subarctic Current system at 

approximately 50o N and the Alaska Coastal Current (Alaska Stream) system along the 

northern GOA. Large seasonal variations in the wind-stress curl in the GOA affect the 

meanders of the Alaska Stream and nearshore eddies. The variations in these nearshore flows 

and eddies affect much of the region’s biological variability (NMFS 2005). 

23
 
 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

2.4.2 Bering Sea 

The Bering Sea (BS) is a semi-enclosed, high-latitude sea. Of its total area of 2.3 million km2

, 

44% is continental shelf, 13% is continental slope, and 43% is deep-water basin. Its broad 

continental shelf is one of the most biologically productive areas of the world. The BS contains 

approximately 300 species of fish, 150 species of crustaceans and mollusks, 50 species of 

seabirds, and 26 species of marine mammals (Livingston and Tjelmeland 2000). However, 

commercial fish species diversity is lower in the BS than in the GOA (NMFS 2005). 

A special feature of the BS is the pack ice that covers most of its eastern and northern 

continental shelf during winter and spring. The dominant circulation of the water begins with the 

passage of North Pacific water (the Alaska Stream) into the BS through the major passes in 

the Aleutian Islands (Favorite et al. 1976). There is net water transport eastward along the 

north side of the Aleutian Islands and a turn northward at the continental shelf break and at the 

eastern perimeter of Bristol Bay. Eventually BS water exits northward or westward and south 

along the Russian coast, entering the western North Pacific via the Kamchatka Strait. Some 

resident water joins new North Pacific water entering Near Strait, which sustains a permanent 

cyclonic gyre around the deep basin in the central BS (NMFS 2005). 

Three fronts, the outer, mid-, and inner shelves, follow along the 200, 100, and 50m bathymetric 

contours, respectively; thus, four separate oceanographic domains appear as bands along the 

broad BS shelf. The oceanographic domains are the deep water (more than 200m), the outer 

shelf (200–100m), the mid-shelf (100–50m), and the inner shelf (less than 50m). The vertical 

physical system also regulates the biological processes that lead to separate cycles of nutrient 

regeneration. The source of nutrients for the outer shelf is the deep oceanic water; for the midshelf, it is the shelf-bottom water. Starting in winter, surface waters across the shelf are high in 

nutrients. Spring surface heating stabilizes the water column; then the spring bloom begins and 

consumes the nutrients. Steep seasonal thermoclines over the deep BS (30–50m), the outer 

shelf (20–50m), and the mid-shelf (10–50m) restrict vertical mixing of water between the upper 

and lower layers. Below these seasonal thermoclines, nutrient concentrations in the outer shelf 

water invariably are higher than those in the deep BS water with the same salinity. Winter 

values for nitrate-N/phosphate-P are similar to the summer ratios, which suggests that, even in 

winter, the mixing of water between the mid-shelf and the outer shelf domains is substantially 

restricted (Hattori and Goering 1986). 

Important water column properties over the BS include temperature, salinity, and density. 

These properties remain constant with depth in the near-surface mixed-layer, which varies 

from approximately 10 to 30 m in summer to approximately 30 to 60 m in winter (Reed 1984). 

The inner shelf (less than 50 m) is one layer and is well mixed most of the time. On the middle 

shelf (50 to 100 m), a two-layer temperature and salinity structure exists because of downward 

mixing of wind and upward mixing due to relatively strong tidal currents (Kinder and 

Schumacher 1981). On the outer shelf (100 to 200 m), a three-layer temperature and salinity 

structure exists due to downward mixing by wind, horizontal mixing with oceanic water, and 

upward mixing from the bottom friction due to relatively strong tidal currents (NMFS 2005). 

2.4.3 Aleutian Islands 

The Aleutian Islands (AI) lie in an arc that forms a partial geographic barrier to the exchange of 

northern Pacific marine waters with BS waters. The AI continental shelf is narrow compared 

with the BS shelf, ranging in width on the north and south sides of the islands from about 4 km 

24
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

or less to 42 to 46 km. The AI comprises approximately 150 islands and extends about 2,260 

km in length (NMFS 2005). 

The patterns of water density, salinity, and temperature are very similar to the GOA. Along the 

edge of the shelf in the Alaska Stream, a low salinity (less than 32.0 ppt) tongue-like feature 

protrudes westward. On the south side of the central AI, nearshore surface salinities can reach 

as high as 33.3 ppt, as the higher salinity BS surface water occasionally mixes southward 

through the AI. Proceeding southward, a minimum of approximately 32.2 ppt is usually present 

over the slope in the Alaska Stream; values then rise to above 32.6 ppt in the oceanic water 

offshore. Whereas, surface salinity increases toward the west as the source of fresh water from 

the land decreases, salinity values near 1,500 m decrease very slightly. Temperature values at 

all depths decrease toward the west (NMFS 2005). 

2.4.4 Anadromous Fisheries Waters 

There are 16,000 streams, rivers or lakes in Alaska that have been specified as being important 

for the spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fish. It is estimated that at least 20,000 or 

more anadromous water bodies have not yet been identified (ADFG 2006). Identified waters are 

outlined in The Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s Catalog of Waters Important for 

Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes (Johnson and Weiss 2006a - 2006f). 

Anadromous species in Alaska include forms of Pacific trout and salmon of the genus 

Oncorhynchus (rainbow and cutthroat trout and Chinook, coho, sockeye, chum and pink 

salmon), artic char, Dolly Varden, sheefish, smelts, lamprey, whitefish, and sturgeon (ADFG 

2006). 

3.0 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq; ESA), 

provides for the conservation of endangered and threatened species of animals and plants. 

The designation of an ESA-listed species is based on the biological health of that species. The 

status determination is either threatened or endangered. Threatened species are those likely to 

become endangered in the foreseeable future (16 U.S.C. § 1532[20]). Endangered species are 

those in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of their range (16 

U.S.C. § 1532[20]). Species may also be designated as candidate species if there is enough 

information to warrant proposing them for listing, but that have not yet been proposed because 

of higher listing priorities (USFWS 2006a). 

In addition to listing species under ESA, the critical habitat of a newly listed species must be 

designated, concurrent with its listing, to the “maximum extent prudent and determinable” (16 

U.S.C. § 1533[b][1][A]). ESA defines critical habitat as those specific areas that are essential to 

the conservation of a listed species and that may be in need of special consideration. Federal 

agencies are prohibited from undertaking actions that destroy or adversely modify designated 

critical habitat. Some species, primarily the cetaceans, which were listed in 1969 under the 

Endangered Species Conservation Act and carried forward as endangered under ESA, have 

not received critical habitat designations. 

Federal agencies have an affirmative mandate to conserve listed species. Federal actions, 

activities, or authorizations must be in compliance with the provisions of ESA. Section 7 of ESA 

provides a mechanism for consultation by the federal action agency with the appropriate expert 

agency (NMFS or USFWS).Table 3.1 lists the 18 species (or populations) located in Alaska that 

25
 
 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

are currently listed as endangered, threatened, or candidate species under the ESA. 

Table 3.1: Endangered, Threatened and Candidate species in Alaska pursuant to the Endangered 

Species Act 

SPECIES AND STATUS RANGE IN ALASKA 

Endangered 

Short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) 

Steller sea lion (west of 

144o) (Eumetopias jubatus) 

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) 

Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) 

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) 

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) 

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) 

Cook Inlet beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) 

Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 

U.S. Territorial waters, Gulf of Alaska, 

Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea Coast, 

Bering Sea, N. Pacific 

Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, N. Pacific 

Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea 

Chukchi Sea, Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, 

N. Pacific 

Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, N. Pacific 

Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, N. Pacific 

Gulf of Alaska, N. Pacific 

Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, N. Pacific 

Cook Inlet 

Gulf of Alaska 

Threatened 

Spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri) 

Steller's eider (Polysticta stelleri) 

Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) 

Northern sea otter 

(Southwest Alaska 

Population) (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) 

Steller sea lion (east of 

144o) (Eumetopias jubatus) 

Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 

Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas incl. agassizi) 

Western and Northern coastal Alaska 

Southwestern, Western and Northern 

Alaska 

Beaufort, Chukchi and Bering Sea 

Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak 

Island 

Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, N. Pacific 

Gulf of Alaska 

Gulf of Alaska 

Candidate 

Kittletz's murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris) 

Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) 

Southern and northwestern coastal Alaska 

Southeast Alaska 

26
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

3.1 FISH 

West Coast salmon species currently listed under ESA originate in freshwater habitat in 

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. No stocks of Pacific salmon or steelhead 

originating from freshwater habitat in Alaska are listed under ESA. However, some of the listed 

species migrate as adults into marine waters off Alaska (NMFS 2005). 

ESA-listed West Coast salmon and steelhead species are summarized in Table 3.2 and are 

categorized by Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs), which are distinct population segments 

(DPS) that are reproductively isolated and contribute to the ecological or genetic diversity of 

the species (Waples 1991). The ESA defines a “species” to include any distinct population 

segment of any species. For Pacific salmon, NOAA considers an ESU, a “species” under the 

ESA. 

Those ESUs that are most likely to migrate into marine waters off Alaska include Chinook 

salmon, sockeye salmon, or steelhead from rivers in Washington and Oregon (NMFS 2005). 

These may include the Chinook salmon Snake River fall run ESU; and the steelhead Upper 

Columbia River, Snake River Basin, and Lower Columbia River run ESUs (NMFS 2005). 

Table 3.2: Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead 

SPECIES 

EVOLUTIONARILY 

SIGNIFICANT UNIT STATUS 

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Sacramento River Winter-Run 

Snake River Fall 

Snake River Spring/Summer 

Puget Sound 

Lower Columbia River 

Upper Willamette River 

Upper Columbia River Spring 

Central Valley Spring 

California coastal 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Chum salmon (O. keta) Hood Canal Summer-Run 

Columbia River 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Coho salmon (O. kisutch) Central California Coast 

S. Oregon/ N. California Coast 

Lower Columbia River 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Sockeye salmon (O. nerka) Snake River Endangered 

27
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Table 3.2: Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead 

SPECIES 

EVOLUTIONARILY 

SIGNIFICANT UNIT STATUS 

Steelhead (O. mykiss) Southern California 

South-Central California 

Central California Coast 

Upper Columbia River 

Snake River Basin 

Lower Columbia River 

Central Valley California 

Upper Willamette River 

Middle Columbia River 

Northern California 

Puget Sound 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Proposed Threatened 

1 The ESA defines "species" to include any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife. 

For Pacific salmon, NOAA Fisheries considers an Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) a "species" under the ESA. 

For Pacific steelhead, NOAA Fisheries has delineated Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) for consideration as 

"species" under the ESA. 

3.1.1 Chinook Salmon 

The Snake River fall run of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) has been designated 

as threatened since April 22, 1992 (FR 57 (78): 14653-14664). 

Species range 

In the U.S., Chinook salmon are found from the Bering Strait area off Alaska south to Southern 

California. 

Critical habitat 

The critical habitat for the Snake River fall Chinook salmon was listed on December 28, 1993 

(FR 58 (247): 68543-68555). The designated critical habitat does not include any waters within 

the state of Alaska. 

Life history and ecology 

Chinook salmon are anadromous and semelparous meaning that as adults, they migrate from a 

marine environment into the fresh water streams and rivers of their birth where they spawn and 

die (NMFS 2009a). Two distinct races have evolved among Chinook salmon. The stream-type 

race of Chinook salmon is found most commonly in headwater streams. Stream-type Chinook 

salmon have a longer fresh water residency, and demonstrate extensive offshore migrations 

into the North Pacific before returning to their natal streams in the spring or summer months 

(NMFS 2009a; Healy 1991). The ocean-type Chinook, including the Snake River fall-run 

Chinook salmon ESU, are commonly found in coastal streams in North America. Ocean-type 

28
 
 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Chinook migrate to sea where they tend to spend their ocean life in coastal waters within about 

1,000km from their natal river (NMFS 2009a; Healy 1991). 

Ocean-type Chinook salmon return to their natal streams or rivers in spring, winter, fall, 

summer, and late-fall runs; however, summer and fall runs predominate (EPA 2005b). These 

runs have been identified on the basis of when adult Chinook salmon enter freshwater to begin 

their spawning migration. However, distinct runs also differ in the degree of maturation at the 

time of river entry, the temperature and flow characteristics of their spawning site, and their 

actual time of spawning. Freshwater entry and spawning timing are believed to be related to 

local temperature and water flow regimes (NMFS 2009a). 

Adult female Chinook will prepare a redd (or nest) in a stream area with suitable gravel type 

composition, water depth, and velocity. The adult female Chinook may deposit eggs in 4-5 

"nesting pockets" within a single redd. Spawning sites have larger gravel and more water flow 

up through the gravel than the sites used by other Pacific salmon. After laying eggs in a redd, 

adult Chinook will guard the redd from just a few days to nearly a month before dying. Chinook 

salmon eggs will hatch, depending upon water temperatures, 3-5 months after deposition. Eggs 

are deposited at a time to ensure that young salmon fry emerge during the following spring 

when the river or estuary productivity is sufficient for juvenile survival and growth. Salmon feed 

on terrestrial and aquatic insects, amphipods, and other crustaceans while young and primarily 

on other fishes when older (NMFS 2009a). 

Population trends and risks 

Almost all historical Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon spawning habitat in the Snake River 

Basin has been blocked by the Hells Canyon Dam complex or other habitat blockages in the 

Columbia River tributaries. The ESU's range has also been affected by agricultural water 

withdrawals, grazing, and vegetation management within the Columbia and Snake River Basins. 

The continued straying by nonnative hatchery fish into natural production areas is an additional 

source of risk (EPA 2005b) 

The historical population of Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon is difficult to estimate. Irving 

and Bjornn (1981) estimated a population of 72,000 for the period of 1938-1949 that declined to 

29,000 during the 1950s (EPA 2005b). Numbers declined further following completion of the 

Hells Canyon Dam complex. The Snake River component of the fall-run Chinook has been 

increasing during the past few years as a result of hatchery and supplementation efforts in the 

Snake and Clearwater River Basins. In 2002, more than 15,200 fall-run Chinook were counted 

past the two lower dams on the Snake River, with about 12,400 counted above Lower Granite 

Dam. For the Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon ESU, NOAA Fisheries estimates that the 

median population growth rate over a base period from 1980 through 1998 ranges from 0.94­

0.86. The decrease in growth rate reflects the increased effectiveness of hatchery fish spawning 

in the wild compared with that of fish of wild origin (McClure et al. 2000). 

3.1.2 Steelhead 

The Upper Columbia river fall run ESU of steelhead trout (common name for anadromous form 

of Oncorhynchus mykiss) was designated as endangered on August 18, 1997 (FR 62 (159): 

43937-43955), and upgraded to threatened January 5, 2006 (FR 71 (3): 834-864). The Snake 

River run ESU was designated as threatened August 18, 1997 (FR 62 (159): 43937-43955) and 

29
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

the Lower Columbia River run ESU was designated as threatened March 19, 1998 (63 FR (53) 

13347-13372). 

Species range 

In the United States, steelhead trout are found along the entire Pacific Coast. Worldwide, 

steelhead are naturally found in the Western Pacific south through the Kamchatka peninsula 

(NMFS2009b). 

Critical habitat 

Critical habitat for the Upper Columbia River ESU, the Snake River ESU, and the Lower 

Columbia River ESU was designated September 2, 2005 (FR 70 (170): 52630-52860). The 

designated critical habitat does not include any waters within the state of Alaska. 

Life history and ecology 

Adults migrate from a marine environment into the freshwater streams and rivers of their birth in 

order to mate (called anadromy). Unlike other Pacific salmonids, they can spawn more than one 

time (called iteroparity) (NMFS2009b). 

Steelhead can be divided into two basic reproductive types, stream- or ocean-maturing, based 

on the state of sexual maturity at the time of river entry and duration of spawning migration. The 

stream-maturing type (summer-run in the Pacific Northwest and northern California) enters 

freshwater in a sexually immature condition between May and October and requires several 

months to mature and spawn. The ocean-maturing type (winter-run in the Pacific Northwest and 

northern California) enters freshwater between November and April, with well-developed 

gonads and spawns shortly thereafter. Coastal streams are dominated by winter-run steelhead; 

whereas, inland steelhead of the Columbia River basin are almost exclusively summer-run 

steelhead (NMFS 2009b). 

Adult female steelhead will prepare a redd (or nest) in a stream area with suitable gravel type 

composition, water depth, and velocity. The adult female may deposit eggs in 4-5 "nesting 

pockets" within a single redd. The eggs hatch in 3 to 4 weeks. Young animals feed primarily on 

zooplankton. Adults feed on aquatic and terrestrial insects, mollusks, crustaceans, fish eggs, 

minnows, and other small fishes (including other trout) (NMFS 2009b). 

Population trends and risks 

Long term trends of the Snake River ESA and Lower Columbia River ESU have remained 

negative, with the population growth rates less than one (Good et al. 2005). However, returns of 

steelhead to the upper Columbia River have increased in recent years. From 1997-2001, the 

average return was approximately 12,900, while the average for the previous 5 years (1991­

1996) was 7,800 fish (Good et al. 2005). Threats include habitat alternation and direct mortality 

associated with water storage, withdrawal, conveyance, and hydropower, as well as stream bed 

alteration, increased predator populations due the introduction of non-native species and 

modification in habitat (NMFS 2009b). 

30
 
 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

3.1.3 Southeast Alaska DPS Pacific Herring 

The Southeast Alaska DPS of Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) was designated a candidate 

species on April 11, 2008 (FR 73(71): 19824-19825). 

Species Range 

The Southeast Alaska DPS of Pacific herring extends from Dixon Entrance northward to Cape 

Fairweather and Icy Point and includes all Pacific herring stocks in Southeast Alaska. Pacific 

herring are located in distinctly varying environments during different times of the year. 

Life History and Ecology 

Herring have a blue-green upper body with silvery sides without markings. Pacific herring may 

grow up to 18 inches in length, although 9-inche fish are considered large. Pacific herring 

generally spawn during the spring and can spawn every year following sexual maturity at 3 or 4 

years of age (ADFG 2008). In Alaska, spawning is first observed in the southeastern 

archipelago during mid-March, in Prince William Sound in April and May, and in the Bering Sea 

during May and June (ADFG 2008). Spawning is confined to shallow, vegetated areas in the 

intertidal and subtidal zones (ADFG 2008). Herring eggs are adhesive and eggs which stick to 

intertidal vegetation have higher survival rates than those that fall to the bottom. The eggs 

hatch in approximately two weeks, depending on the temperature of the water. Mortality of eggs 

is high. Young larvae drift and swim with the ocean currents and are preyed upon extensively 

by other vertebrate and invertebrate predators (ADFG 2008). During development in the 

juvenile stage, herring rear in sheltered bays and inlets and appear to remain segregated from 

adult populations until they are mature (ADFG 2008). After spawning, most adults leave inshore 

waters and move offshore to feed primarily on zooplankton such as copepods and other 

crustaceans (ADFG 2008). Herring schools often follow a diel vertical migration pattern, 

spending daylight hours near the bottom and moving upward during the evening to feed (ADFG 

2008). 

Population Trends and Risks 

The Southeast Alaska DPS of Pacific herring is currently undergoing a status review to 

determine if this species warrants listing under the Endangered Species Act. While the Pacific 

herring fisheries have undergone decline in the 1980’s and 1990’s, specific trends and risks of 

this species are still under investigation. 

3.2 BIRDS 

3.2.1 Short-tailed Albatross 

The short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) was federally listed as endangered throughout 

its range on July 31, 2000 (65 FR 147:46643-46654). 

Species range 

The short-tailed albatross once ranged throughout most of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering 

Sea. Exploitation by feather hunters around the start of the 20th century created a population 

decline. Short-tailed albatrosses require remote islands for breeding habitat and nest in open 

31
 
 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

areas with low or no vegetation. Breeding colonies of the short-tailed albatross are currently 

known on two islands in the western North Pacific and East China Sea. Five months after 

hatching, chicks leave the nest to wander across the North Pacific. Adults spend their nonbreeding seasons at sea as well feeding on squid, fish, flying fish eggs, shrimp, and other 

crustaceans (USFWS 2000). 

Outside of the breeding season, short-tailed albatrosses are distributed throughout most of the 

North Pacific (USFWS 2000) (Figure 3.1). They have been observed most frequently along the 

continental shelves in Gulf of Alaska, the Aleutians, and the Bering Sea between the Alaska 

Peninsula and St. Matthew Island as they require nutrient rich areas of ocean upwelling for their 

foraging habitat (USFWS 2005a). 

Figure 3.1: Short-tailed albatross distribution mapped predominately from Alaskan 

 fishing vessels from 1940-2003. Source: USFWS 2005a. 

Critical habitat 

Designation of critical habitat was not considered necessary due to lack of habitat-related 

threats to the species (USFWS 2005a). 

Population trends and risks 

Presently fewer than 2000 short-tailed albatrosses are known to exist (USFWS 2005a). 

Their primary threats include habitat loss and alternation due to volcanic activity and monsoon
 

rains near nesting sites, ocean regime shift due to climate change, commercial fishing, 

exposure to contaminants, and disease (USFWS 2005a). 

3.2.2 Steller’s Eider 

The Alaska-breeding population of the Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri) was listed as 

threatened on June 11, 1997, based on the contraction in the species’ breeding range in Alaska 

32
 
 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

and the resulting increased vulnerability of the remaining breeding population to extirpation (FR 

62 (112): 31748-31757) (USFWS 2002a). 

Species range 

Three breeding populations of Steller’s eiders are recognized - two in Arctic Russia and one in 

Alaska. The Alaska-breeding population nests primarily on the Arctic Coastal Plain, although a 

very small subpopulation remains on the Yukon-Kuskokwin Delta (USFWS 2002a) (Figure 3.2). 

Figure 3.2: Distribution of the Pacific Population of Steller’s Eider. Source: USFWS 2002a. 

Critical habitat 

Critical habitat was designated for the Steller’s eider in 2001 (FR 66 (23): 8849-8884), which 

includes breeding habitat on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, and four units in southwest Alaska 

marine waters, including the Kuskokwim Shoals in northwest Kuskokwim Bay, Seal Islands, 

Nelson Lagoon, and Izembek Lagoon on the north side of the Alaska Peninsula. Critical Habitat 

in the State of Alaska for Steller’s eiders is indicated in Figure 3.3 

33
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Figure 3.3: Critical habitat for the Steller’s eider. Source: National Marine Fisheries Service, ESRI. 

Life history and ecology 

Steller’s eiders nest in terrestrial environment but spend majority of the year in shallow, nearshore marine waters. After nesting, Alaska’s Steller’s eiders migrate south in the fall. These 

ducks move into the nearshore marine waters of southwest Alaska where they mix with the 

much more numerous Russian Pacific populations (USFWS 2002a). Adults undergo a flightless 

molt in autumn. Steller’s eiders remain flightless for about three weeks, but the overall period of 

flight feather molt for the species is from late July to late October (Peterson 1981). Steller’s 

eiders molt in a number of locations in southwest Alaska, but the largest numbers concentrate in 

four areas along the north side of the Alaska Peninsula - Izembek Lagoon, Nelson Lagoon, Port 

Heiden, and Seal Islands (Gill et al. 1981, Peterson 1981, Metzner 1993). Molting areas where 

large numbers concentrate tend to be characterized by extensive shallow areas with eelgrass 

beds, intertidal sand flats, and mudflats where Steller’s eiders forage on marine invertebrates 

such as mollusks and crustaceans (Metzner 1993). 

After molting many Steller’s eiders disperse to the Aleutian Islands, the south side of the Alaska 

Peninsula, Kodiak Island, or as far east as Cook Inlet; however, thousands may remain in the 

lagoons used for molting unless freezing conditions force them to move to warmer areas 

(USFWS 2002a). Wintering eiders usually occur in waters less than 10m deep and are usually 

found within 400m of shore. Prior to spring migration, thousands to tens of thousands of 

34
 
 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Steller’s eiders stage in estuaries along the north side of the Alaska Peninsula, including several 

areas used during molt and winter. From there, they cross Bristol Bay. It is speculated that 

majority of the entire Alaska-wintering adult population spends days or weeks feeding and 

resting in northern Kuskokwim Bay and in smaller bays along its perimeter before continuing 

northward to nesting areas (USFWS 2002a). 

Population trends and risks 

The Alaska-breeding populations of Steller’s eiders occur in two disjunct regions - western and 

northern Alaska. The status of the subpopulations occupying these regions is inadequately 

understood due to lack of precise population size estimates and limited historical information for 

comparison with current estimates. 

Aerial surveys currently provide the only available means of estimating population size and 

distribution. Population size point estimates, based on annual waterfowl breeding pair surveys 

from 1989-2000, range from 176-2,543 (Mallek 2002). The observations indicate that Steller’s 

eiders occur over a vast area with a greater density near Barrow, the northernmost point in 

Alaska, which is thought to be the core of the Steller’s eiders breeding distribution (USFWS 

2002a). 

Threats include predation, hunting, ingestion of spent lead shot in wetlands, changes in marine 

environment, as well as exposure to oil or contaminants near fish processing facilities in 

southwest Alaska (USFWS 2002a). 

3.2.3 Spectacled Eider 

The spectacled eider (Somateria fascheri) was designated as threatened on May 10, 1993 (FR 

58 (88): 27474-27480) due to their rapid, continual decline on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta 

breeding grounds. Additionally, there are indications that the population is declining on Alaska’s 

North Slope (USFWS 1996). 

Species range 

Historically, spectacled eiders nested along much of the coast of Alaska, from Nushagak 

Peninsula in the southwest, north to Barrow, and east near the Canadian border. Today, 

spectacled eiders breed in three primary locations - the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, the North 

Slope, and Arctic Russia. Limited nesting may also occur on St. Lawrence Island and the 

Seward Peninsula in Alaska (USFWS 1996). 

On the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, spectacles eiders breed mostly within 15km of the coast from 

Kigigak Island north to Kokechik Bay, with smaller numbers nesting south of Kigigak Island to 

Kwigillingok and north of Kokechik Bay to the mouth of Uwik Slough. The coastal fringe of the 

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta is the only subarctic breeding habitat where spectacled eiders occur at 

high density. On Alaska’s North Slope, the majority of spectacled eiders breed between Icy 

Cape and and Shaviovik River and generally at low densities (Larned and Balogh 1997). Figure 

3.4 provides spectacled eiders breeding distribution. 

35
 
 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Figure 3.4: Distribution of breeding pairs of spectacled eiders. Current breeding range indicated 

 areas where surveys have confirmed breeding pair occurrence. Low-density breeding 

may still occur outside these areas. Source: USFWS 2006b. 

Important late summer and fall molting areas have been identified in eastern Norton Sound and 

Ledyard Bay (USFWS 1996). Wintering flocks of spectacled eiders have been observed in the 

Bering Sea between St. Lawrence and St. Matthew Islands (USFWS 2006b) where they 

congregate in large and dense flocks in pack ice openings (Larned et al. 1995). 

Critical habitat 

Critical habitat for the spectacled eider was designated in 2001(FR 66 (25): 9146-9187), and 

includes areas on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Norton Sound, Ledyard Bay, and the Bering 

Sea between St. Lawrence and St. Matthews Islands. Critical Habitat in the State of Alaska for 

Steller’s eiders is indicated in Figure 3.5. 

36
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Figure 3.5: Critical habitat for the spectacled eider. Source: National Marine Fisheries Service and 

ESRI. 

Life history and ecology 

Spectacled eiders are diving ducks that spend most of the year in marine waters where they 

typically feed on bottom-dwelling molluscs and crustaceans. Around spring break-up, breeding 

pairs move to nesting areas on wet coastal tundra. During this season they feed by diving and 

dabbling in ponds and wetlands, eating aquatic insects, crustaceans, and vegetation. Shortly 

after eggs are laid, males leave the nesting grounds for offshore molting areas, usually by the 

end of June. Females whose nests failed leave the nesting area to molt at sea by mid-August. 

Breeding females and their young remain on the nesting grounds until early September. Molting 

flocks gather in relatively shallow coastal water (less than 36m deep). While moving between 

nesting and molting areas, spectacled eiders travel along the coast up to 50km offshore. From 

October through March, they move far offshore to waters up to 65m deep where they 

sometimes gather in dense flocks in openings of nearly continuous sea ice (USFWS 2006b). 

37
 
 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Population trends and risks 

The spectacled eider was listed as threatened primarily because the number of nesting pairs on 

the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta had declined from approximately 48,000 pairs in the early 1970s to 

1,721 by 1992 (Stehn et al. 1993). Historical data for other nesting areas in scarce ; it is 

estimated that 3000-4000 pairs currently nest on Alaska’s North Slope and approximately 

40,000 pairs nest in arctic Russia (USFWS 2006b). Potential population threats include lead 

poisoning, excessive subsistence take, changes in predator pressure, and disturbance to 

nesting grounds (USFWS 1996). 

3.2.4 Kittlitz’s Murrelet 

Kittlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris) was designated a candidate species on May 4, 

2004 (FR 69 (86): 24875-24904). 

Species range 

The Kittlitz’s murrelet ranges in Alaska from Point Lay in the north to Glacier Bay and nearby 

southeast Alaska. Its centers of abundance appear to be Prince William Sound and Glacier Bay. 

The Kittlitz’s murrelet is generally found in association with marine tidewater glaciers and 

glacially influenced waters, often in protected fjords or among islands. When within the range of 

tidewater glaciers, the species is associated with waters containing icebergs and brash ice (i.e. 

ice cover of 5-15%) and avoids areas that contain heavy ice cover (Day et al. 1999, Day et al. 

2000). Elsewhere, Kittlitz’s murrelets are found along coasts with waters influenced by glacial 

outwash (USFWS 2005b). 

During the breeding season, Kittlitz’s murrelets appear to favor waters less than 200m from 

shore (Day et al. 2000). During non-breeding season, the marine distribution is farther offshore. 

However, in winter, Kittlitz’s murrelets occur in the protected waters of Prince William Sound, 

Kenai Fjords, Kachemak Bay, and Sitka Sound (Day et al. 1999). 

Population trends and risks 

The Alaska population of Kittlitz’s murrelets currently is approximately 17,000 (USFWS 2004), 

but is declining at a rate of up to 18% per year (Kuletz et al. 2003, USFWS 2004). Significant 

downward trends have been reported from Prince William Sound, where the Kittlitz’s murrelet 

population has declined 84% over 11 years. At this rate, extirpation of Kittlitz’s murrelets in 

Prince William Sound is predicted to take approximately 30 years (Kuletz et al. 2005). 

Populations have also declined along the coast of Kenai Fjords (Van Pelt and Piatt 2003), 

Lower Cook Inlet (Speckman et al. 2005), Glacier Bay (Robards et al. 2003) and the Malasping 

Forelands (Kissling et al. 2005). 

Threats include exposure to oil contaminants, entanglement in gillnets, disturbance from 

commercial and recreational cruise ships, and the effect of climate change on the stability of 

tidewater glaciers (USFWS 2005b). 

38
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

3.3 MARINE MAMMALS 

3.3.1 Polar Bear 

The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was designated at threatened on May 15, 2008 (73FR 28212­

28303). The following information is summarized from the species description provided in the 

final listing in the Federal Register as well as the Polar Bear Recovery Plan. 

Species range 

Polar bears evolved to utilize the Arctic sea ice niche and are distributed throughout most icecovered seas of the Northern Hemisphere. The occur throughout the East Siberian, Laptev, 

Kara, and Barents Seas of Russia; Fram strait (the narrow strait between northern Greenland 

and Svalbard), Greenland Sea and Barents Sea of northern Europe (Norway and Greenland 

(Denmark)); Baffin Bay, which separates Canada and Greenland, through most of the Canadian 

Arctic archipelago and the Canadian Beaufort Sea. In Alaska, polar bears are found in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas located west and north of Alaska. 

Fig 3.6: Distribution of polar bears in Alaskan waters. 

Source: USFWS 2008. 

Critical habitat 

Critical habitat has not been designated for the polar bear at this time. Arctic sea ice provides a 

platform for critical life-history functions, including hunting, feeding, travel, and nurturing cubs. 

That habitat is projected to be significantly reduced within the next 45 years. A careful 

assessment of the designation of marine areas as critical habitat will require additional time to 

fully evaluate physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the polar bear and 

how those features are likely to change over the foreseeable future. In addition, near-shore and 

terrestrial habitats that may qualify for designation as critical habitat will require a similar 

thorough assessment and evaluation in light of projected climate change and other threats. The 

USFWS finds that critical habitat is undeterminable at this time because they are unable to 

identify the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of this population 

segment (USFWS 2008). 

39
 
 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Life history and ecology 

Polar bears are the largest of the living bear species (DeMaster and Stirling 1980, Stirling and 

Derocher 1990). They are characterized by large body size, stocky form, and fur color that 

varies from white to yellow. Females weigh 400 to 700 pounds (lbs) and males up to 1,440 lbs. 

Polar bears have a longer neck a proportionally smaller head than other members of the bear 

family and are missing the distinct shoulder hump common to grizzly bears. The nose, lips and 

skin of polar bears are black (DeMaster and Stirling 1981, Amstrup 2003). 

Polar bears evolved in sea ice habitats and as a result are evolutionarily adapted to this habitat. 

Over most of their range, polar bears remain on the sea ice year-round or spend only short 

periods on land. However, some polar bear populations occur in seasonally ice-free environs 

and use land habitats for varying portions of the year. In the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea 

areas of Alaska and northwestern Canada, for example, less than 10 percent of the polar bear 

locations obtained via radio telemetry were on land (Amstrup 2000). Although polar bears are 

generally limited to areas where the sea is ice-covered for much of the year, they are not evenly 

distributed throughout their range on sea ice. They show a preference for certain sea ice 

characteristics, concentrations and specific sea ice features (Sterling et al. 1993; Arthur et al. 

1996, Ferguson et al. 2000a, Ferguson et al. 2000b, Mauritzen et al. 2001, Durner et al. 2006, 

Durner et al. 2007). Polar bears show a preference for sea ice located over and near the 

continental shelf (Derocher et al. 2004, Durner et al. 2004, Durner et al. 2007) likely due to 

higher biological productivity in these areas (Dunton et al. 2005) and greater accessibility to 

prey in near shore zones and polynyas compared to deep-water regions in the central polar 

basin (Stirling 1997). 

Polar bears in Alaska feed primarily on ringed seals (Phoca hispida) and to a lesser extent, on 

bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) (Stirling and McEwan 1975; Stirling and Archibald 1977; 

Stirling and Latour 1978) and spotted seals (Phoca largha) (USFWS 1994). Bears may also 

prey on hooded seals (Cystophora cristata) (Stirling and Archibald 1977), walruses (Odobenus 

rosmarus) (Kiliaan and Stirling 1978), and beluga whales (Delpinapterus leucas) (Freeman 

1973; Heyland and Hay 1976; Lowry et al. 1987). They scavenge on the carcasses of whales 

and walruses. They occasionally prey on other polar bears (Russell 1975; Lunn and Stenhouse 

1985; Taylor et al. 1985). When other food is not available, polar bears may eat small 

mammals, birds, eggs and vegetation, but these foods are not an important component of the 

diet. 

Polar bears clearly prefer the blubber of ringed seals (Stirling and Archibald 1977). The high 

energy demand of polar bears, associated with metabolic thermoregulation and the energy cost 

of walking and hunting, contributes to the selective use of seal blubber. Availability of seals 

varies seasonally and regionally; therefore, the replenishment of fat deposits is important to 

polar bears to maintain an insulating layer to reduce heat losses and provide a reserve source 

of energy when food is scarce. Pregnant females remain in their dens without feeding for 

approximately 3 months after giving birth and depend on pre-denning body condition to meet 

energy requirements during this period. 

Female polar bears reach maturity at 4 or 5 years of age (Stirling and Smith 1975). In the 

Beaufort Sea, the age of first reproduction is typically 6 years of age (Stirling and Smith 1975, 

Lentfer et al. 1980). Polar bears typically mate on sea ice from late March through May (Lono 

1970), although implantation does not occur until September (Stirling et al. 1984). Pregnant 

40
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

females seek out denning areas in late October and November and form maternity dens, 

typically in drifted snow (Harington 1968, Jonkel et al. 1972, Lentfer and Hensel 1980). Cubs 

are born in December and January (Lentfer 1982). Estimates of average litter size differ for 

different locations and vary between 1.52 and 2.0 (Lono 1970, Ramsay and Stirling 1982). In 

most areas, females with cubs emerge from dens in late March and early April and stay near 

their den sites for several days or as long as a month (Harington 1968, Stirling et al. 1984) 

before moving off in search of food. In most areas of the Arctic, female polar bears keep their 

cubs until they are about 2.5 years old (Stirling and Smith 1975, Lentfer et al. 1980, Stirling et al. 

1980). For females that successfully wean litters, the average reproductive interval is about 4 

years (Lentfer et al. 1980). 

Population trends and risks 

The total number of polar bears worldwide is estimated to be 20,000-25,000 (Aars et al. 2006). 

Polar bears are not evenly distributed throughout the Arctic, nor do they comprise a single 

nomadic cosmopolitan population, but rather occur in 19 relatively discrete populations or 

distinct population segments (Aars et al. 2006). Boundaries of the 19 polar bear populations 

have evolved over time and are based on intensive study of movement patterns, tag returns 

from harvested animals and genetic analysis (Aars et al. 2006). There is considerable overlap 

in areas occupied by members of these groups and boundaries separating the groups are 

adjusted as new data is collected (Amstrup et al. 2004, Amstrup et al. 2005). These 

boundaries, however, are thought to be ecologically meaningful and the 19 units they describe 

are managed as populations, with the exception of the Arctic Basin population where few bears 

are believed to be year-round residents. The Chukchi sea population is estimated to comprise 

2,000 animals, based on extrapolation of aerial den surveys. Status and trend have not yet 

been determined for this population. The Southern Beaufort Sea population is currently 

comprised of 1,500 animals based on a recent population inventory which demonstrated the 

population declining from estimated population sizes ranging from 2,500 to 1,800 in the late 

1980’s (Amstrup et al. 1986, Amstrup 2000, Amstrup et al. 2001). Based on this information, 

the predicted trend is declining (Aars et al. 2006) and the status is designated as reduced. 

Because of their specialized habitats and life history constraints (Amstrup 2003), polar bears 

have many qualities that make their populations susceptible to the potential negative impacts of 

sea ice loss resulting from climate change. The Southern Beaufort Sea population has been 

subject to dramatic changes in the sea ice environment, beginning in the winter of 1989-1990 

(Regehr et al. 2006). Sea ice is an essential platform that allows polar bears to access prey and 

reductions in sea ice alters ringed seal distribution, abundance and availability for polar bears. 

Such reductions will, in turn, decrease polar bear body condition (Derocher et al. 2004). 

Declines in ringed and bearded seal numbers and productivity have resulted in marked declines 

in polar bear populations (Stirling 1980, Stirling and Oritsland 1995, Stirling 2002). In addition, 

declines in fat reserves during critical times in the polar bear life cycle detrimentally affect 

populations through delay in the age of first reproduction, decrease denning success, decline in 

litter sizes with more single cub litters and fewer cubs, and lower cub body weights and lower 

survival rates (Atkinson and Ramsay 1995, Derocher et al. 2004). The importance of sea ice to 

polar bear foraging is supported by studies documenting the relationship between the duration 

and extent of the sea ice and polar bear condition, reproduction and survival across decades 

despite likely fluctuations in ringed seal abundance during that same timeframe (Stirling et al. 

1999, Regehr et al. 2007a, Regehr et al. 2007b, Rode et al. 2007). 

41
 
 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

3.3.2 Northern Sea Otter (Southwest Alaska Population) 

The northern sea otter (Southwest Alaska population) (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) was designated 

threatened on September 8, 2005 (FR 70 (152): 46365-46386). This designation was due to a 

55-67% decline in this population segment since the mid-1980s. 

Species range 

The northern sea otter has a range that extends from the Aleutian Islands, southwestern Alaska 

to the coast of the State of Washington (Figure 3.7) and contain two subspecies (E. l. kenyoni 

and E. l. lutris). These species are separated by an expanse of open water that stretches 

approximately 200 miles between Near Islands of the U.S. and Commander Islands in Russia 

where wide deepwater passes serve as a barrier to sea otter movement (Kenyon 1969). 

Figure 3.7: Approximate distribution of northern sea otters in Alaskan waters. 

Source: USFWS 2002b. 

The southwest Alaska population ranges from Attu Island at the western end of Near Islands in 

the Aleutians and east to Kamishak Bay on the western side of lower Cook Inlet. The southwest 

Alaska population includes waters adjacent to the Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak 

archipelago, and the Barren Islands (USFWS 2005c). Sea otters typically are located in shallow 

water areas near the shoreline or further offshore in areas where a shelf of shallow water 

extends along several miles from shore such as in Bristol Bay or along the north side of the 

Alaska Peninsula (USFWS 2005c). 

Critical habitat 

Critical habitat has been proposed for the Southwest Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter (73 

FR 76454) and encompases five critical habitat areas along the Aleutian Islands and the Alaska 

42
 
 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Penninsula. 

Life history and ecology 

Sea otters are considered a keystone species; strongly influencing the species composition and 

diversity of the nearshore marine environment they inhabit (Estes 1990). Sea otters mate at all 

times of the year and their young can be born in any season. However, in Alaska, most pups 

are born in late spring. Sea otters are not migratory and generally do not disperse over long 

distances. They are gregarious and can become concentrated in an area, sometimes resting in 

pods of fewer than 10 to more than 1,000 animals (USFWS 2005c). 

Sea otters have a relatively high rate of metabolism as compared to land mammals of similar 

size and therefore eat large amounts of food (estimated at 23-33% of their body weight per day 

(Estes 1990)). Sea otters are carnivores and primarily eat a wide variety of benthic 

invertebrates, such as sea urchins, crabs, clams, mussels, and octopuses. In some parts of 

Alaska, sea otters eat epibenthic fishes as well (Estes 1990). 

Population trends and risks 

Prior to commercial exploitation, the range-wide estimate for the species was 150,000-300,000 

individuals (Kenyon 1969). Commercial hunting of sea otters began in the mid 1700s and over 

the next 170 years sea otters were hunted to the brink of extinction first by Russians, then by 

American fur hunters. Sea otters became protected from commercial harvests under the 

International Fur Seal Treaty of 1911; at that time the entire population was approximately 

1,000-2,000. Population regrowth began following legal protection and sea otters have since 

recolonized much of their historic range in Alaska (USFWS 2002b). By the 1980s, sea otters 

were present in all the island groups of the Aleutians (Estes 1990). However, by 1992 the 

population declined to approximately 8,000 sea otters and by 2000 sea otter abundance had 

declined in the Aleutians to 2000-2,442 (USFWS 2002b). 

Potential threats to sea otter populations include natural fluctuations, such as disease or 

predation, and indirect effects of human activities including pollutant contamination. One theory 

for the population decline indicates that they are the result of increased predation by transient 

killer whales (USFWS 2002b). 

3.3.3 Steller Sea Lion (Eastern and Western Stocks) 

The Steller sea lion (Eastern and Western Stocks) (Eumetopias jubatus) was listed as a 

threatened species on April 5, 1990 (FR 55 (227): 49294-49332) due to substantial declines in 

the western portion of the range. In contrast, the eastern portion of the range (southeastern 

Alaska and Canada) was increasing at 3% annually prior to 1990. In 1997, the Steller sea lion 

population was split into a western DPS and an eastern DPS based on demographic and 

genetic dissimilarities (FR 62 (86): 24345-24356). Due to the persistent decline, the western 

DPS was reclassified as endangered, while the increasing eastern DPS remained classified as 

threatened. 

Species range 

43
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

The Steller sea lion ranges along the North Pacific Ocean rim from northern Japan to California 

(Loughlin et al. 1992), with centers of abundance and distribution in Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and 

Aleutian Islands (AI), respectively. The northernmost breeding colony in the EBS is on Walrus 

Island near the Pribilof Islands and in the GOA on Seal Rocks in Prince William Sound 

(Kenyon and Rice 1961). The geographic center of their distribution is considered to be the AI 

and the GOA. The center of abundance for the species is considered to extend from Kenai to 

Kiska Island (NMFS 2006a). 

Critical habitat 

Critical habitat for Steller sea lion was designated on August 27, 1993 (FR 58 (165): 45269­

45286) from information available about rookery areas, haulouts, and marine areas required by 

the species for survival in the wild. Habitat includes marine waters, terrestrial rookeries 

(breeding sites) and haulouts (resting sites). Rookeries are areas used by adult males and 

females for pupping, nursing, and mating during the mating season (late May to early July). 

Haulouts are used by both males and females of all size classes but generally are not sites 

where reproduction occurs. Critical habitat for Steller sea lions are indicated in Figures 3.8 and 

3.9 and include the following: 

(a) Alaska rookeries, haulouts, and associated areas. In Alaska, all major Steller sea lion 

rookeries identified in 50 CFR, part 226.202, Table 1, and major haulouts identified in 

50 CFR, part 226.202, Table 2, as well as associated terrestrial, air, and aquatic zones, 

have been designated as critical habitat for the Steller sea lion. Critical habitat includes a 

terrestrial zone that extends 3,000 feet (0.9 km) landward from the baseline or base point of 

each major rookery and major haulout in Alaska. Critical habitat includes an air zone that 

extends 3,000 feet (0.9km) above the terrestrial zone of each major rookery and major haulout 

in Alaska, measured vertically from sea level. Critical habitat includes an aquatic zone that 

extends 3,000 feet (0.9km) seaward in state and federally managed waters from the baseline or 

basepoint of each major haulout in Alaska that is east of longitude 144oW. Critical habitat 

includes an aquatic zone that extends 20nm (37km) seaward in state and federally managed 

waters from the baseline or basepoint of each major rookery and major haulout in Alaska that 

is west of longitude 144oW. 

(b) Three special aquatic foraging areas in Alaska, including the Shelikof Strait area, the 

southeastern BS, and the Seguam Pass area (NMFS 2005). 

44
 
 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Figure 3.8: Designated critical habitat for the western DPS of Steller sea lion in Alaska 

 (50 CFR 226.202). Source: NMFS 2006a. 

Figure 3.9: Designated critical habitat for the eastern DPS of Steller sea lion (50 CFR 226.202). 

Source: NMFS 2006a. 

45
 
 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Life history and ecology 

Steller sea lions spend the majority of their time at rookeries or haulouts. Habitat types that 

typically serve as rookeries or haulouts include rock shelves, ledges, slopes, and boulder/ 

cobble/gravel, and sand beaches. When foraging in marine habitats, Steller sea lions typically 

occupy surface and midwater ranges in coastal regions. Some animals may also follow prey into 

river and inlet systems. Steller sea lions gather on well defined, traditionally used rookeries to 

pup and breed. Males defend individual territories from approximately mid-May through midJuly. They mate with females after birth then come into estrus in their territory. Females give 

birth to a single pup anytime from mid-May to July (Calkins 1994). 

As marine carnivores, Steller sea lions eat a wide variety of fish such as pollock, flounder, 

herring, capelin, Pacific cod, salmon, rockfish, sculpins, and invertebrates such as squid and 

octopus in the intertidal to continental shelf zone. However, the majority of Steller sea lion diet 

consists of pollock and mackerel. The sea lions generally leave haulouts and rookeries to feed 

for periods of time varying from hours to months. They often return to the same haulout or 

rookery even after long absences (Calkins 1994). 

Population trends and risks 

Estimates of Steller sea lion historical abundance are crude and not well documented. It is 

estimated that there were over 300,000 Steller sea lions in the world in the late 1970s. Since 

then, the Alaskan sea lion population has declined. The western population declined 

approximately 70% between the late 1970s and 1990. They reached a peak of approximately 

15% per year decline during 1985-1989. During this period, mortaility incidental to commercial 

fishing was thought to contribute to as much as 25% of the observed decline (NMFS 2006a). 

Throughout the 1990s the western DPS continued to decline; however, between 2000 and 2004 

the population increased approximately 3% per year. This was the first recorded population 

increase since the 1970s. Currently the western DPS is approximately 44,800 animals and 

could be increasing due to higher juvenile and adult survival. The eastern DPS currently ranges 

from 45,000 to 51,000 animals and has been increasing at 3% per year for 30 years (NMFS 

2006a). 

Several factors have been proposed (NMFS 2006a) as contributors to sea lion decline. Potential 

causes for the decline may include direct mortality through incidental take in fisheries, 

commercial harvests, or illegal shooting. Additional possibilities are a reduced or modified prey 

based resulting from commercial fisheries, a major regime shift in the mid-1970s, or predation 

by killer whales (NMFS 2006a). Current threats to the western DPS include subsistence 

harvest, illegal shooting, entanglement in marine debris, disease, disturbance from vessel 

traffic, and scientific research (NMFS 2006a). 

3.3.4 North Pacific Right Whale 

The Northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) has been listed as endangered under the ESA 

since 1973. As of December 2006, the NMFS has determined that right whales in the northern 

hemisphere exist as two species (North Pacific and North Atlantic right whale). Additionally 

NMFS, proposed to list the North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) as a separate 

endangered species. 

46
 
 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Species range 

Three major populations of right whales exist - North Atlantic, North Pacific, and Southern 

Oceans. North Pacific right whales have been sighted as far south as central Baja California in 

the eastern North Pacific, as far south as Hawaii in the central North Pacific, and as far north as 

the sub-Arctic waters of the Bering Sea. Right whales are also spotted at Sea of Okhotsk in the 

summer. A small group of right whales (up to 13 animals) has been seen consistently in the 

EBS since 1996 (Goddard and Rugh 1998, Tynan 1999, LeDuc et al. 2002) and with additional 

sighting south of Kodiak Island in GOA in July 1998 (Waite 1998). 

Right whales primarily occur in coastal or shelf waters, but movements over deep waters are 

known. Migratory patterns of the North Pacific population are unknown; however, it is perceived 

that the whales spend the summer on high-latitude feeding grounds and migrate to more coastal 

and lower latitude waters during the winter when calving takes place. 

Critical habitat 

The critical habitat designation for North Pacific right whales was revised in June 2006 (FR 71 

(129): 38277-38298). The revision included two specific areas in the North Pacific Ocean - Gulf 

of Alaska and Bering Sea. 

Life history and ecology 

Right whales are generally migratory, with at least a portion of the population moving between 

summer feeding grounds in temperate or high latitudes and winter calving areas in warmer 

waters (NMFS 2006b). All the identified calving grounds are near the coast generally in shallow 

bays, but there is insufficient information to determine right whales calve exclusively in such 

waters. 

Right whales belong to the suborder Mysticeti and typically feed below the surface and near the 

bottom because they have a baleen, a comblike structure composed of a dense fringe of bladeshaped, horny plates that hangs down from the roof of the mouth and acts as a filter instead of 

teeth. Right whales feed from spring to fall and in winter in certain areas. Their primary food 

sources are zooplankton, including copepods, euphausiids, and cyprids (NMFS 2006b). 

Population trends and risks 

While the pre-exploitation size of this stock exceeded 11,000 animals, there are no reliable 

estimates of current abundance or trends for right whales in the North Pacific and it is 

anticipated that fewer animals are in the North Atlantic population (NMFS 2006b). The situation 

in the North Pacific differs greatly between the western and eastern populations. However, there 

are no data on trends in abundance for the eastern or western population. 

For the western North Pacific, sighting survey estimates for the summer feeding ground an 

abundance of approximately 900 in the Sea of Okhotsk. It is clear that this population is 

significantly larger than that in the eastern North Pacific. Since 1967, most sightings in the 

eastern North Pacific have been of single whales. Over the last few years, though small groups 

of right whales have been sighted. This is encouraging but there has been only one confirmed 

47
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

sighting of calves in the 20th century. Furthermore, the North Pacific animals are being 

subjected to large illegal Soviet catches in the early 1960s (NMFS 2006b). 

In the North Pacific, ship strikes and entanglements potentially pose a threat to right whales. 

Due to their rare occurrence and scattered distribution, it is impossible to assess the threat of 

ship strikes or entanglement to North Pacific right whales at this time. Thus, the estimated 

annual rate of human-caused mortality and serious injury appears minimal. Reasons for the 

apparent lack of recovery for right whales in the North Pacific are unknown (NMFS 2006b). 

3.3.5 Bowhead Whale 

The bowhead whale (Balaena mysteicetus) has been listed as endangered since June 2, 1970 

(FR 35 (106): 8491-8499). 

Species range 

The majority of these whales inhabit areas around Alaska as part of the Western Arctic stock. 

Five populations existed historically. Today, one population might be extinct and three others 

exist in low numbers. Bowhead whales live only in Arctic or subarctic waters and have adapted 

to living along the pack ice and do not travel to temperate waters to calve (Sheldon and Rugh 

1995). 

The western Arctic or Bering Sea stock, which is the only stock found in United States waters, 

follows a 3,600 mile (5800km) migration route. They winter in the Bering Sea in polynyas (areas 

of consistently open water within pack ice) and at the edge of the pack ice. From late March 

through April, bowheads move north through the Bering Strait as the pack ice retreats. Most 

bowheads follow leads or cracks in the ice through the Chukchi Sea along the Alaska coast to 

Point Barrow. They travel offshore across the Beaufort Sea and arrive in Canadian waters from 

mid-May through June. The bowheads spend the summer in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, then 

migrate west along the continental shelf of the Beaufort Sea to Point Barrow from August 

through October. Next, the whales cross the Chukchi Sea and travel south along the Russian 

coast passing through the Bering Strait by November (Carroll 1994). Studies of stable isotope 

ratios in bowhead baleen suggest that the Bering and Chukchi Seas are the preferred feeding 

habitats rather than Beaufort Sea (Lee and Schell 1999). 

Critical habitat 

Critical habitat has not been designated for the bowhead whale. 

Life history and ecology 

It is estimated that mating probably occurs during late winter and spring. The gestation period is 

13-14 months. Most bowhead whales calve in April, May, or early June. After plunging from the 

internal body temperature of their mothers into near freezing water, the newborns must begin 

swimming north with the migrating herd almost immediately (Carroll 1994). 

The bowhead feeding mechanism is most proficient at filtering a “thin soup” rather than gulping 

dense masses of prey. Instead of having grooved expandable throats similar to other baleen 

whales, bowheads have very large mouths to maximize the amount of water taken in and to 

hold captured food. Bowheads feed by swimming with their mouths open and straining 

48
 
 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

zooplankton out of the water with their baleen. Bowheads feed at all depths, from the surface to 

the bottom. Their primary foods are copepods, euphausiids, and other invertebrates, typically 

0.12-1.18 inches (3-30mm) long. Bowheads feed year-round in the Beaufort, Chukchi, and 

Bering Seas. They use a variety of strategies, including feeding under ice and swimming in 

groups in V-shaped formation, to increase feeding efficiency (Carroll 1994). 

Population trends and risks 

Before commercial whaling, there were over 50,000 bowhead whales worldwide. Between the 

1600s and 1800s, the eastern arctic stocks of bowheads were reduced from over 50,000 

animals to less than 1,000. The Bering Sea stock originally numbered about 18,000 whales and 

was reduced significantly in the 1800s and early 1900s. They remain severely depleted. 

However, the population had increased from 6,400 to 9,200 in 1992 (Carroll 1994). 

3.3.6 Sei Whale 

The sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) has been designated as endangered since June 2, 1970 

(FR 25 (106): 8491-8499). 

Species range 

Sei whales are located all across the temperate North Pacific north of 40oN. In the North Pacific, 

the sei whale location is mainly south of the Aleutian Islands. Their southern range extends as 

far south as Baja California, Mexico, in the eastern Pacific, and to Japan and Korea in the west 

(Reeves et. al. 1998a). 

Critical habitat 

Critical habitat has not been designated for the sei whale. 

Life history and ecology 

This pelagic species generally does not inhabit inshore and coastal waters. Sei whales mainly 

feed on copepods and euphausiids; however, whales in the North Pacific also prey on pelagic 

squid and fish up to the size of an adult mackerel (Reeves et al. 1998a). 

Population trends and risks 

It is estimated that the pre-whaling abundance of sei whales was 58,000-62,000 in the North 

Pacific (NMFS 2003). Sei whale abundance in the eastern North Pacific waters is currently 

unknown. Although the population in the North Pacific is expected to have grown since given 

protected status in 1976, the possible effects of continued unauthorized take and incidental ship 

strikes and gill-net mortality make this uncertain (NMFS 2003). Current threats may affect sei 

whales, but do not result in significant takes compared with decimation caused by whaling. 

These threats may include collisions with ships, disturbance from vessels, entanglement in 

fishing gear, and aquatic pollution (Reeves et al. 1998a). 

49
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

3.3.7 Blue Whale 

The blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) has been designated as endangered since June 2, 

1970 (FR 25 (106): 8491-8499). 

Species range 

Blue whales inhabit every ocean of the world, from the equator to the poles, occurring primarily 

in the open ocean. However, observers have rarely spotted this pelagic species near the coast, 

except in Polar Regions. 

Blue whales in the North Pacific Ocean presumably migrate between sub-polar feeding grounds 

in spring and summer and low latitudes in winter (Perry et al. 1999); however, there is evidence 

that some whales remain in low latitudes year-round (Reilly and Thayer 1980). Long-term 

acoustic monitoring has shown that blue whales are heard along the AI westward and in GOA 

from late summer through winter (Watkins et al. 2000, Stafford et al. 2001). Recent acoustic 

monitoring recorded blue whales off the western Aleutians from June to early January and from 

mid-July to mid-December in GOA (Stafford 2003). Blue whale range typically does not extend 

north of the AI, but on occasion extends to the far southeastern corner of the EBS (Rice 1998). 

Critical habitat 

Critical habitat has not been designated for the blue whale. 

Life history and ecology 

Near the poles, blue whales frequently follow the retreating ice edge as summer progresses. 

Blue whales faithfully return to feeding areas, but we know little about the breeding grounds of 

this animal. These animals appear to practice more selective behavior in feeding than other 

rorquals (baleen whales that possess external throat grooves that expand during gulp- feeding) 

and specialize in plankton feeding, particularly swarming euphausiids in the Antarctic. They 

preferentially take euphausiids even with abundant shoaling fish in the area. Copepods and 

decapods make up a small and rarely observed portion of the blue whale’s diet (Reeves et al. 

1998b). 

Population trends and risks 

It is estimated that there were about 1,500 blue whales in the North Pacific when modern 

commercial whaling began in the early 1900s. Current estimates are in the low hundreds 

(Reeves et al. 1998b) 

Whaling has caused the largest reductions in this species population, but other factors might 

also contribute to its decline or may prevent the population’s recovery. These factors include 

collisions with ships, disturbance by commercial and recreational vessels, entanglement in 

fishing gear, habitat degradation, and aquatic pollution. Little evidence exists to support the 

conclusion that any of these factors caused a serious decline in the blue whale population, but 

these factors may prevent the recovery of the species (Reeves et al. 1998b). 

50
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

3.3.8 Fin Whale 

The fin whale (Balaenoptera phyusalus) has been designated as endangered since June 2, 

1970, (FR 25 (106): 8491-8499). 

Species range 

Fin whales are found in offshore waters throughout the North Pacific from Baja California to the 

Chukchi Sea. High concentrations of these endangered animals inhabit the northern Gulf of 

Alaska and southeastern Bering Sea in the summer (Reeves et al. 1998a). With a complex 

migratory behavior, these whales can be located in any season at many different latitudes. 

Acoustic detections of fin whale calls indicate that whales aggregate near the Aleutian Islands 

in summer (Moore et al. 1998) and near the Hawaiian Islands in winter (McDonald 1999). 

Some whale calls continue to be detected in northern latitudes throughout the winter with no 

noticeable migratory movement south (Watkins et al. 2000). 

Critical habitat 

Critical habitat has not been designated for the fin whale. 

Life history and ecology 

Where fin whales breed is unknown but research indicates they are primarily solitary animals. 

They might infrequently congregate in groups of up to 15. However, the low-frequency 

vocalizations made by whales can travel some distance making it difficult to determine which 

species associate with one another (NMFS 2006c). In the North Pacific, fin whales prefer 

euphausiid shrimp and large copepods as prey, but they also consume schooling fish such as 

herring, walleye, pollock, and capelin (Reeves et al. 1998a). 

Population trends and risks 

Total North Pacific fin whale population before whaling was estimated at 42,000-45,000 with 

8,000-11,000 being in the eastern North Pacific in the mid 1970s (Ohsumi and Wada 1974). An 

aerial survey of the former Akutan whaling grounds around the eastern Aleutians in 1984 

produced no sightings of fin whale. The absence of sightings in high abundance of this area was 

interpreted as the local density of fin whales remained well below that of the early twentieth 

century population (NMFS 2006c). However, large numbers of fin whales were seen in the Gulf 

of Alaska on a humpback whale survey in 2004 (NMFS 2006c) and seabird surveys near the 

Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea indicated a substantial increase in the local abundance of fin 

whales between 1975-1978 and 1987-1989 (Baretta and Hunt 1994). 

Currently, the largest threats to fin whales include collisions with vessels, habitat destruction, 

entanglement in fishing gear, reduced prey abundance, and renewed interest in whaling by 

several countries (NMFS 2006c). 

51
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

3.3.9 Humpback Whale 

The humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) has been designated as endangered since 

June 2, 1970 (FR 25 (106): 8491-8499). 

Species range 

Surveys indicate that humpbacks occupy habitats around the world, with three major, distinct 

populations - North Atlantic, North Pacific, and Southern oceans. 

Although humpback whales can be seen in Alaska year round, most migrate during the fall to 

temperate or tropical wintering areas where reproduction and calving occur. During the spring, 

humpback whales migrate back to Alaska where food sources are abundant. While in Alaska, 

most humpbacks concentrate in southeast Alaska, Prince William Sound, the area near Kodiak, 

and the Barren Islands, the area between Semidi and Shumagin Islands, and the eastern 

Aleutian Islands and southern Bering Sea (NMFS 1991). 

Critical habitat 

Critical habitat has not been designated for the humpback whale. 

Life history and ecology 

Humpbacks generally feed for 6 months of the year on their feeding grounds in Arctic and 

Antarctic waters. The animals then fast and live off their fat layer for the winter period while in 

the tropical breeding grounds. Humpbacks eat primarily small schooling fish such as herring, 

capelin, pollock, and sand lance. Additionally, they commonly consume euphausiid shrimp 

(NMFS 1991). 

Population trends and risks 

Current abundance estimate of humpback whales in the North Pacific is based on data collected 

by nine independent research groups that conducted photo-identification studies in three 

wintering areas (Mexico, Hawaii, and Japan). Current estimates indicate the population size of 

the North Pacific stock at 4,005 animals (NMFS 2001). Although data support an increasing 

population size for the central North Pacific stock, it is impossible to assess the rate of increase 

(NMFS 2001). The greatest threats to their survival are entanglement in fishing gear, collisions 

with ship traffic, and pollution of their coastal habitat by human settlements (NMFS 1991). 

3.3.10 Sperm Whale 

The sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) has been designated as endangered since June 2, 

1970, (FR 25 (106): 8491-8499). 

Species range 

Sperm whales are widely distributed in the North Pacific Ocean and seasonally present 

throughout the Gulf of Alaska. In the Bering Sea, sperm whales are primarily found in areas 

52
 
 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

from the Pribilof Islands to the west. Female and young sperm whales live primarily in tropical 

waters, while males are thought to summer in GOA and BS/AI and winter south of 40o. 

However, recent analyses of older tag data indicate their movement patterns are less clear 

(Angliss and Lodge 2002). 

Sperm whales tend to inhabit areas with a water depth of 1968 feet (600m) or more and are 

uncommon in waters less than 984 feet (300m) deep. Female sperm whales are generally found 

in deep waters (at least 3280 feet or 1000m) of low latitudes (less than 40°, except in the North 

Pacific where they are found as high as 50°). These conditions generally correspond to sea 

surface temperatures greater than 15°C, and while female sperm whales are sometimes seen 

near oceanic islands, they are typically far from land. 

Immature males will stay with female sperm whales in tropical and subtropical waters until they 

begin to slowly migrate toward the poles between ages 4-21 years old. Older, larger males are 

generally found near the edge of pack ice in both hemispheres. On occasion these males will 

return to the warm water breeding area (NMFS 2009c). 

Critical habitat 

Critical habitat has not been designated for the sperm whale. 

Life history and ecology 

Sperm whales feed almost exclusively on cephalopods (squid and octopuses), but in Alaska 

and a few other places fish are a staple of the sperm whales’ diet. Some fish species consumed 

are rays, sharks, lanternfish, cod, and redfish. Feeding occurs year round, usually at depths 

below 120m (approximately 400 feet) (NMFS 2009c). 

Population trends and risks 

Current and historic estimates for the abundance of sperm whales in the North Pacific are 

limited. However, over the past 2 centuries, commercial whalers took about 1,000,000 sperm 

whales. Despite the high level of take, the sperm whale remains the most abundant of the large 

whale species. The number of sperm whales of the North Pacific located within Alaska waters is 

unknown (NMFS 2009c) because there is not a good estimate for the total number of sperm 

whales worldwide. Currently, the best estimates for whales in Alaska, which is based on 

extrapolations from few areas that have useful estimates (NMFS 2009c), is there are between 

200,000 and 1,500,000. 

Potential threats include collisions with ships and entanglement in fishing gear (NMFS 2009c) 

3.3.11 Beluga Whale (Cook Inlet Stock) 

Beluga whales are divided into five stocks: Cook Inlet, Bristol Bay, eastern Bearing Sea, eastern 

Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea (NMFS 2009g). The Cook Inlet stock of beluga whales was 

listed under the ESA as endangered in 2008 (73 FR 62919). The stock was also determined to 

be depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (NMFS 2009g). 

53
 
 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Species range 

As a species, beluga whales are circumpolar in distribution and inhabiting subarctic and Arctic 

waters. In Alaska, the known range of beluga extends from Yakutat to the Alaska/Canada 

border in the Beaufort Sea. Beluga whales generally occur in shallow, coastal waters, often in 

water barely deep enough to cover their bodies (Ridgway and Harrison 1981). Some beluga 

whale populations make long range seasonal migrations (Richard et al. 2001; Suydam et al. 

2001), while others remain in relatively small areas year round. The Cook Inlet beluga whale is 

geographically isolated and a genetically differentiated population of beluga whales. In Cook 

Inlet, belugas remain year-round (Hobbs et al. 2005), 

Both scientific research and traditional knowledge from Native Alaskan hunters report beluga 

whale movements follow prey distribution. For instance, the movements of belugas within upper 

Cook Inlet coincide with anadromous fish migrations; they often aggregate near the mouths of 

rivers and streams where salmon runs occur. The data show that in summer and early fall, 

whales traveled back and forth between Knik Arm (Eagle River), Chickaloon Bay (Chickaloon 

River), and upper Turnagain Arm, although some whales also spent time offshore in the mid 

Inlet (Hobbs et al. 2005). In the fall, belugas began dispersing into the coastal areas of the mid 

Inlet as far as Trading, Tuxedni, and Chinitna Bays. In winter, belugas moved offshore with 

locations distributed throughout the upper and mid Inlet, including Knik and Turnagain Arms 

despite greater than 90 percent ice coverage (Hobbs et al. 2005). 

The timing and location of eulachon and salmon runs have a strong influence on belugas’ spring 

and summer movements. Beluga whales are regularly sighted in the upper Inlet beginning in 

late April or early May, coinciding with eulachon runs in the Susitna River and Twenty Mile River 

in Turnagain Arm. In Knik Arm, beluga whales are generally observed arriving in May, but tend 

to concentrate near the Susitna Delta in summer, feeding on the various salmon runs. Belugas 

also use the smaller streams along the west side of the Inlet, following first the eulachon and 

king salmon runs and later in the summer the coho salmon runs. During late summer and fall 

belugas use the streams on the west side of Cook Inlet from the Susitna River delta south to 

Chinitna Bay (NMFS 2008). 

More data is currently available regarding the fall and winter location of belugas in Cook Inlet. 

Intensive use of Knik Arm by belugas occurs in the fall coinciding with the coho salmon run. 

Beluga whales regularly gather in Eagle Bay andelsewhere on the east side of Knik Arm, and 

sometimes in Goose Bay on the weside of Knik Arm. Satellite data showed tagged whales used 

Knik and Turnagain Arm for much of the tracked time, venturing as far south as Redoubt Bay 

(October), Kalgin Island (January), and East Foreland (December-January) (Hobbs et al. 2005). 

Critical habitat 

Critical habitat has not been designated for the beluga whale. 

Life history and ecology 

Beluga whales are small, toothed whales with adults ranging in size from 12 to14 feet. Calves 

are born dark gray to brownish-gray with the color lightening to a yellow-white in adulthood. 

Reports of sexual maturity vary from 4 to 10 years for females and 8 to 15 years for males 

(NMFS 2008). Calves are born in late spring and early summer, usually in the summer 

concentration areas following a 14-month gestation period (NMFS 2008). Adult females typically 

54
 
 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

produce offspring once every 3 years. Members of the Cook Inlet stock have been observed 

calving in the Kachemak Bay, off the mouths of the Beluga and Susitna Rivers, and in the 

Turnagin arm (NMFS 2008). 

Belugas are social and are frequently observed in groups ranging in size from two to five to 

pods of more than 100 individuals. They are known to vocalize using grunts, clicks, chirps, and 

whistles to navigate, find prey and communicate. During summer months, they are often found 

in shallow waters and feed on schooling and anadromous fish including herring, capelin, 

eulachon, salmon and sculpins (NMFS 2008). They are also known to eat octopus, squid, crabs, 

shrimp clams, mussels and sandworms; belugas appear to have greater feeding success in 

areas with dense concentrations of prey (NMFS 2008). 

Population trends and risks 

NMFS stock assessment reports estimate the combined population of the five beluga whale 

stocks in U.S. waters at over 60,000 individuals (NMFS 2009g). NMFS reports that the 

population trends for the Beaufort Sea and Eastern Bering Sea stocks are 40,000 and 18,000 

individuals, respectively; these two stocks account for over 90 percent of the estimated 

population of beluga whales in U.S. waters (NMFS 2009g). The population of the Eastern 

Chukchi stock consisting of 3,710 individuals shows no evidence of decline and NMFS 

considers the population of the Bristol Bay stock (1,600) to be stable to increasing (NMFS 

2009g). On the basis of the range of numbers reported, NMFS estimates that the population in 

the mid-1980s was between 1,000 to 1,300 individuals. Population trend analyses conducted on 

the Cook Inlet stock between June 1994 and June 1998 showed a 47 percent decline in the 

population had occurred during the time period (NMFS 2008). 

Subsequent investigations assessed natural and human-induced sources of potential impacts 

that included: 

• Habitat capacity and environmental change 

• Stranding events 

• Predation 

• Subsistence harvest 

• Commercial fishing 

• Oil and gas development 

The investigations concluded that subsistence harvests presented the most immediate threat to 

the stock. Although NMFS found that other potential sources of impact could have some 

negative effect on recovery, subsistence harvest was considered the most significant factor for 

decline of the species (NMFS 2009g). Population surveys since the imposition of mandatory 

and voluntary restrictions on subsistence harvests in 1999 show no clear trend and no indication 

that the population is increasing (NMFS 2009g). 

As a result, NMFS developed the Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas) in 2008 to establish goals and objectives that can be achieved 

cooperatively to promote the recovery of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population. The goals and 

objectives apply to a range of potential sources of impacts including those identified above as 

well as shoreline development, vessel traffic, and noise. 

55
 
 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

3.4 AMPHIBIANS 

3.4.1 Leatherback Sea Turtle 

The leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) has been designated as endangered since 

June 2, 1970 (FR 25 (106): 8491-8499). 

Species range 

Leatherback turtles are widely distributed throughout the world’s oceans (NMFS 2009d). In the 

Pacific Ocean, they range as far north as Alaska and as far south as Chile and New Zealand. In 

Alaska, leatherback turtles are found in the Copper River Delta (60°34'N, 145°38'W) and as far 

west as the Aleutian Islands (Hodge 1979, Stinson 1984). Leatherbacks are commonly known 

as pelagic animals that forage in coastal waters and the most migratory and wide ranging of sea 

turtle species (NMFS 2009d). 

Critical habitat 

Critical habitat for leatherback sea turtles does not include their Alaska range. 

Life history and ecology 

Adult leatherback turtles are the largest sea turtles in the world. They have a shell length of 

1.6m and a mass of 700kg, and females reach sexual maturity at an estimated age of 13-14 

years of age .They live for more than 30 years (Zug and Parham 1996). Leatherbacks must 

surface to breathe and can stay submerged for two hours and dive to 1,000m. Males do not 

leave the ocean, but females come ashore on open, sandy beaches to dig nests and lay eggs. 

Nestlings emerge from the sand at night and attempt to make their way to the sea. Minimal 

information is known about the distribution and natural history of these young turtles after they 

leave their natal beaches (EPA 2006). 

Population trends and risks 

The Pacific Ocean leatherback population is typically smaller than leatherbacks in the Atlantic 

Ocean. Due to adult female leatherbacks frequently nesting on different beaches, nesting 

population estimates and trends are difficult to monitor. In the Pacific, the World Conservation 

Union (WCN) notes that most leatherback nesting populations have declined more than 80%. In 

other areas of the leatherback's range, observed declines in nesting populations are not as 

severe, and some population trends have become stable or are increasing (NMFS 2009d). 

Leatherback turtles face threats on nesting beaches and in the marine environment. The 

greatest causes of decline and the continuing primary threats to leatherbacks worldwide are 

long-term harvest and incidental capture in fishing gear. Harvest of eggs and adults occurs on 

nesting beaches while juveniles and adults are harvested on feeding grounds (NMFS 2009d). 

3.4.2 Loggerhead Sea Turtle 

The loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) has been designated as threatened since July 28, 

1978 (FR 43 (146): 32800-32812). 

56
 
 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Species range 

Loggerhead sea turtles are widely located throughout the world’s oceans, inhabiting continental 

shelves, bays, estuaries, and lagoons in temperate, subtropical, and tropical waters (Dodd 

1990). While they range as far north as Alaska and as far south as Chile in the Pacific, the only 

documented sighting from Alaskan waters was of a single stranded juvenile loggerhead turtle 

near Kodiak Island (Bane 1992). Loggerheads are rarely encountered in U.S. Pacific waters 

(EPA 2006). 

Critical habitat 

No critical habitat has been designated for loggerhead sea turtles. 

Life history and ecology 

Adult loggerhead sea turtles normally weigh between 220-330 pounds and have a shell length 

of approximately 3 feet. Females reach sexual maturity between 12-30 years of age. Males do 

not leave the ocean, but females come ashore on open, sandy beaches to dig nests and lay 

eggs. Nestlings emerge from the sand at night and attempt to make their way to the sea. 

Minimal information is known about the distribution and natural history of these young turtles 

after they leave their natal beaches (EPA 2006). 

3.4.3 Green Sea Turtle 

The green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)) has been designated as threatened since July 28, 1978 

(FR 43 (146): 32800-32812). 

Species range 

Green sea turtles are found in warm seas worldwide. Individual sightings of green sea turtles 

have been reported from Ucluelet Inlet, British Columbia, and Homer, Alaska (NMFS and 

USFWS 1998, Stebbins 1966). In 1996, a live, cold-stunned east Pacific green sea turtle was 

recovered from Prince William Sound, Alaska (NMFS and USFWS 1998). No nesting is known 

to occur in U.S. Pacific waters. 

Critical habitat 

Critical habitat for green sea turtles does not include their Alaska range. 

Life history and ecology 

Green sea turtles primarily use three types of habitat: - oceanic beaches (for nesting), 

convergence zones in the open ocean, and benthic feeding grounds in coastal areas. Adult 

females migrate from foraging areas to mainland or island nesting beaches and may travel 

hundreds or thousands of kilometers each way. After emerging from the nest, hatchlings swim 

to offshore areas, where it is believed they live for several years, feeding close to the surface on 

a variety of pelagic plants and animals. Once the juveniles reach a certain age/size range, they 

leave the pelagic habitat and travel to nearshore foraging grounds. Once they move to these 

57
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

nearshore benthic habitats, adult green sea turtles are predominantly herbivores feeding on sea 

grasses and algae (NMFS 2009e). 

Population trends and risks 

The principal cause of the historical, worldwide decline of green sea turtles is long-term harvest 

of eggs and adults on nesting beaches as well as juveniles and adults on feeding grounds. 

These harvests continue in some areas of the world and compromise efforts to recover this 

species. Incidental capture in fishing gear, primarily in gillnets, but also in trawls, traps, and 

pots, longlines, and dredges is a serious ongoing source of mortality that also adversely affects 

the species' recovery (NMFS 2009e). 

58
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 

This section describes the relevant resources and baseline conditions present in the project 

area that would be affected by or might affect the proposed action (reissuance of a NPDES 

general permit). 

4.1 WATER QUALITY 

Because of Alaska’s size, sparse population, and its remote character, the vast majority of 

Alaska’s water resources are in pristine condition. More than 99.9% of Alaska’s waters are 

considered unimpaired. With more than 3 million lakes, 714,004 miles of streams and rivers, 

36,000 miles of coastline, and approximately 176,863,000 acres of freshwater and tidal 

wetlands, less than 0.1% of Alaska’s vast water resources have been identified as impaired 

(ADEC 2006b). 

This permit covers seafood processor facilities within federal waters 3nm or more from shore. 

These vessels will be discharging into waters at least 60 feet deep (MLLW) with adequate 

flushing in areas of high tidal activity. Since these waters are not listed as impaired, there will 

be no facilities discharging into impaired waters. 

59
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

5.0. EFFECTS ANALYSIS 

This section describes the potential impacts of discharges from offshore seafood 

processors in Alaska covered under general permit AK-G52-4000. 

While EPA has assessed a wide range of resources, the focus is on water quality and 

impacts to threatened and endangered species because these resources are the most 

susceptible to being impacted by the proposed action. 

The major components of seafood processing wastes are blood, tissue, liquids, meat, 

viscera, oil and grease, shells, and bones. Except for the bones and shells, which are 

highly biodegradable, the wastes are primarily organic matter. Major pollutants consist 

of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), solids (sediments and residues), oil and grease, 

and nutrients. These major pollutants are all considered conventional and of a non-toxic 

nature. Smaller concentrations of chlorine and ammonia may also be present in seafood 

processor wastes. Potential adverse impacts on receiving water quality resulting from 

seafood processor wastes include reduction in water column dissolved oxygen (DO) due 

to the decay of particulate and soluble waste matter; the release of toxic levels of sulfide 

and ammonia from decaying waste; nutrient enrichment and stimulation of phytoplankton 

growth and alteration of the phytoplankton community; and the accumulation of waste 

solids and fish oils on the water surface, shorelines, and the bottom. All of these water 

quality impacts subsequently affect the biological communities present in the area of the 

discharge. 

In general, impacts of seafood processing wastes on receiving water quality are 

inversely related to the assimilative properties of the receiving waters. In areas with 

strong currents and high tidal ranges, assimilation is high, waste materials disperse 

rapidly, and there is little impact on water quality. In areas of quieter waters, assimilation 

is lower, and waste materials can accumulate, resulting in solid waste piles, dissolved 

oxygen depressions, and associated aesthetic problems (EPA 1994a). Based on the 

analysis of the impact of BOD and sediments (the primary pollutants in seafood 

processing discharge) discussed in the following sections, EPA finds that offshore 

seafood processing discharge, occurring in waters more than 3 nm from shore, is 

unlikely to cause significant adverse effects to water quality in Alaska. The water quality 

impacts of individual pollutants from seafood processor wastes are discussed below. 

5.1 Impacts Associated with Solid Seafood Process Wastes 

During discharge of seafood processing waste, biological impacts are most likely to 

occur as a result of the discharge of seafood waste particulates (both direct and indirect 

effects). The following discussion briefly presents the different potential effects of 

discharges on biota including burial and habitat modification, the alteration of sediment 

composition, and the chemistry associated with the decomposition of the waste solids. 

5.1.1 Burial and Habitat Modification 

Disposal of seafood waste solids will have the greatest impact on less mobile benthic 

organisms such as polychaetes and bivalves, and on demersal fish eggs that cannot 

move away from the accumulating waste. The following section discusses the nature of 

the solid waste deposition and potential impacts to benthos and demersal eggs. 

60
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Settling of seafood discharges on the seafloor occurs at varying rates according to the 

size of the particles. Once settled, these particles can form organic mats or thick waste 

piles that can smother the underlying substrate and benthic communities within it. Some 

waste piles have been recorded to rise 40 feet or more above the seafloor (ADEC, 

1998). The degradation of this organic material occurs at varying rates according to 

different characteristics of the discharge area (i.e. biological, physical, and chemical 

factors). In one study where salmon waste was widely distributed, the waste was 

completely absent within 33 days following discharge and no adverse effects on 

dissolved oxygen concentrations were noted (Stevens and Haaga 1994). The 

accumulation of these deposits in some areas indicates that the rate of discharge 

exceeds the assimilation capacity of some water bodies and more specifically, the 

assimilation capacity of the benthic community and other aquatic life that metabolize this 

material. Discharges covered under the proposed permit are for mobile offshore vessels 

in areas of good flushing which should limit the accumulation of seafood discharges on 

the seafloor. ADEC has assumed that if discharge limits are adhered to, the effects on 

aquatic biota should be minimal. 

Seafood processing industry representatives met with ADEC and EPA and questioned 

the environmental benefit of the permit effluent limit requiring grind size of 0.5 inches in 

all dimensions. The effluent limit was established based on the EPA’s national effluent 

limitation guidelines. ADEC initiated a research project to look at the impacts of 

discharge of seafood waste. One component of this research was to evaluate seafood 

solid waste impacts on the benthos (Germano and Associates, 2004). 

The intent of this study was to see what the impacts are to the surrounding benthos and 

benthic community from seafood solid wastes deposited in a ZOD. The impacts were 

evaluated using a Sediment Profile Imaging (SPI) camera. The SPI camera takes an 

image of the top few inches of sediment. Aquatic life within the sediments was also 

collected for analysis using a Van Veen grab device. The SPI camera showed where 

seafood wastes made the sediments anoxic and methane producing with the presence 

of sulfur-producing bacteria, Beggiatoa, indicating anoxic conditions. 

For two adjacent processors with relatively small, active discharges located 

approximately 600 feet apart, the visual ZODs were 0.34 and 0.21 acres. However, the 

area of Beggiatoa was approximately 6.0 to 7.4 acres. The presence of Beggiatoa 

indicates reduced oxygen in the sediments and an adverse effect to the benthos and 

benthic community outside of the ZOD. Other measures for adverse effects include 

numbers and kinds of species present. 

Immediately adjacent to the smaller active piles are where both fish and crab forage. 

The diversity of benthic species was less within the first 200 feet of the periphery of the 

ZOD compared to the diversity observed in a distant control site. However, the few 

opportunistic species that existed in the vicinity of the ZOD occurred in great numbers. 

At approximately 500 feet or more from the periphery of the active piles more of the 

normal resident species were recorded and the overall abundance of the opportunistic 

species was less. The study determined that normal resident species population levels 

and diversity did not occur until 1,500 feet or more down-current of the periphery of the 

waste piles. 

Two other seafood processors evaluated had larger discharges and inactive waste piles 

greater than 1 acre in size. Very little to no solid waste discharges had occurred for the 

2 years preceeding the study. These discharges occurred approximately 1,000 feet 

61
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

apart. In this case, the Beggiatoa were observed in 2.8 and 0.5 acres around each 

waste pile respectively. The areas of reduced oxygen due to Beggiatoa were 

significantly smaller for the inactive waste piles than for the active waste piles. From 

these results, the authors of the study conclude that biota in sediments may revert to 

natural conditions within 5-10 years after the cessation of seafood waste disposal 

(Germano and Associates, 2004). 

As stated above, seafood processing wastes can form organic mats within the ZOD, 

depending on the amount discharged and the biological, chemical, and physical factors 

affecting decomposition and dispersion of the waste. Depending on the depth of burial, 

deposits can make the substrate inhospitable, or influence the species composition 

favoring opportunistic organisms that may out-compete the normal fauna. Algal blooms 

caused by high nitrogen concentrations can also alter habitat by smothering benthic 

substrates when they die, and by reducing the available water column or surface aquatic 

habitat for visual predators, including birds. 

However, the discharges covered in this permit are for mobile offshore processors 

discharging at least 3 nm from shore and are unlikely to discharge in one location for 

extended periods. The discharges will occur in areas with good flushing which will 

disperse the seafood wastes. In addition, ZODs are not allowed in this permit. 

Therefore, it is expected that deposition of seafood deposits on the seafloor should be 

minimal and result in temporary effects to the aquatic biota. 

5.1.2 Effects of Deposited Solids 

Many benthic invertebrates are relatively sedentary and sensitive to environmental 

disturbance and pollutants. Short- and long-term effects of seafood waste on benthic 

invertebrates are expected to include temporary smothering of biota, especially by 

ground particulates in the area near the discharge. Deposition could potentially reduce 

and possibly eliminate abundances of infaunal benthos such as polychaetes, mollusks, 

and crustaceans, and may affect demersal eggs of various benthic species and fish. The 

greatest impact would be expected down current along the plume’s median axis. 

Little information is presently available concerning the direct effects of various deposition 

depths on benthic communities. Most studies that have investigated deposition impacts 

on benthos have examined deposition of dredged materials (Hale 1972; Kranz 1974; 

Mauer et al. 1978; Oliver and Slattery 1973; Saila et al. 1972; Schafer 1972; Wilber 

1992). These studies indicate that the response to deposition and survival following such 

an event is species-specific. Of the species examined, burial depths from which 

organisms were able to migrate to the surface ranged from 0.4 to 12.6 in (1 to 32 cm). If 

it is assumed that most benthos are not adversely affected by deposition of seafood 

waste less than 0.4 in (1 cm), benthos in the vicinity of the discharge receiving 

deposition in excess of this amount are likely to be adversely impacted. Seafood solids 

are highly organic material and the decomposition of this material may lead to other 

impacts on benthos related to localized depression of dissolved oxygen. As noted in 

Section 5.1.1, these effects have been observed in the water column beyond the 

boundaries of the ZOD. If it is assumed that solids deposition of greater than 0.4 in (1 

cm) depth represents an “adverse impact” to benthos, solids deposition should be less 

than 1 cm (0.4 in) to avoid potential adverse impacts to benthic organisms. 

62
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

However, as the discharges covered in this permit are for mobile offshore processors 

discharging at least 3 nm from shore and which discharge in areas with adequate 

flushing and depths of 60 feet (MLLW), it is expected that deposition of seafood deposits 

on the seafloor should be minimal and result in temporary effects to the aquatic biota. 

5.1.3 Alteration of Sediment 

Alteration of sediment characteristics is expected to impact the benthic community 

structure more subtly, but at greater distances from the point of discharge, than 

smothering. Benthos would be the group of organisms most affected by changes in the 

sediment, but other organisms may be affected as well; impacts to benthic communities 

could also conceivably affect epibenthic and pelagic invertebrates, fish, birds, and 

mammals that rely on benthic invertebrates for food. 

The general changes in benthic community structure and function that occur under 

conditions of increasing organic enrichment of the sediments (such as occurs as a result 

of seafood waste discharges or municipal sewage effluent discharges) have been well 

documented (see Pearson and Rosenberg 1978 and Germano & Associates 2004). 

Slight to moderate enrichment results in slight increases in numbers of individuals and 

biomass of benthic communities, while species composition remains essentially 

unchanged. As enrichment increases, the overall abundance of benthic organisms 

increases however, there is a corresponding decrease in the number of species as the 

less tolerant species are eliminated. In more extreme cases and those near the center of 

deposition areas associated with active stationary seafood processing waste discharges, 

only a relatively small number of species adapted to disturbed environments and/or high 

organic content may colonize the location. When the enrichment levels are optimal for 

those few species, they become extremely abundant, and overwhelmingly dominate the 

benthic community. Biomass generally decreases however, because many of these 

opportunistic species are very small. 

These changes in benthic community variables are accompanied by a progressive 

reduction in the depth of the oxygenated surficial sediment layer, and changes in the 

predominant trophic groups of benthic organisms. Mixed assemblages, or assemblages 

dominated by suspension feeders, are first replaced by assemblages dominated by 

surface deposit feeders, and then replaced by assemblages dominated by subsurface 

deposit feeders. Under very highly enriched conditions, such as those that exist within 

active waste piles generated by seafood waste discharges, the sediments become 

anoxic and macrobenthic organisms may be entirely absent. 

The absence of benthic organisms has been documented by divers on several seafood 

waste piles in Alaskan coastal waters during compliance diver surveys conducted by 

USEPA and others. In a study of a major seafood processor in Akutan, Alaska, USEPA 

(1984b) documented those anoxic conditions in the sediments producing severe impacts 

to benthic infaunal communities that were confined to areas under seafood waste piles. 

These results were mirrored in later studies conducted by Germano & Associates 

(2004). It is typical for areas extending outward around the actual waste pile deposits 

ranging from approximately five to a few hundred meters from the edge of the pile to 

experience lesser impacts. These results were based on sediment chemical 

composition, visual inspection, and sampling of the benthic infauna communities. 

Characteristics of the benthic community around the discharge pile included low species 

richness, and dominance by polychaetes typically associated with high organic inputs 

and bottom disturbance (USEPA 1984b and Germano & Associates, 2004). 

63
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

The discharges covered in this permit are for mobile offshore processors discharging at 

least 3 nm from shore and which discharge in areas with adequate flushing that will 

allow for dispersion of seafood wastes and depths of 60 feet (MLLW). In addition, ZODs 

are not allowed in this permit. The dynamic environment and mobile facilities will make it 

unlikely that there will be significant deposition of seafood deposits on the seafloor. 

Therefore, waste piles should not accumulate and sediment alterations should be 

minimal. 

5.1.4 Decay of Solid Wastes 

As noted above, the decay of organic matter accumulations can effect chemical changes 

within the sediments and may lead to anoxic conditions within the waste pile. The decay 

of solid waste accumulations may also result in depletion of dissolved oxygen in the 

overlying water column and releases of potentially toxic decay byproducts like unionized 

ammonia and undissociated hydrogen sulfide. Again, benthic communities and demersal 

eggs would be directly adversely affected by anoxic conditions within the waste pile. 

Most infauna would either migrate out of the area or be killed as a result of the lack of 

oxygen. Anoxic conditions are expected to destroy any demersal eggs that might be 

present. A few species may be able to survive within the thin upper sediment layer of the 

waste pile (e.g., Capirella spp.). Since ambient waters containing abundant dissolved 

oxygen rapidly mix with the affected waters, reductions of dissolved oxygen 

concentrations throughout the overlaying water column are not expected, nor are 

significant impacts to mobile marine organisms. Any areas of reduced dissolved oxygen 

above a waste pile would be expected to be small and would be avoided or quickly 

passed through by mobile organisms. 

Releases of potentially toxic decay byproducts like hydrogen sulfide and methane also 

have the potential to impact marine organisms in the vicinity of the waste pile. However, 

as with impacts related to depressed oxygen conditions, the potential for impacts in the 

water column is very slight due to the rapid mixing. 

Judging from impacts observed in other areas, the magnitude of the observed impact 

from decaying organic wastes depends on the total area receiving organic waste 

deposits, the depth of deposition, the difference between native sediments and 

deposited waste, the degree to which the deposits are anaerobic, and the length of time 

during which detectable changes in sediment composition occur. Existing data 

summarized from other areas indicate that impacts may occur, but are likely to be 

localized. The greatest effect is expected in the area under the waste pile. It is unlikely 

that sediment alteration from seafood processors in offshore areas will significantly 

impact populations of benthos since these areas normally have high tidal activity that 

should disperse the discharges and are unlikely to develop waste piles. Any persistent 

waste pile is a violation of the permit. 

Indirect impacts could also occur with respect to ecosystem interrelationships resulting 

from behavioral changes, but these would be difficult to observe and correlate with 

seafood waste disposal. For example, altered sediment composition may inhibit larval 

recruitment or feeding and survival of individual benthic species in some areas, resulting 

in subtle changes in species composition. 

The discharges covered in this permit are for mobile offshore processors discharging at 

least 3 nm from shore and which discharge in areas with adequate flushing that will 

64
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

allow for dispersion of seafood wastes and depths of 60 feet (MLLW). In addition, ZODs 

are not allowed in this permit. The dynamic environment and mobile facilities will make it 

unlikely that there will be significant deposition of seafood deposits on the seafloor. 

Therefore, waste piles should not accumulate and the anoxic conditions that allow for 

toxic gas release should be minimized. 

5.1.5 Cumulative Impacts of Solids Deposition 

Impacts from any individual seafood processing facility discharging in compliance with 

the requirements of the proposed permit are likely to be localized. Although benthic 

organisms may be smothered or community composition altered in localized areas, 

these potential effects should be minimal as the permit requires that the seafood 

processor facilities be located in waters at least 60 feet deep (MLLW) with adequate 

flushing for dispersion of the seafood wastes. Therefore, the benthic communities in 

Alaskan coastal waters would not be expected to be significantly impacted. Additionally, 

this permit does not allow for ZODs. To further address the potential for cumulative 

impacts from numerous facilities, specific general permits have been developed for 

facilities operating in the Pribilof Islands and Kodiak Island. 

Impacts from toxicity due to anoxic conditions and changes in community structure could 

occur but should be limited as disposal of seafood wastes in areas of good flushing 

should disperse wastes and minimize the potential for large waste piles. Although more 

complete knowledge would be of value in assessing the magnitude and significance of 

cumulative environmental impact, available data indicate that unreasonable degradation 

is not likely to occur in areas of adequate dispersion and dilution (e.g., USEPA 1984a 

and Germano & Associates, 2004). As stated previously, the mobile offshore 

processors covered in the proposed permit would be expected to be in high tidal areas 

with adequate dispersion and dilution where the seafood discharges are not expected to 

significantly accumulate and effects should be minimal. 

5.1.6 Indirect Effects through Food Supply Reduction 

The quantity of benthic organisms preyed upon by other species could be reduced in the 

area of the discharge if benthos migrate from the area, or experience increased mortality 

or decreased recruitment, through smothering, toxicity, or alteration of sediment grain 

size characteristics. Issues affecting temporal or spatial extent of such impacts are 

discussed by USEPA (1984a). The permit requires seafood processors to discharge 

wastes in areas that are 60 feet deep (MLLW) with adequate flushing to minimize 

accumulation of seafood wastes on the seafloor, minimizing the potential for smothering 

or toxicity to benthos. Therefore, the degree of food supply reduction caused by 

discharges of seafood waste would be minimal. 

5.2 Exposure to Suspended Solids 

Within this region, zooplankton and fish larvae near the discharge may experience 

temporary effects including altered respiratory or feeding ability due to stress, or 

clogging of gills and feeding apparatus. Phytoplankton entrained in the discharge plume 

may have reduced productivity due to decreased light availability. However, such 

potential impacts may be offset in the farfield by increases in nutrient concentrations. 

These impacts should result in negligible impacts to populations in the region, as 

impacts should be restricted to the immediate vicinity of the discharge. Mobile 

invertebrates, fish, birds, and mammals presumably will avoid the discharge plume if 

conditions become stressful. However, biota may also be attracted to the discharge 

65
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

plume to feed on the discharged particulates. Secondary impacts associated with 

attraction are discussed in Section 5.4. Infaunal or sessile organisms near the discharge 

are not likely to be impacted by the suspended solids. 

In addition to potential chemical and physical alterations of the water column and 

benthos, seafood processing residues can cause some aesthetic and physical effects on 

the water surface that could impair existing or designated uses. For example, 

depending on water currents, presence and severity of storms, and other factors, 

residue material, may wash up on nearby shorelines impairing aesthetic quality as well 

as creating an undesirable attraction of nuisance species and predators. In addition, 

seafood processing residues can form a surface layer of scum, foam, or fine particles 

that could present a physical barrier preventing dissolved oxygen re-aeration, block light 

to the water column, deter avian feeding, and create an aesthetically undesirable 

condition. Such effects could also attract nuisance species and unwanted predators that 

would impair beneficial uses. 

The permit requires that seafood processors discharge waste at least 3 nm from shore in 

areas 60 feet deep (MLLW) with adequate flushing. In addition, seafood processors are 

prohibited from discharging waste within 1 mn of critical habitat of the listed eider 

species and 3 nm from rookeries or haulouts of Steller sea lions. Discharging wastes in 

areas away from critical habitat as well as in areas of high tidal activity to disperse the 

wastes and should minimize the potential for accumulation of seafood waste to become 

an attractant to listed species as well as minimize the potential for residues from seafood 

wastes to wash up on shore. 

5.3 Liquid Seafood Process Wastes 

Liquid seafood processing discharges includes two waste streams, one directly 

associated with the seafood waste and the other associated with ancillary operations 

whose wastewaters do not come in contact with seafood waste. Liquid seafood 

processing wastes contain soluble materials that include soluble oxygen demanding 

substances (i.e., BOD), nutrients and oil and grease. These discharges may also 

contain disinfectants, including ammonia and chlorine which may produce direct toxic 

effects. Liquid discharges that are not directly associated with seafood processing 

activity and that do not come into direct contact with seafood waste (e.g., bailwater, 

cooling water, boiler water, etc.) are generally not expected to impact marine organisms 

because they are considered to be non-toxic, do not contain significant amounts of 

oxygen demanding substances and nutrients, or in the case of soluble sanitary wastes, 

are treated prior to discharge. The potential impacts to marine organisms due to the 

discharge of substances with elevated BOD, nutrients, and disinfectants are discussed 

below. 

5.3.1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand/Dissolved Oxygen 

DO is a key element in water that is necessary to support aquatic life. DO is depleted 

during the breakdown of “oxygen-demanding” substances such as organic matter and 

ammonia. These substances are usually destroyed or converted to other compounds by 

bacteria if there is sufficient oxygen present in the water; however, DO needed to sustain 

fish life may be consumed in this breakdown process. 

DO depletion caused by decomposition of organic matter or nitrification of ammonia is 

sometimes measured as BOD. BOD is a measure of the amount of oxygen consumed 

by the respiration of microorganisms while feeding on decomposing organic material. 

66
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Organic seafood wastes can exert a large BOD in receiving waters. The impact of BOD 

on water quality is particularly influenced by the dispersive capacities of the receiving 

water. In areas of low flushing, BOD from seafood processing effluent may depress DO 

to unacceptable levels (Ahumada et al. 2004). Conversely, studies have found little 

impact of BOD in areas with highly dynamic water regimes (Gates et al. 1985). 

In areas of high BOD loads and low flushing, it is possible to reach conditions where DO 

in the water is totally exhausted, resulting in anaerobic conditions and the production of 

undesirable gases such as hydrogen sulfide and methane (Ahumada et al. 2004). 

Emission of these gases has been observed in seafood processing centers (e.g., Dutch 

Harbor) in sufficient quantities to form bubbles and cause skin and eye irritation to divers 

(EPA 2005b). Water with high BOD also has the potential for increased bacterial 

concentrations that degrade water quality (EPA 2005b). High BOD loads coupled with 

low dispersive capability may cause low DO concentrations or the complete absence of 

DO, which can be lethal to marine organisms. 

The proposed permit does not allow discharge in areas of low flushing and since 

offshore processor vessels are expected to be in highly dynamic water, it is expected the 

discharges covered under the proposed permit would have little impact on BOD. In 

general, the coastal waters of Alaska are well oxygenated and provide a considerable 

buffer for the assimilation of soluble organic wastes. In areas of restricted circulation or 

relatively low ambient dissolved oxygen concentrations resulting from natural processes, 

the potential for adverse effects on marine organisms from depletion of dissolved oxygen 

is increased. Nonetheless, modeling studies presented in the ODCE indicate that typical 

seafood discharges to well-oxygenated open coastal waters or semi-enclosed 

embayments will not likely result in impairment due to dissolved oxygen except as noted 

above at the interface of the sediment and the water column. 

5.3.2 Nutrients and Dissolved Oxygen 

Excessive nutrients can cause a multitude of problems in coastal areas including 

eutrophication, harmful algal blooms, fish kills, shellfish poisonings, loss of seagrass and 

kelp beds, coral reef destruction, and reduced DO. As stated above, nitrogen is a 

common pollutant found in seafood processing waste. Nitrogen is known to be 

particularly damaging to bays and coastal seas by boosting primary production (the 

production of algae). With excessive amounts of nitrogen, the growth of algae and 

denitrifying bacteria increases making the water more turbid. As the algae die and 

decompose, dissolved oxygen is depleted from the surrounding water if there is 

insufficient mixing or other re-aeration mechanisms present (Howarth et al., 2000; 

Novatec, 1994). High levels of living algae can also lead to depletions in oxygen over 

the nighttime hours due to their oxygen consumption during this time period. Low 

dissolved oxygen levels can cause direct mortality of organisms, or reduced efficiency of 

physiological processes (e.g. food processing, growth). These changes in nutrients, 

light, and oxygen, favor some species over others causing shifts in phytoplankton, 

zooplankton, and benthic communities (Howarth et al. 2000). In particular, animals that 

rely directly or indirectly on seagrass beds could be affected by algal blooms caused by 

excessive nutrients. 

Unlike solid residues, nutrients are water soluble and can therefore be transported 

beyond areas of heavy deposition unless assimilated by aquatic life, sorbed to 

sediments, or released to the atmosphere (denitrification and volatilization of nitrogen). 

67
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Insufficient dilution or mixing of transported nutrients could conceivably affect other 

locations. 

There have been no analyses of nutrient enrichment impacts in Alaska and it is unknown 

what nutrient-related effects have occurred from seafood processing discharges. 

Seafood discharges from offshore vessels are expected to occur in areas adequate 

dispersion and dilution so that nutrient-related effects from seafood processing 

discharges should be minimal. 

5.3.3 Enhanced Productivity 

Because phytoplankton form the base of the food chain, impacts to the phytoplankton 

community could have significant effects on the marine ecosystem as a whole (Legendre 

1990). Although enhanced phytoplankton growth would not necessarily be an adverse 

effect since phytoplankton form the base of the marine food chain, a large increase in 

phytoplankton standing crop or changes in species composition, particularly to toxic 

species, could have adverse effects on dissolved oxygen concentrations, aesthetic water 

quality, other marine organisms, and humans. 

Several factors control the rate of phytoplankton productivity and the accumulation of 

algal biomass. These include temperature, light intensity, mixing depth, and the supply 

of other nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, silica, and a number of other essential 

elements (e.g., iron, manganese, zinc, copper, and cobalt). Other factors influencing 

phytoplankton productivity and biomass that are still poorly understood include inhibitory 

and stimulatory substances such as vitamin B12 and chelating agents (Aubert 1990; 

United Nations 1990). Factors influencing changes in phytoplankton community 

composition are also poorly understood, but are generally related to adaptations of 

certain species to specific combinations of the factors identified above. For example, 

diatoms (a group of marine and freshwater algae) appear to be favored when available 

nutrient concentrations (especially silica) are high and turbulent water column mixing is 

adequate to maintain these algae in the upper water column layer where light is 

available. An additional factor that controls the biomass and species composition of 

phytoplankton is the grazing activity of zooplankton that may feed selectively on certain 

species of phytoplankton. 

The potential for adverse impacts of nutrient discharges from seafood processing 

facilities would necessarily depend on whether the amount of nitrogen or phosphorus 

available limit phytoplankton growth in the vicinity of the discharge or if other influencing 

factors contained in the waste discharge could significantly influence phytoplankton 

production. Other relevant factors to consider include water exchange, mixing depth, 

zooplankton grazing activity, and the depth of light penetration in the water column. 

These variables make it difficult to predict the potential impact of nutrient rich waste 

discharges from seafood processors on Alaskan marine phytoplankton communities. 

However, impacts are most likely to occur in relatively shallow areas of restricted water 

circulation where nitrogen or phosphorus limitation of phytoplankton growth occurs. 

Therefore, discharges to relatively well-flushed offshore areas, as required in this permit, 

have a lower potential to cause enhanced phytoplankton growth and biomass. 

5.3.4 Alterations in Phytoplankton Species Composition/Toxic Phytoplankton 

Alterations in phytoplankton species composition is another potential impact of nutrient 

rich discharges on marine phytoplankton. Concerns regarding alterations in 

phytoplankton community composition are related to indirect effects resulting from 

68
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

increasing the populations of phytoplankton species that may produce adverse effects 

on marine organisms and humans. Effects produced by some phytoplankton species 

include physical damage to marine organisms (e.g., diatom species of Chaetoceros that 

have caused mortality of penned salmon), toxic effects to marine organisms (e.g., a 

raphidophyte flagellate species of Hererosigma), and toxic effects to humans due to the 

concentration of algal toxins in marine fish and shellfish [e.g., Paralytic Shellfish 

Poisoning (PSP), Diarrheic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP), Neurotoxic Shellfish Poisoning 

(NSP), Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning (ASP), and ciguatera] (Taylor 1990; Haigh and 

Taylor 1990). Concerns regarding toxic phytoplankton have been heightened in recent 

years due to suspicions that the frequency of toxic phytoplankton blooms has increased 

due to human activities, especially due to agricultural runoff and the discharge of 

municipal and industrial wastewater to marine coastal areas (Smayda 1990; Smayda 

and White 1990; United Nations 1990; Anderson 1989). 

Although there have been several reports linking mortalities of relatively large numbers 

of marine mammals (e.g., O'Shea et al. 1991; Anderson and White 1989; Geraci 1989; 

Geraci et al. 1989; Gilmartin et al. 1980), fish and shellfish (e.g., Cosper et al. 1990; 

Harper and Guillen 1989; Smayda and Fofonoff 1989), and aquatic plants (e.g., Cosper 

et al. 1990) to the occurrence of toxic phytoplankton in other parts of the U.S., no such 

episodes have been reported for the coastal waters of Alaska. The occurrence of 

human intoxication due to PSP has been recorded at locations in southeast Alaska 

(Sundstrom et al. 1990). PSP is caused by the consumption of shellfish that have 

concentrated toxins from an algae of the species Protogonyaulax (Shimizu 1989); 

however, direct links between the occurrence of PSP and eutrophication have not been 

established (Anderson 1989). Therefore, the linkage between PSP and seafood 

processing discharges, while possible, is tenuous. 

Although there is a potential for the discharge of seafood processing waste to cause 

localized changes in phytoplankton species composition, there are no known studies to 

verify that discharges of seafood processing wastes have produced toxic or harmful 

phytoplankton blooms. Similarly, while Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning has been 

documented in Southeast Alaska, there is currently no evidence suggesting a linkage 

with seafood processing discharges. Since this permit requires discharge of seafood 

wastes at least 3 nm from shore in areas with adequate flushing, the eutrophication 

which could potential lead to phytoplankton blooms should be minimal. 

5.3.5 Disinfectants/Residual Chlorine 

Soluble wastes from seafood processing discharges may contain residual 

concentrations of chlorine-based disinfectants. Residual chlorine and chlorine-produced 

oxidants have been shown to be toxic to marine organisms at relatively low 

concentrations (USEPA 2002; Thatcher 1980). Thatcher (1980) conducted 96-hr LC50 

continuous-flow bioassays on a number of species of fishes and invertebrates typical of 

the Pacific Northwest and determined that juvenile species of salmon were particularly 

sensitive. The lowest LC50 was determined for coho salmon (32 g/L). The State of 

Alaska has adopted chlorine standards for marine waters of 7.5 g/L (chronic) and 13 

g/L (acute) (ADEC, 2003). 

The reissued general permit retains the requirement to “not violate the Alaska Water 

Quality Standards at the edge of the mixing zone,” which includes the total residual 

chlorine standard of 7.5 g/L for salmonids. The proposed permit does not require 

residual chlorine monitoring at the edge of the mixing zone or end-of-pipe. While the 

69
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

permit requires development a best management practice (BMP), it does not specifically 

require that the plan include measures to minimize the use of chlorine-based or other 

toxic disinfectants or otherwise limit potential contamination of the discharge. As a 

result, it is unknown if the discharged chlorine concentrations from seafood processing 

operations result in exceedances of the chlorine water quality criteria outside of the 

mixing zone. 

5.4 Secondary Impacts Due To Seafood Processing Wastes 

Although a number of potential secondary impacts to marine organisms are outlined 

below, limited studies have been conducted to determine whether the potential impacts 

of seafood processing waste discharges occur. Most of the discussion of the potential 

secondary impacts of seafood processing discharges relies on personal communications 

from scientists and regulatory agency personnel familiar with seafood processing activity 

in Alaska. 

Potential secondary impacts of seafood waste discharges involve effects on marine 

mammals and birds due to their attraction to seafood waste discharges. Bacteria 

associated with the decaying seafood waste may also adversely impact marine 

mammals and birds. The potential indirect impacts resulting from eutrophication of 

marine waters have been previously discussed in Section 5.3.4. 

Seafood processing wastes that are commingled with sanitary wastewater also present 

a potential risk to aquatic species that forage the waste piles including seagulls and 

other birds that land on the plume and consume the waste. The proposed offshore 

seafood processor general permit does not prohibit commingling of seafood waste and 

sanitary wastewater that has been treated only using an MSD. The proposed permit 

also does not require monitoring to verify proper operation and performance of the 

MSDs and ensure that bacteria loadings from human sources are minimized in the 

discharges. However, the permit covers facilities located at least 3 nm from shore in 

areas of adequate flushing prohibiting discharges near critical habitat for the listed 

species. Therefore, it is expected tha seafood discharges will be rapidly dispersed 

minimizing the potential for attraction by species and minimizing potential interactions 

with other contaminants in the area. 

5.4.1 Attraction of Organisms to the Discharge 

The attraction of marine mammals to seafood waste discharges may make them easier 

prey for predators. There is anecdotal information from NMFS indicating a very strong 

attraction to offshore seafood processor facilities by sea lions. NMFS personnel 

observed a possible linkage of sea lion observations with fishing activity and fish 

processing (Thorne et al. 2006). Loughlin and York (2000) further cited that discharges 

from offshore seafood processing facilities attract both Steller sea lions and killer whales. 

These authors indicate that this results in increased predation above natural levels, 

although actual increases in mortality cannot be accurately quantified. 

Another potential secondary impact involves the development of dependence on an 

anthropogenic food supply that may result in the concentration and growth of 

populations of marine mammal and birds that could be adversely affected with a 

reduction or elimination of this food supply. It is evident that a large number of birds 

(e.g., gulls) are attracted to seafood processing waste discharges to feed on floating 

particulates in the discharge (ADEC 2007 pers. comm). 

70
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Artificial food sources such as seafood process wastes may increase the gull 

populations in Alaska by providing food throughout winter months when food is less 

abundant and survival is the most difficult. Large gulls (herring, glaucous, and glaucouswinged) and parasitic birds (jaegers and skuas) interfere with the reproductive success 

in waterfowl and in seabirds by preying on ducklings and chicks, displacing other 

species from nests, and harassing adult birds (Giger, M., 6 April 1994, personal 

communication). Several studies have documented gulls and other parasitic birds 

preying on waterfowl and seabirds (Anderson 1974; Tyler 1975; Nettleship 1977; Munro 

and Bedard 1977; Martin and Barry 1978; Mendenhall and Milne 1985; Barry and Barry 

1990; Lloyd et al. 1991; Mendenhall 1993). Seafood waste discharges typically increase 

localized populations of gulls and parasitic birds which may adversely affect the breeding 

success of some bird species. Similarly, Reed and Flint (2007) cite the correlation of 

eiders attracted to an area with both seafood processing and municipal wastewater 

discharges with increased predation by eagles. The proposed general permit retains the 

narrative standard that processing wastes “not create an attractive nuisance where fish 

or wildlife species are attracted to waste disposal or storage areas,” which could be 

applied on a case by case basis if discharges were deemed to be creating a problem. 

Other than the anecdotal information described above, there is no conclusive information 

on potential marine mammal impacts. 

Birds that are attracted to surface plumes of seafood waste (especially floating 

particulates) may potentially become oiled or their feathers fouled due to accumulation of 

waste fish oils on the water surface. While studies on the effects of oil spills have shown 

that birds may be adversely affected, fish oils are different in composition from petroleum 

products and the potential impacts may or may not be similar. Unless the volume of 

floating oils was significant and the birds were constantly diving through it, it is unlikely 

that fouling of the feathers would occur. The reissued permit retains the prohibition on 

creating a sheen, film, emulsion or scum on the surface of the water (or shorelines). If a 

plant operator complies with this provision, oils associated with the discharges may not 

be a significant concern. 

5.4.2 Bacteria from Decaying Onshore Waste Accumulations 

Bacteria associated with the decaying seafood waste may potentially adversely impact 

marine mammals and birds. The potential for impact is hypothesized to be from animals 

eating, rubbing, or rolling in decaying seafood that has accumulated on the shoreline 

and has a strain of bacteria that may be harmful to the organism. There are no studies or 

known anecdotal information to suggest that this is a potential problem. In 2004, four 

Steller’s eiders carcasses were found in Unalaska Bay, an area of higher fisheries 

productivity, and Alaska Sealife Center studied these eiders to determine if bacterial 

infection may have resulted in mortality. Bacteria were found in lesions in the oral cavity 

and around the site of the transmitter attachment sites. It is most likely the case that the 

seafood wastes attracted the Steller’s eiders to an area with sewage treatment facility 

discharges which had higher levels of bacteria. While the birds were emaciated and had 

internal parasites, no direct link has been made between the mortality of the eiders and 

the bacteria in the effluent. It is important to note that this permit only covers facilities 3 

nm or more from shore in areas of adequate flushing which should disperse the seafood 

wastes and minimize the attraction of animals to the seafood wastes. In addition, it is 

unlikely these wastes will occur in areas where they can comingle with bacterial wastes, 

therefore minimizing the potential contact with bacteria in the wastes. 

71
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

5.5 Summary 

The potential adverse effects of seafood processing waste include direct and indirect 

impacts of the solid and liquid waste discharges to marine organisms. Potential direct 

impacts of solid waste discharges, including burial of benthic communities, alteration of 

the sediment texture, and chemical changes within the sediments as a result of decaying 

organic matter accumulations, are expected to be minimal due to the movement of 

vessels and limits of discharges to beyond 3 nautical miles from shore. The decay of 

accumulated solid waste may reduce concentrations of dissolved oxygen in the overlying 

water column and release potentially toxic decay byproducts like unionized ammonia 

and undissociated hydrogen sulfide. A recent study has shown that anoxic conditions in 

the sediment extend out several acres further than the known boundaries of the waste 

piles and can cause impacts to benthos outside of this area. Permitted discharges of 

seafood waste to oxygenated well-flushed areas at rates consistent with permit 

limitations for the proposed permit are not generally expected to result in waste piles or 

cause levels of dissolved oxygen or toxic substances that could have an adverse effect 

on marine organisms. 

Eutrophication of coastal marine waters is not expected to occur in locations where 

water exchange is adequate to dilute nutrient inputs from seafood processing waste 

discharges. However, the degree of eutrophication is not known in areas where there is 

low flushing. Residual concentrations of chlorine disinfectants in the liquid waste 

stream, and additional oxidants produced by the reactions of chlorine with other 

compounds, should not accumulate to levels of concern for these species in areas of 

good flushing. 

The attraction of marine mammals and birds to seafood processing waste discharges 

has the potential to create indirect impacts. At present the data regarding these effects 

are mostly circumstantial and anecdotal. Whether or not birds feeding on seafood waste 

that has commingled with sanitary waste discharges may result in an impact is being 

studied by the Alaska Sealife Center and discussed in more detail in Section 5.4.2. 

While results are inconclusive, there is concern that attraction of marine mammals and 

birds to areas with effluents containing high levels of bacteria may result in adverse 

effects. However, this permit covers seafood processing discharges 3 nm or more from 

shore in areas of adequate flushing and prohibits discharging of seafood wastes in areas 

of critical habitat for the listed species. This should minimize the attraction of marine 

mammals and birds to the seafood wastes. In addition, it is unlikely these wastes will 

occur in areas where they can comingle with bacterial wastes, therefore minimizing the 

potential contact with bacteria in the wastes. 

Eutrophication of marine waters may also indirectly result in enhancement of 

phytoplankton species that are toxic to marine organisms and humans. Although toxic 

phytoplankton species occur in marine waters of Alaska, there is no known evidence to 

date to establish a link between the occurrence of toxic phytoplankton and seafood 

processing waste discharges. 

5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 

As discussed in Section 5.1, discharges of seafood processing wastes can have an 

adverse effect on water quality. These water quality impacts can, in turn, impact 

biological communities including threatened and endangered species. Potential direct, 

72
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

indirect, interdependent and interrelated effects and effects to critical habitat are 

discussed in the following sections to assist in determining the effect conclusions for the 

listed species. 

5.6.1 Fish 

West Coast salmon species currently listed under the ESA originate in freshwater habitat 

in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California, although they may migrate into Alaskan 

waters for a significant portion of their adult lives. No stocks originating in Alaska are 

listed under ESA, and none of the listed Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs), have 

critical habitat delineated in Alaskan waters. The species that originate in freshwater 

habitats in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California may have the potential to migrate 

to Alaska waters but the sightings of these species are rare in Alaska. It is expected that 

offshore seafood processor discharge will have insignificant and discountable effects on 

west coast salmon species. Therefore, EPA has determined that approval of the 

offshore seafood processor general permit is not likely to adversely affect any of the 

listed west coast salmon species. 

5.6.2 Birds 

5.6.2.1 Short-tailed albatross 

Although the short-tailed albatross can be found within several miles of shore during the 

non-breeding season, the albatross is primarily pelagic in distribution during this period. 

The albatross is not known to breed in Alaskan waters (USFWS 2005a). Therefore, it is 

unlikely that the bird would be exposed to seafood processing waste during breeding 

season. Outside of breeding season, these birds have been observed most frequently 

along the continental shelves in Gulf of Alaska, the Aleutians and the Bering Sea 

between the Alaska Peninsula and St. Matthew Island. Based on the number of birds 

that have been observed in Alaska and their locations within the state, effects to this 

species from offshore seafood processors should be minimal. Furthermore, the seafood 

processing wastes do not contain significant quantities of toxic pollutants that are prone 

to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms. Based on the above information, offshore 

seafood processor discharges would result in insignificant and discountable effects to 

the short-tailed albatross. Therefore, EPA has determined that approval of the offshore 

seafood processor permit is not likely to adversely affect the short-tailed albatross. 

5.6.2.2 Steller’s Eider 

Direct Effects 

Seafood processing discharge is not expected to impact Steller’s eider breeding 

grounds, as the Alaska breeding population nests primarily on the Arctic Coastal Plain 

where there is currently no seafood processing activity. While there is a smaller subpopulation nesting in the Yukon-Kuskokwin Delta, offshore seafood processing activities 

there are currently limited and small in magnitude (USFWS 2002a). Additionally, the 

General Permit prohibits seafood processor discharge within one nautical mile of of 

critical habitat for Steller’s eiders. 

73
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

During the rest of the year, Steller’s eiders move south and prefer shallow, nearshore 

marine waters. Most Steller’s eiders observed during southwestern Alaska shore-based 

surveys in the winter of 1999/2000 were foraging within 100 yards of the shore (LGL 

2000 a,b). Eiders may be attracted to processing waste discharges from offshore 

seafood processing outfalls. Potential effects on Steller’s eider from the discharge of 

seafood process wastes include possible increases in exposure to predatory or 

scavenger species or exposure to fish oil or non pertroleum oils and other byproducts of 

seafood processing that may adversely affect Steller’s eiders. Seafood wastes may 

attract scavengers, such as gulls, which prey on Steller’s eiders. However, because gulls 

primarily prey on Steller’s eiders’ eggs and young rather than adults, and because 

Steller’s eiders do not breed in areas of high seafood processing activity, the potential 

effects on eider populations from increased predation by gulls would be negligible. As 

the offshore seafood processors will be located 3 nm or further from shore and eiders 

are known to stay in the nearshore areas, the seafood processor waste should be 

minimal in areas that Steller’s eiders are known to inhabit. Adverse effects may occur 

due to the release of organic waste within foraging habitat that results in disruption of the 

benthic community and therefore the prey base of Steller’s eiders. However, habitat that 

may undergo adverse modification due to direct effects of the offshore seafood 

processor permit due to organic waste discharge potentially altering the benthic 

community, used as a prey resource for the Steller’s eiders, should be minimal as 

discharges are expected to occur further than 1 nm from critical habitat areas. 

Additionally, the proposed permit does not allow ZODs, which should further minimize 

potential impacts to Steller’s eiders prey from potential accumulation of seafood wastes. 

Indirect Effects 

Indirect effects may occur as Steller’s eiders may congregate near offshore seafood 

processor vessels and be harmed by vessels associated with the processor through 

disturbance or accidental release of petroleum products Regulation of fuel-related 

activities at sea is not covered under this permit as fueling activities fall under the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard. Spilled petroleum can have adverse effects on 

Steller’s eiders including impairment of a bird’s ability to maintain homeostatic 

temperature mechanisms as well as potential exposure to toxic chemicals in petroleum 

through potential ingestion. Release of petroleum in Steller’s eiders habitat also has the 

potential to contaminate prey and reduce its availability. The proposed permit requires 

offshore processors to be at least 1 nm from any area designated as Steller’s eider 

critical habitat. This exclusion should minimize potential adverse effects from petroleum 

spills associated with seafood processors. 

Interrelated and interdependent actions 

Another concern with Steller’s eiders is potential Steller’s eider strikes from 

communication facilities towers and associated guy wires. As stated in 50 CFR Part 402 

if the activity in question would occur regardless of the proposed action under 

consultation, then the activity is not interdependent or interrelated and would not be 

analyzed with the effects of the action under consultation. Therefore, since the 

communication towers may be used by the offshore seafood processing vessels, but the 

towers would exist whether used by the processor vessels or not, the effects from 

communication facilities are not analyzed further in the effects analysis. 

Critical habitat 

74
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Critical habitat for Steller’s eiders was designated to include breeding habitat on the 

Yukon-Kiskokwim Delta and four units in southwest Alaska marine waters, including the 

Kuskokwim shoals, Seal Islands, Nelson Lagoon and Izembek Lagoon (65 FR 13262). 

Habitat may undergo adverse modification due to direct effects of the offshore seafood 

processor permit due to organic waste discharge potentially altering the benthic 

community, which is a prey resource for the Steller’s eiders. However effects should be 

minimal as discharges are expected to occur further than 3 nm from shore. In addition 

these discharges should occur in areas of high tidal activity which allows for dilution and 

dispersion of the seafood discharges so that waste piles which can smother benthic 

invertebrates should not occur. Habitat may also undergo adverse modification through 

accidental petroleum releases. Regulation of fuel-related activities at sea is not covered 

under this permit as this activity falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard. The 

potential for accidental petroleum releases are impossible to predict or determine, 

however, they are not expected to adversely impact a significant proportion of Steller’s 

eider critical habitat as the proposed general permit prohibits seafood processor 

discharge within one (1) nm of any critical habitat for Steller’s eiders. 

Based on the above information, discharges from offshore seafood processors would 

likely have insignificant and discountable effects on Steller’s eiders. Therefore, EPA has 

determined that approval of the offshore seafood processor permit is not likely to 

adversely affect Steller’s eider. 

5.6.2.3 Spectacled Eider 

Direct Effects 

The primary spectacled eider breeding ground is the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, with lower 

densities of breeding eiders occuring on the North Slope (USFWS 2007). Seafood 

processing activity is currently limited in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and the current 

general permit prohibits discharge within one (1) nautical mile of critical habitat for 

spectacled eiders. Therefore, seafood processing wastes are not expected to 

negatively impact spectacled eiders during breeding season. 

While moving between nesting and molting areas, spectacled eiders travel along the 

coast up to 50 km offshore. From October through March, they move far offshore to 

waters up to 65 m deep where they sometimes gather in dense flocks in openings of sea 

ice (USFWS 2006b). Therefore, spectacled eiders occur within the action area of the 

offshore seafood processor permit. Spectacled eiders may be attracted to processing 

waste discharges from offshore seafood processing vessels. Potential effects on 

spectacled eiders from the discharge of seafood process wastes include possible 

increases in exposure to predatory or scavenger species or exposure to fish and nonpetroleum oils and other byproducts of seafood processing that may adversely affect 

spectacled eiders. Seafood wastes may attract scavengers, such as gulls, which prey on 

spectacled eiders. However, because gulls primarily prey on spectacled eiders’ eggs 

and young rather than adults, and because spectacled eiders do not breed in areas of 

high seafood processing activity, the potential effects on eider populations from 

increased predation by gulls would be negligible. The majority of offshore seafood 

processors will be located 3 nm or further from shore and have the potential to adversely 

affect spectacled eiders which are located in offshore areas. Adverse effects may occur 

due to the release of organic waste within foraging habitat that results in disruption of the 

75
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

benthic community and therefore the prey base of spectacled eiders. However, the 

location of offshore seafood processor vessels 3 nm or more from shore in high tidal 

areas should dilute and disperse the seafood processing waste fairly quickly creating 

less of an attraction for spectacled eiders. However, habitat that may undergo adverse 

modification due to direct effects of the offshore seafood processor permit due to organic 

waste discharge potentially altering the benthic community, used as a prey resource for 

the spectacled eiders, should be minimal as discharges are expected to occur further 

than 1 nm from critical habitat areas. Additionally, the proposed permit does not allow 

ZODs, which should further minimize potential impacts to spectacled eiders prey from 

potential accumulation of wastes. 

Indirect Effects 

Indirect effects may occur as spectacled eiders may congregate near offshore seafood 

processors and be harmed by vessels associated with the processor through 

disturbance or accidental release of petroleum products Regulation of fuel-related 

activities at sea is not covered under this permit as this activity falls under the jurisdiction 

of the U.S. Coast Guard. Spilled petroleum can have adverse effects on spectacled 

eiders including impairment of a bird’s ability to maintain homeostatic temperature 

mechanisms as well as potential exposure to toxic chemicals in petroleum through 

potential ingestion. Release of petroleum in spectacled eiders habitat also has the 

potential to contaminate prey and reduce its availability. The proposed permit requires 

offshore processors to be at least 1 nm from any area designated as spectacled eider 

critical habitat. This exclusion should minimize potential adverse effects from petroleum 

spills associated with seafood processors. 

Interrelated and interdependent actions 

Another concern with spectacled eiders is potential spectacled eider strikes from 

communication facility towers and associated guy wires. As stated in 50 CFR Part 402, 

if the activity in question would occur regardless of the proposed action under 

consultation, then the activity is not interdependent or interrelated and would not be 

analyzed with the effects of the action under consultation. Therefore, since the 

communication towers may be used by the offshore seafood processing vessels, but the 

towers would exist whether used by the processor vessels or not, the effects from 

communication facilities are not analyzed further in the effects analysis. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical Habitat for the spectacled eider includes areas on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, 

in Norton Sound, Ledyard Bay and the Bering Sea between St. Lawrence and St. 

Matthew Islands. However, habitat that may undergo adverse modification due to direct 

effects of the offshore seafood processor permit due to organic waste discharge 

potentially altering the benthic community, used as a prey resource for the spectacled 

eiders, should be minimal as discharges are expected to occur further than 3 nm from 

shore. In addition, the vessels are not allowed to stay in one location more than seven 

days so the constant movement along with discharges occuring in areas of high tidal 

activity will allows for dilution and dispersion of the seafood discharges so that 

accumulation of waste piles which can smother benthic invertebrates should not occur. 

76
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Habitat may also undergo adverse modification through accidental petroleum releases. 

Regulation of fuel-related activities at sea is not covered under this permit as this activity 

falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard. The potential for accidental 

petroleum releases are impossible to predict or determine, however, they are not 

expected to adversely impact a significant proportion of spectacled eider critical habitat 

as the current general permit prohibits seafood processor discharge within one (1) 

nautical mile of critical habitat for the spectacled eiders. 

Based on the above information, offshore seafood processing discharges would result in 

insignificant and discountable effects to the spectacled eider. Therefore, EPA has 

determined that approval of the offshore seafood processor permit is not likely to 

adversely affect spectacled eider. 

5.6.3 Marine Mammals 

5.6.3.1 Polar Bear 

In Alaska, polar bears are found in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas located west and 

north of Alaska. Critical habitat has not been designated for the polar bear at this time. 

Arctic sea ice provides a platform for critical life-history functions, including hunting, 

feeding, travel, and nurturing cubs. 

At present, polar bear stocks in Alaska have no direct interaction with commercial 

fisheries activities (73 FR 28312). Therefore, the offshore seafood processors permit 

should have no effect on polar bears. 

5.6.3.2 Northern Sea Otter (SW Alaska Population) 

Direct Effects 

The range of the southwest Alaska population of the northern sea otter extends from the 

Aleutain Islands through southcentral and southwestern Alaska coasts. The northern 

sea otter populations generally occur in shallow water areas near the shoreline (USFWS 

2002b), and the offshore seafood processor vessels occur more than 3 nm from shore, 

so it is unlikely that they would have significant contact with seafood processing wastes 

from offshore seafood processors. 

However, northern sea otters could potentially be attracted to the offshore seafood 

processor waste which could be used as a food source for this species. A study by 

Ballachey et al. (2002) looked at sea otter mortality in Orca Inlet, Alaska during the 

winter of 1995-1996. These sea otters were in poor body condition and had significant 

helminth parasite loads. Some fish species including salmon and herring are known to 

serve as intermediate host to these parasites and it was postulated that consumption of 

fish parts and seafood processor waste by sea otters could be serving as a source of 

these parasites. There are many speculated causes of death of these sea otters 

including unusually cold temperatures that winter and high population numbers leading 

to depleted prey resources which may have lead to starvation and made the fish parts a 

more attractive food source. The report did not definitively state the cause of the higher 

77
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

mortality rates of sea otters in Orca Inlet during the winter of 1995-1996 and there was 

no report of a continuing high mortality rate the following winter. 

The current permit covers only those seafood processor facilities at distances greater 

than 3 nm from shore. The location of the offshore seafood discharges are in areas of 

high tidal activity and good flushing and should disperse the seafood discharge so that it 

is less of an attractant to northern sea otters. In areas with lower population densities, it 

is expected that abundant natural food sources would minimize the northern sea otters 

attraction and dependence on seafood discharges. 

Seafood processing wastes have the potential to lead to adverse effects by altering the 

habitat for and potentially burying benthic prey species of the northern sea otter and 

potentially reducing the prey availability of these species. Offshore seafood processing 

wastes are required to be discharged in areas of high tidal activity from vessels that are 

moving which will allow for the dilution and dispersion of these wastes preventing large 

waste piles that have the potential to bury or alter habitat for prey species of the northern 

sea otter. The proposed permit does not allow ZODs. This should minimize potential 

impacts to northern sea otters from potential accumulation of wastes in a ZOD. 

Therefore, effects to prey of the northern sea otter should be minimal. 

Indirect Effects 

Indirect effects may occur as Northern sea otters may congregate near offshore seafood 

processors and be harmed by vessels associated with the processor through 

disturbance or accidental release of petroleum products Regulation of fuel-related 

activities at sea is not covered under this permit as this activity falls under the jurisdiction 

of the U.S. Coast Guard. Spilled petroleum can have adverse effects on Northern sea 

otters including impairment of a sea otter’s ability to maintain homeostatic temperature 

mechanisms as well as potential exposure to toxic chemicals in petroleum through 

potential ingestion. Release of petroleum in Northern sea otter habitat also has the 

potential to contaminate prey and reduce its availability. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat has not been designated for the southwest Alaska northern sea otter 

distinct population segment. 

Based on the above discussion, the adverse long-term impacts to northern sea otter 

populations from seafood processing discharges should be insignificant and 

discountable. Therefore, EPA has determined that the offshore seafood processor 

permit is not likely to adversely affect the Northern sea otter. 

5.6.3.3 Steller Sea Lion (Eastern and Western Stocks) 

Direct Effects 

Steller sea lions have an extensive foraging range and haulout in many coastal areas. 

There is some evidence that sea lions are attracted to seafood discharges, particularly 

unground fish wastes and livers (EPA 2005b). This may affect both the behavior of 

78
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

individual animals in proximity of the discharge outfalls and the overall Steller sea lion 

population. For example, the discharge of process wastes near sea lion foraging 

grounds could reduce visibility and individual foraging success. Offshore seafood 

processor vessels would be located 3 nm or more from shore in areas of high tidal 

activity and good flushing which should allow for dispersion and dilution of seafood 

discharges and minimize attraction of Steller sea lions to the discharges. In addition, the 

permit prohibits discharge within three (3) nautical miles of a rookery or major haulout of 

the Steller sea lion as designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service as critical 

habitat, which should help to minimize direct effects to Steller sea lions from offshore 

seafood processor discharges. 

Seafood processing wastes have the potential to lead to adverse effects by altering the 

habitat for and potentially burying benthic prey species of the Steller sea lion and 

potentially reducing the prey availability of these species. Offshore seafood processing 

wastes are required to be discharged in areas of high tidal activity from vessels that are 

moving which will allow for the dilution and dispersion of these wastes preventing large 

waste piles that have the potential to bury or alter habitat for prey species of the northern 

sea otter. The proposed permit does not allow ZODs. The permit prohibits discharge 

within three (3) nautical miles of a rookery or major haulout of the Steller sea lion as 

designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service as critical habitat, which should 

help to minimize direct effects to Steller sea lions from offshore seafood processor 

discharges. Therefore, effects to prey of the northern sea otter should be minimal. 

Indirect Effects 

Indirect effects may occur as Steller sea lions may congregate near offshore seafood 

processors and be harmed by vessels associated with the processor through 

disturbance or accidental release of petroleum products Regulation of fuel-related 

activities at sea is not approved under this permit as this activity falls under the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard. Spilled petroleum can have adverse effects on 

Steller sea lions including impairment of a sea lion’s ability to maintain homeostatic 

temperature mechanisms as well as potential exposure to toxic chemicals in petroleum 

through potential ingestion. Release of petroleum in Steller sea lion habitat also has the 

potential to contaminate prey and reduce its availability. However, the permit prohibits 

discharge within three (3) nautical miles of a rookery or major haulout of the Steller sea 

lion as designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service as critical habitat, which 

should minimize indirect effects to Steller sea lions from offshore seafood processor 

discharges. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat for eastern stock of Steller sea lion was designated as 3 mn around each 

major rookery and major haulout whereas critical habitat for the western stock of Steller 

sea lions was designated as 20 nm around each major rookery and major haulout area 

west of longitude 144°W. The proposed permit prohibits discharge within three (3) 

nautical miles of a rookery or major haulout of the Steller sea lion. This exclusion 

outlined in the proposed permit should minimize effects to Steller sea lion critical habitat. 

Based on the above discussions, the offshore seafood processing facilities should have 

insignificant and discountable effects on Steller sea lion. Therefore, EPA determined 

79
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

that the offshore seafood processing permit is not likely to adversely affect Steller sea 

lion populations. 

5.6.3.4 North Pacific Right Whale 

Critical habitat has been designated for the North Pacific right whale in the Pacific Ocean 

in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea. The diet of the North Pacific right whale 

consists of mostly smaller crustaceans including copepods and euphausiids. While 

historical information reports that the North Pacific right whale prefers offshore habitats, 

recent sightings demonstrate they have been seen in shallower coastal waters off 

Alaska (Tynan et al. 2001). North Pacific right whales are currently believed to prefer 

coastlines and sometimes large bays, spending the summer feeding in the north then 

migrate south to breed in the winter; preliminary analysis of data from recorders 

indicates that these whales stay in the southeastern Bering Sea at least through October 

(Angliss and Lodge 2003). 

Some indirect effects to whales related to reduced prey availability or foraging success 

may be possible. Some temporary disturbance of whale activities may also occur due to 

increases in vessel traffic and noise. Offshore seafood processor vessels may cause 

adverse effects to cetaceans through ship strikes. However, there are only 

approximately 98 offshore seafood processor vessels and while the vessels could 

adversely impact the cetaceans, the potential aggregate area of all offshore seafood 

processors in Alaska coastal waters in the action area is unlikely to occupy more than a 

small portion of the whales habitat used for feeding and migration. 

Based on the above information, offshore seafood processors will most likely result in 

insignificant effects to this species. Therefore, EPA has determined that the approval of 

the proposed permit for offshore seafood processors is not likely to adversely affect 

the North Pacific right whale. 

5.6.3.5 Bowhead whale 

Bowhead whales winter in the Bering Sea and migrate to the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas 

in the spring and summer. As the pack ice breaks up in the spring, bowhead whales 

migrate from the Bering Sea through the Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea, and then 

follow the nearshore lead around Point Barrow to the Beaufort Sea. In the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea, bowheads select for outer continental shelf and slope habitats(200-2000 

m) during summer but in fall can shift to shallower inner/outer shelf habitat (<200m) with 

light ice conditions (Moore 2000). The diet of the bowhead whale consists of mostly 

smaller crustaceans including copepods and euphausiids (NMFS 2009f). 

Some indirect effects to whales related to reduced prey availability or foraging success 

may be possible. Some temporary disturbance of whale activities may also occur due to 

increases in vessel traffic and noise. Offshore seafood processor vessels may cause 

adverse effects to cetaceans through ship strikes. However, there are only 

approximately 98 offshore seafood processor vessels and while the vessels could 

adversely impact the cetaceans, the potential aggregate area of all offshore seafood 

80
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

processors in Alaska coastal waters in the action area is unlikely to occupy more than a 

small portion of the whales habitat used for feeding and migration. 

EPA believes that the potential for adverse effects to bowhead whales from EPA’s 

approval of the proposed permit for offshore seafood processors will most likely result in 

insignificant effects to the species. Therefore, EPA has determined that the approval of 

the proposed permit for offshore seafood processors is not likely to adversely affect 

the bowhead whale. 

5.6.3.6 Sei whale 

The sei whale occurs mainly south of the Aleutian Islands in the North Pacific. In 

addition, the sei whale is a pelagic species and generally does not inhabit inshore and 

coastal waters; this species prefers deeper offshore waters with preferred habitat in 

offshore areas encompassing the continental shelf break (Gregr and Trites 2001). Some 

indirect effects to whales related to reduced prey availability or foraging success may be 

possible. Some temporary disturbance of whale activities may also occur due to 

increases in vessel traffic and noise. Offshore seafood processor vessels may cause 

adverse effects to cetaceans through ship strikes. However, there are only 

approximately 98 offshore seafood processor vessels and while the vessels could 

adversely impact the cetaceans, the potential aggregate area of all offshore seafood 

processors in Alaska coastal waters in the action area is unlikely to occupy more than a 

small portion of the whales habitat used for feeding and migration. 

Based on the above information, offshore seafood processors will most likely result in 

insignificant effects to this species. Therefore, EPA has determined that EPA’s 

proposed approval of the proposed permit for offshore seafood processors is not likely 

to adversely affect the sei whale. 

5.6.3.7 Blue whale 

Blue whales have rarely been observed in coastal waters of Alaska (Leatherwood et al. 

1982, Forney and Brownell 1996). The blue whale prefers deeper offshore waters with 

preferred habitat in offshore areas encompassing the continental shelf break (Gregr and 

Trites 2001). Some indirect effects to whales related to reduced prey availability or 

foraging success may be possible. Some temporary disturbance of whale activities may 

also occur due to increases in vessel traffic and noise. Offshore seafood processor 

vessels may cause adverse effects to cetaceans through ship strikes. However, there 

are only approximately 98 offshore seafood processor vessels and while the vessels 

could adversely impact the blue whale, the potential aggregate area of all offshore 

seafood processors in Alaska coastal waters in the action area is unlikely to occupy 

more than a small portion of the whales habitat used for feeding and migration. 

Based on the above information, effects from offshore seafood processors are expected 

to be insignificant and discountable. Therefore, EPA has determined that EPA’s 

proposed approval of the proposed permit for offshore seafood processors is not likely 

to adversely affect the blue whale. 

5.6.3.8 Fin whale 

81
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Fin whales are found in offshore waters throughout the North Pacific. The fin whale 

feeds preferentially in offshore waters, with preferred habitat encompassing areas 

including the continental shelf break and offshore waters (Gregr and Trites 2001). 

Some indirect effects to whales related to reduced prey availability or foraging success 

may be possible. Some temporary disturbance of whale activities may also occur due to 

increases in vessel traffic and noise. Offshore seafood processor vessels may cause 

adverse effects to cetaceans through ship strikes. However, there are only 

approximately 98 offshore seafood processor vessels and while the vessels could 

adversely impact the blue whale, the potential aggregate area of all offshore seafood 

processors in Alaska coastal waters in the action area is unlikely to occupy more than a 

small portion of the whales habitat used for feeding and migration. Fin whales are a 

mobile species with habitat throughout the Pacific Ocean and will most likely consume 

prey and inhabit areas outside of areas where offshore seafood vessels are located. 

Based on the above information, effects from offshore seafood processors are expected 

to be insignificant and discountable. Therefore, EPA has determined that EPA’s 

proposed permit for offshore seafood processors is not likely to adversely affect the fin 

whale. 

5.6.3.9 Humpback whale 

Summer ranges of humpback whales are often relatively close to shore including major 

coastal embayments and channels. While in Alaska, humpback whales concentrate in 

Southeast Alaska, Prince William Sound and near Kodiak and the Barren Islands. The 

humpback whale can be observed relatively close to shore and feed preferentially over 

continental shelf waters (NMFS 2005b, Gregr and Trites 2001). 

Some indirect effects to whales related to reduced prey availability or foraging success 

may be possible. Some temporary disturbance of whale activities may also occur due to 

increases in vessel traffic and noise. Offshore seafood processor vessels may cause 

adverse effects to cetaceans through ship strikes. However, there are only 

approximately 98 offshore seafood processor vessels and while the vessels could 

adversely impact the blue whale, the potential aggregate area of all offshore seafood 

processors in Alaska coastal waters in the action area is unlikely to occupy more than a 

small portion of the whales habitat used for feeding and migration. As offshore seafood 

processor vessels should occupy a small percentage of the habitat of humpback whales, 

it is expected that humpback whales would be able to avoid areas where offshore 

seafood processors are located. 

Based on the above information, effects from offshore seafood processors are expected 

to be insignificant and discountable. Therefore, EPA has determined that EPA’s 

proposed approval of the proposed permit for offshore seafood processors is not likely 

to adversely affect the humpback whale. 

5.6.3.10 Sperm whales 

Sperm whales rarely enter semi-enclosed areas and prefer oceanic habitat, rarely 

occurring in waters less than 300 feet deep. The diet of the sperm whale consists of 

82
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

mostly cephalopods (squid and octopuses), but can also include fish (USEPA 2002). 

Sperm whales prefer waters with surface temperatures higher than 15 degrees C and 

depths less than 656-3280 feet (Gregr and Trites 2001). 

Some indirect effects to whales related to reduced prey availability or foraging success 

may be possible. Some temporary disturbance of whale activities may also occur due to 

increases in vessel traffic and noise. Offshore seafood processor vessels may cause 

adverse effects to cetaceans through ship strikes. However, there are only 

approximately 98 offshore seafood processor vessels and while the vessels could 

adversely impact the cetaceans, the potential aggregate area of all offshore seafood 

processors in Alaska coastal waters in the action area is unlikely to occupy more than a 

small portion of the whales habitat used for feeding and migration. As offshore seafood 

processor vessels should occupy a small percentage of the habitat of sperm whales, it is 

expected that sperm whales would be able to avoid areas where offshore seafood 

processors are located. 

Based on the above information, effects from offshore seafood processors are expected 

to be insignificant and discountable. Therefore, EPA has determined that proposed 

permit for offshore seafood processors is not likely to adversely affect the sperm 

whale. 

5.6.3.11. Beluga Whale (Cook Inlet Stock) 

Depending on season and region, beluga whales may occur in both offshore and coastal 

waters, with concentrations in Cook Inlet, Bristol Bay, Norton Sound, Kasegaluk Lagoon, 

and the Mackenzie Delta (Hazard 1988). Beluga whales in U.S. waters range from living 

in openings within the pack ice in winter and migrating to shallow bays and estuaries in 

summer. The Cook Inlet beluga whale is geographically isolated and a genetically 

differentiated population of beluga whale. There are a number of sources of potential 

impacts to beluga whales including subsistence harvest, commercial fishing, predation, 

stranding events in addition to habitat capacity and environmental change due to 

commercial and industrial activities. 

According to the 2003 stock assessment report “NMFS recognizes that municipal, 

commercial, and industrial activites may be of concern and may affect the water quality 

and substrate in Cook Inlet. This includes commercial fishing, oil and gas development, 

municipal discharges, noise for aircraft and ships, shipping traffic, and tourism (Moore et 

al. 2000). However, no indication currently exists that these activities have had a 

quantifiable adverse impact on the beluga whale population. The best available 

information indicates that these activities, alone or cumulatively, have not caused the 

stock to be in danger of extinction (65 FR 38778; 22 June 2000). In addition, the 

subsistence harvest, which may have been responsible for the majority of the decline in 

this stock, was prohibited in 1999 through an act of Congress. Following the prohibition 

of subsistence harvest, preliminary results indicate that the decline in the stock ceased 

(65 FR 38778; 22 June 2000, Hobbs et al. 2000a). 

83
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Based on vessel locations provided to ADEC (ADEC 2006a) no vessels providing 

reports in 2006 were located in Cook Inlet. Some indirect effects to whales related to 

reduced prey availability or foraging success may be possible. Some temporary 

disturbance of whale activities may also occur due to increases in vessel traffic and 

noise. Offshore seafood processor vessels cause adverse effects to cetaceans through 

ship strikes. However, there are only approximately 98 offshore seafood processor 

vessels and while the vessels could adversely impact the cetaceans, the potential 

aggregate area of all offshore seafood processors in Alaska coastal waters in the action 

area is unlikely to occupy more than a small portion of the whales habitat used for 

feeding and migration. As offshore seafood processor vessels should occupy a small 

percentage of the habitat of Cook Inlet beluga whales, it is expected that beluga whales 

would be able to avoid areas where offshore seafood processors are located. 

Therefore, EPA believes that potential adverse effects to beluga whales from EPA’s 

approval of the proposed offshore seafood processor permit are insignificant and 

discountable. Therefore, EPA has determined that the approval of the proposed 

offshore seafood permit is not likely to adversely affect the Cook Inlet beluga whale. 

5.6.4. Amphibians 

While the endangered leatherback, the loggerhead, and the green sea turtle may 

occasionally venture into Alaskan waters, neither their center of abundance nor their 

critical habitat occurs in Alaskan waters. Since it is expected these species of sea turtles 

would have little overlap with offshore seafood processors, EPA has determined that the 

offshore seafood processor permit will have no effect on the leatherback, loggerhead or 

green sea turtles. 

5.7 EFFECTS ON CANDIDATE SPECIES 

Southeast Alaska DPS Pacific Herring 

The Southeast Alaska DPS of Pacific herring extends from Dixon Entrance northward to 

Cape Fairweather and Icy Point and includes all Pacific herring stocks in Southeast 

Alaska. Pacific herring are located in distinctly varying environments during different 

times of the year. The Southeast Alaska DPS of the Pacific herring is currently 

undergoing a status review to better understand trends in population and risks to the 

species. Offshore seafood processor discharges will take place in high tidal activity 

areas which should allow for dispersion and dilution of the discharges, minimizing effects 

on the Pacific herring prey sources and habitat. Since offshore seafood discharges 

should result in insignificant effects to this candidate species , EPA has determined that 

the approval of the proposed offshore seafood permit is not likely to adversely affect 

the Southeast Alaska DPS of Pacific herring. 

Kittlitz’s Murrelet 

84
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Kittlitz’s murrelets can be found along coasts where waters are influenced by glacial 

outwash, such as the Malaspina Forelands, where glacial runoff seeps across miles of 

exposed coast before entering the ocean (Kozie 1993). Kittlitz’s murrelets are also found 

around Kodiak Island, the Aleutian Islands, Bristol Bay, Seward Peninsula, Cape 

Lisburne, and Chukotka and Kamchatka peninsulas in Russia; areas not currently 

influenced by glaciers. Along the Aleutians, Kittlitz’s murrelets are associated with larger 

islands containing deep bays and inlets. Several northern and peripheral populations in 

North America (Bristol Bay, Seward Peninsula, Cape Thompson, and Cape Lisburne) 

and Russia are found in waters not influenced by glaciers; likely reflecting historical 

glacial distribution (AKNHP 2004). 

During the breeding-season, Kittlitz’s murrelets appear to favor waters >200 m from 

shore (Day et al. 2000), although a recent study suggests oceanic topography, rather 

than distance to shoreline, may be a more biologically meaningful parameter (Kissling et 

al. 2005). This hypothesis is supported by data from Attu Island in the Aleutians, where 

the number of Kittlitz’s murrelets observed during a summer survey were three-times 

more likely to be within the 1-5 km from shore strata (Piatt et al. 2005). Offshore 

bathymetry is not necessarily deep water, and it was noted that prominent shoals extend 

many kilometers from shore where high densities of Kittlitz’s murrelets were observed 

around Attu Island (Piatt et al. 2005). 

 During the non-breeding season, the marine distribution of Kittlitz’s murrelets is farther 

offshore. In winter, Kittlitz’s murrelets occur in the waters of Prince William Sound, 

Kenai Fjords, Kachemak Bay and Sitka Sound (Day et al. 1999). Declining populations 

are also known to occur in Lower Cook Inlet (Speckman et al. 2005), Glacier Bay 

(Robards et al. 2003) and the Malaspina Forelands (Kissling et al. 2005). 

The six known core population centers for Kittlitz’s murrelet includes Kenai Fjords, 

Prince William Sound, Malaspina Forelands, Glacier Bay, Icy Bay and Lower Cook Inlet. 

The proposed permit has a number of exclusions of waterbodies, including waters within 

1 NM of the boundary of a National Park, Monument, or Preserve or any bay, fjord or 

harbor enclosed by a National Park, Monument or Preserve. This exclusion includes 

Glacier Bay and Kenai Fjord, which are both designated National Parks. Malaspina 

Forelands and Icy Bay falls withing the Wragell-St. Elias National Park and preserve. 

These exclusions outlined in the permit should assist in protection of significant portions 

of habitat for this candidate species and thereby minimize potential effects from offshore 

seafood processors to Kittlitz’s murrelet. Therefore, EPA has determined that the 

approval of the proposed permit for offshore seafood processors will have an 

insignificant effect on this population and therefore is not likely to adversely affect the 

Kittlitz’s Murrelet. 

5.8 EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON TRIBAL RESOURCES 

“Subsistence fishing” is defined by Alaska state law as: “taking of fish, shellfish, or other 

fisheries resources by Alaska residents for subsistence uses” (AS 16.05.940[30]). 

“Subsistence uses” of wild resources are defined as “noncommercial, customary, and 

traditional uses” for a variety of purposes. This includes direct personal or family 

85
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

consumption of wild resources as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation for 

the making and selling of handicraft articles out of non-edible byproducts of fish and 

wildlife resources are taken for personal or family consumption, and for the customary 

trade, barter, or sharing of wild resources for personal or family consumption (AS 

16.05.940[32]). 

Under Alaska’s subsistence statute, the Alaska Board of Fisheries must identify fish 

stocks that support subsistence fisheries and if there is a harvestable surplus of these 

stocks, adopt regulations that provide reasonable opportunities for these subsistence 

uses to take place. When harvests have to be restricted, subsistence fisheries have a 

preference over other uses of the stock (AS 16.05.258). 

Most rural families in Alaska depend on subsistence fishing and hunting. According to 

State of Alaska’s Department of Commerce Division of Community Advocacy, 92-100% 

of households use fish and 79-92% use wildlife. In general, harvest and use levels 

increase in communities that function a distance from urban population centers. 

(Alaska 2006a). 

Subsistence fishing and hunting provide a significant part of the food supply in rural 

Alaska. It is estimated that approximately 43.7 million pounds of wild foods are 

harvested annually in rural Alaska (Wolfe and Utermohle 2000). Most of the wild food 

harvested is composed of fish (about 60% by weight) along with land mammals (20%), 

marine mammals (14%), birds (2%), shellfish (2%), and plants (2%) as depicted in 

Figure 2.11 (Wolfe 2000). Fish varieties include salmon, halibut, herring, and whitefish. 

Marine mammals comprise of seals, sea lion, walrus, beluga, and bowhead whale. Land 

mammals comprise of moose, caribou, deer, bear, Dall sheep, mountain goat, and 

beaver (Wolfe 2000). 

Although subsistence harvests produce a major portion of the food supply, they 

represent a small portion (approximately 2%) of the annual harvest of wild resources in 

Alaska. Commercial fisheries comprise 97% of the wild resource harvest and sport 

fisheries and hunts comprise approximately 1% (ADFG 2005). 

86
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Figure 5.1: Composition of subsistence harvest by rural Alaska residents. Source: Alaska 

 Economic Performance Report 2005. 

6.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions that 

are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological 

evaluation. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not 

considered in this action because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 

7 of ESA. The purpose of the cumulative effects section is to weigh the significance of 

other actions before determining whether the effects of the proposed action, when added 

to the effects of non-federal actions, will result in jeopardy to the federally listed species 

occurring in the action area, or adversely modify or destroy their designated critical 

habitat. 

Some of the future State, tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to 

occur in the action area considered in this biological evaluation include State-managed 

commercial fisheries, subsistence harvest, vessel traffic and construction of man-made 

structures. As climate change alters the location of fish stocks, seafood processing 

vessels may approach the North Slope area of spectacled eider habitat. While this is a 

potential future action, at this time the potential for these vessels to move north is not 

reasonably certain to occur. 

87
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

7.0 CONCLUSIONS 

Table 7.1 Effect Conclusions for ESA species 

Species Summary of Effect Analysis Conclusion 

Fish 

Chinook salmon Not likely to adversely affect 

Steelhead Not likely to adversely affect 

Pacific Herring Not likely to adversely affect 

Birds 

Short-tailed Albatross Not likely to adversely affect 

Steller’s Eider Not likely to adversely affect 

Spectacled Eider Not likely to adversely affect 

Kittlitz Murrelet Not likely to adversely affect 

Marine Mammals 

Polar Bear No Effect 

Steller Sea Lion Not likely to adversely affect 

Northern Sea Otter Not likely to adversely affect 

Northern Right Whale Not likely to adversely affect 

Bowhead Whale Not likely to adversely affect 

Sei Whale Not likely to adversely affect 

Blue Whale Not likely to adversely affect 

Fin Whale Not likely to adversely affect 

Humpback Whale Not likely to adversely affect 

Sperm Whale Not likely to adversely affect 

Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Not likely to adversely affect 

Amphibians 

Green Sea Turtle No Effect 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle No Effect 

Leatherback Sea Turtle No Effect 

88
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

8.0 REFERENCES 

Aars, J., N.J. Lunn and A.E. Derocher (eds.). 2006. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 

14th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 20-24 June 2005, 

Seattle, Washington, USA. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 189pp. 

ACAP. 1999. Pollution Prevention Strategies for the Fish Processing Industry. Atlantic 

Coastal Action Program, Humber Arm Environmental Association, Inc. 

ADEC. 1992. Alaska Water Quality Assessment 1992. Section 305 (b) report to the 

Environmental Protection Agency. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 

Water Quality Management Section. 

ADEC. 2003. Alaska Water Quality Criteria Manual for Toxic and Other Deleterious 

Organic and Inorganic Substances. May 15, 2003. Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation. Available at: 

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/wqs/pdfs/70wqsmanual.pdf 

ADEC. 2004. Amendments to: State Air Quality Control Plan. Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation. 

ADEC. 2006a. Draft ADEC Data Submittal to EPA Regarding the Ocean Discharge 

Criteria Evaluation for the NPDES General Permit for Alaskan Seafood Processors. 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 

ADEC. 2006b. Alaska's Final 2006 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment 

Report. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Available at 

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/waterbody/2006_final_integrated_report_12-28­

2006.pdf. 

ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2005. Alaska Subsistence Fisheries 

2003 Annual Report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. 

Juneau, AK. 

ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2006. Fish Distribution Database-An 

Overview. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division. Last updated 

March 6, 2006. Available at 

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/FishDistrib/anadcat.cfm. 

ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2008. Pacific Herring. Accessed 

September 2008 by J. Zodrow at U.S.EPA. Available at: 

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/fish/herring.php 

ADNR. 2005. Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) Handbook of Statutes and 

Regulations. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of Project Management 

and Permitting. Juneau, AK. 

AKNHP. 2004. Kittlitz’s Murrelet. Accessed 8/2009 by J. Zodrow U.S. EPA. Available 

at: 

89
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/zoology/species_ADFG/ADFG_PDFs/Birds/Kittlitz%27s_mu 

rrelet_ADFG_web_060105.pdf 

Ahumada, R., A. Rudolph, and S. Contreras. 2004. Evaluation of coastal waters 

receiving fish processing waste: Lota Bay as a case study. Environmental Monitoring 

and Assessment 90:89-99. 

Alaska, State of. 2006a. Alaska Economic Performance Report 2005. State of Alaska, 

Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, Division of 

Community Advocacy. Anchorage, AK. 

Amstrup, S.C. 2003. Polar bear, Ursus maritimus. Pages 587-610 in G.A. Feldhamer, 

B.C. Thompson and J.A. Chapman (eds). Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, 

Management and Conservation. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 

2nd edition. 

Amstrup, S.C. 2000. Polar bear. Pages 133-157 in Truett, J.J. and S.R. Johnson, eds. 

The natural history of an Arctic oilfield: development and the biota. Academic Press, Inc. 

New York. 

Amstrup, S.C., G.M. Durner, I. Stirling and T.L. McDonald. 2005. Allocating harvests 

among polar bear stocks in the Beaufort Sea. Arctic 58(3): 247-259. 

Amstrup, S.C., T.L. McDonald, and G.M. Durner. 2004. Using satellite radio-telemetry 

data to delineate and manage wildlife populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:661-679. 

Amstrup, S.C., T.L. McDonald and I. Stirling. 2001. Polar Bears in the Beaufort Sea: A 

30-Year Mark-Recapture Case History. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and 

Environmental Statistics 6(2): 221-234. 

Amstrup, S.C., G.M. Durner, I. Stirling, N. Lunn, and F. Messier. 2000. Movements and 

distribution of polar bears in the Beaufort Sea. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:948–966. 

Amstrup, S.C., I. Stirling and J.W. Lentfer. 1986. Past and Present Status of Polar 

Bears in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14(3): 241-254. 

Anderson, D. M. 1989. Toxic algal blooms and red tides: A global perspective in T. 

Okaichi, D. M. Anderson, and T. Nemoto, editors. First international symposium on red 

tides, Takamatsu, Kagawa Prefecture, Japan. 

Anderson, D. M., and A. W. White. 1989. Toxic dinoflagellates and marine mammal 

mortalities. Expert consultation held at the Wood Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods 

Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole MA. 

Anderson, M. 1974. Predation and kelptoparasitism by skuas in a Shetland seabird 

colony. Ibis 118:208-218. 

90
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Angliss, R. P., and D. P. DeMaster. 1998. Differentiating serious and non-serious injury 

of marine mammals taken incidental to commercial fishing operations: report of the 

serious injury workshop 1-2 April 1997. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, MD. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum, NMFS-OPR-13. 

Angliss, R. P., and A. L. Lodge. 2002. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessment, 2002. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Seattle, WA . 

Angliss, R. P., and A. L. Lodge. 2003. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessment, 2003. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Seattle, WA . 

Arthur, S.M., B.F.J. Manly, L.L. McDonald and G.W. Garner. 1996. Assessing Habitat 

Selection when Availability Changes. Ecology, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 215-227. 

Atkinson, S. N. and M. A. Ramsay. 1995. The Effects of Prolonged Fasting of the Body 

Composition and Reproductive Success of Female Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus). 

Functional Ecology, Vol. 9 (4): 559-567. 

Aubert, M. 1990. Mediators of microbial origin and eutrophication phenomena. Mar 

Poll Bull 21(1):24-49. 

Ballachey, B. E. C. S. Gorbics, and A. M. Doroff. 2002. Sea otter mortality in Orca 

Inlet, Prince William Sound, Alaska, winter 1995-1996. USFWS Technical Report 

MMM 02-1. Marine Mammals Management, Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7, 

Alaska. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bane, G. T. 1992. First report of a loggerhead sea turtle from Alaska. Marine Turtle 

Newsletter 58:1-2 I. 

Baretta, L., and G. L. Hunt. 1994. Changes in the numbers of cetaceans near the Pribilof 

Islands, Bering Sea, between 1975-78 and 1987089. Arctic 47:321-326. 

Barry, S. J., and T. W. Barry. 1990. Food habits of Glaucous gulls in the Beaufort Sea. 

Arctic 43:43-49. 

Berta, A., and J. L. Sumich 1999. Marine mammals: evolutionary biology. Academic 

Press, San Diego, CA. 

Brett, J. R. 1979. Environmental factors and growth in W. S. Hoar, D. J. Randall, and J. 

R. Brett, editors. Fish physiology, Vol VIII, Bioenergetics and Growth. Academic Press, 

New York, NY. 

Burke, C. M. 1999. Molecular diffusive fluxes of oxygen in sediments of Port Phillip Bay 

in Southeastern Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 50:557-566. 

91
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Calkins, D. G. 1994. Steller Sea Lion: Wildlife Notebook. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game. Available at http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/marine/sealion.php. 

Carawan, R. E., J. V. Chambers, and R. R. Zall. 1979. Water and wastewater 

management in food processing: Spinoff on Seafood Water and Wastewater 

Management. North Carolina State University, Cornell University, Purdue University. 

Extension Special Report No AM-18F. 

Carroll, G. 1994. Bowhead Whale: Wildlife Notebook. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game. Available at http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/marine/bowhead.php. 

CH2M-Hill. 1994. Circulation study of Unalaska Bay and contiguous inshore marine 

waters. Final draft report. 

Cosper, E. M., C. Lee, and E. J. Carpenter. 1990. Novel "brown tide" blooms in Long 

Island embaymentsL A search for causes. Pages 17-28 in E. Graneli, B. Sundtrom, L. 

Edler, and D. M. Anderson, editors. Toxic marine phytoplankton. Elsevier, New York, 

NY. 

Crapo, C, Paust, B, and Babbitt, J. (1993). Recoveries and yields from Pacific fish and 

shellfish. Marine Advisory Bulletin 37 Rev, 37pp. 

Davis, J. C. 1975. Minimal dissolved oxygen requirements of aquatic life with emphasis 

on Canadian species: a review. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 

32:2295-2332. 

Day, R. H., K. J. Kuletz, and D. A. Nigro. 1999. Kittlitz's murrelet (Brachyramphus 

brevirostris). in A. Poole, and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America. Academy of 

Natural Sciences and the American Ornithologist' Union, Washington, DC; 

Philadephia, PA. 

Day, R. H., D. A. Nigro, and A. K. Prichard. 2000. At-sea habitat use by the Kittletz's 

murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostris in nearshore waters of Prince William Sound, 

Alaska. Marine Ornithology 28:105-114. 

DeMaster, D.P. and I. Stirling. 1981. Ursus maritimus. Polar bear. Mammalian 

Species 145:1-7. 

Derocher, A.E., N.J. Lunn and I. Stirling. 2004. Polar bears in a warming climate. 

Intergrative and Comparative Biology 44:163-176. 

Dodd, C. K. 1990. Reptilia: Testudines: Cheloniidea: Caretta caretta in C. H. Ernst, 

editor. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles. Soc. Study Amphibians and 

Reptiles in NMFS 2005. 

Dunton, K.H., J. L. Goodall, S.V. Schonberg, J.M. Grebmeier, and D.R. Maidment. 

2005. Multi-decadal synthesis of benthic-pelagic coupling in the western arctic: Role of 

cross-shelf advective processes, Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in 

Oceanography. 52: 3462-3477. 

92
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Durner, G.M., D.C. Douglas, R.M. Nielson, S.C. Amstrup, and T.L. McDonald. 2007. 

Predicting the future distribution of polar bear habitat in the polar basin from resource 

selection functions applied to 21st century general circulation model projections of sea 

ice. U.S. Geological Survey Science Strategy to Support U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Polar Bear Listing Decision, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Durner, G.M., D.C. Douglas, R.M. Nielson and S.C. Amstrup. 2006. Model for Autumn 

Pelagic Distribution of Adult Female Polar Bears in the Chukchi Seas, 1987-1994. 

USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Final Report to USFWS. 

Durner, G.M., S.C. Amstrup, R. Neilson and T. MacDonald. 2004. Use of Sea Ice 

Habitat by Female Polar Bears in the Beaufort Sea. USGS Alaska Science Center, 

Anchorage, OCS MMS Study 014. 

EPA. 1974. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards of 

Performance for the Catfish, Crab, Shrimp, and Tuna Segments of the Canned and 

Preserved Seafood Processing Industry Point Source Category. Phase I. Washington, 

DC. EPA-440-1-74-020a. 

EPA. 1975. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source 

Performance Standards for the Fish Meal, Salmon, Bottom Fish, Clam, Oyster, Sardine, 

Scallop, Herring, and Abalone Segment of the Canned and Preserved Fish and Seafood 

Processing Industry Point Source Category: Group I, Phase II. Washington, DC. EPA440-1-75-041A. 

EPA. 1982. Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document. US Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC. EPA 430/9-82-011. 

EPA. 1984. Effects of seafood waste deposists on water quality and benthos, Akutan 

Harbor, Alaska. EPA 910/9-83-114. Seattle, WA. 

EPA. 1993. Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 6.13.1; Fish Processing; 

Revised Draft Report. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Emission Inventory Branch. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

EPA. 1994a. Environmental assessment of potential impacts of seafood processor 

discharges in Alaska. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Seattle. 

EPA . 1994b. Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation for the NPDES General Permit for 

Alaskan Seafood Processors. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Seattle, WA. 

EPA 1994c. Alaska Wetlands Initiative. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fact9.html. 

EPA. 1995a. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Settleable Solid Residues in the 

Waters of Akutan Harbor, Alaska. Region 10, Seattle, WA 

93
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

EPA. 1995b. Total Maximum Daily Load for Dissolved Oxygen in the Waters of Akutan 

Harbor, Alaska. Region 10, Seattle, WA 

EPA. 1995c. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Settleable Solid Residues in the 

Waters of South Unalaska Bay, Alaska. Region 10, Seattle, WA 

EPA. 1995d. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Dissolved Oxygen in the Waters of 

South Unalaska Bay, Alaska. Region 10, Seattle, WA 

EPA. 1998a. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Seafood Residues in the Waters of 

King Cove, Alaska. Region 10, Seattle, WA. 

EPA. 1998b. Total Maximum Daily Load for Settleable Solid Residues in the Waters of 

Udagak Bay of Beaver Inlet, Alaska. Region 10, Seattle, WA. 

EPA. 2000. Ambient aquatic life water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen (saltwater). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, D.C. EPA-822-R00-012. 

EPA. 2001a. Fact Sheet: Proposed reissuance of a general National Pollutant 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit for Seafood Processors in Alaska. Permit No. AKG52-0000. 

EPA. 2001b. Authorization to Discharge under the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System for Seafood Processors in Alaska. Permit No. AK-G52-0000. 

EPA. 2002. National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047. 

Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

EPA. 2004. Fairbanks CO Maintenance Plan. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10. Available at 

http://204.47.216.153:9876/r10/airpage.nsf/283d45bd5bb068e68825650f0064cdc2/58bb 

b7a6358c828a88256efc007b25ef?OpenDocument. 

EPA. 2005a. Draft Biological Evaluation for the Cook Inlet NPDES Permit. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Seattle, WA. 

EPA. 2005b. DRAFT Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation for the Proposed Pribilof 

Islands Seafood Processing General NPDES Permit. U.S. Environmental Protectional 

Agency, Region 10. Seattle, WA. 

EPA. 2006. Draft Environmental Assessment: Reissuance of a NPDES General Permit 

for Oil and Gas Exploration, Development and Production Facilities Located in State and 

Federal Waters in Cook Inlet, Alaska. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Seattle. 

94
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

EPA. 2007. Criteria Pollutants National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/o3co.html#Particulate%20Matter. 

EPA. 2009. Fact Sheet: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Proposes to Issue General Wastewater Discharge Permits to: Offshore Seafood 

Processors in Alaska. Permit No. AK-G52-4000. 

Epping, E. H. G., and W. Helder. 1997. Oxygen budget calculated from in situ 

microprofiles for Northern Adriatic sediments. Continental Shelf Reserach 17:1737-1764. 

Estes, J. A. 1990. Growth and equilibrium in sea otter populations. Journal of Animal 

Ecology 59:385-401. 

Favorite, F, A. J. Dodimead, and K. Nasu, 1976. Oceanography of the Subarctic Pacific 

Ocean. Bull .Int. North Pac. Fish. Comm. 33, 1-187. 

Ferguson, S.H., M.K. Taylor, A. Rosing-Asvid, E.W. Born, and F. Messier. 2000a. 

Relationships Between Denning of Polar Bears and Conditions of Sea Ice. Journal of 

Mammology, Vol. 81(4): 1118-1127. 

Ferguson, S.H., M.K. Taylor and F. Messier. 2000b. Influence of Sea Ice Dynamics on 

Habitat Selection by Polar Bears. Ecology, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 761-772. 

Forney, K. A. and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1996. Preliminary report of the 1994 Aleutian Island 

Marine Mammal Survey. Paper SC/48/O11 presented to the International Whaling 

Commission, June 1996 (unpublished). 

FNSB. 2003. Fairbanks Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan: Public Review Draft 

Executive Summary. Fairbanks North Star Borough. Fairbanks, AK. 

Freeman, M.M.R. 1973. Polar bear predation on beluga in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic 

26:163-164. 

Gates, K. W., B. E. Perkins, J. G. EuDaly, A. S. Harrison, and W. A. Bough. 1985. The 

Impact of Dishcarges from Seafood Processing on Southeastern Estuaries. Estuaries 

8:244-251. 

Geraci, J.R. 1989. Investigation of the 1987-1988 mass mortality of bottlenose dolphins 

along the U.S. Central and South Atlantic coast. Prepared for National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Office of Naval Research, and Marine Mammal Commission. Wildlife Disease 

Section, Department of Pathology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, 

Guelph, Ontario, Canada. 

Geraci, J.R., D.M. Anderson, R.J. Timperi, D.J. St. Aubin, G.A. Early, J.H. Prescott, and 

C.A. Mayo. 1989. Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) fatally poisoned by 

dinoflagellate toxin. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 

95
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Germano & Associates, Inc. 2004. The effects of seafood waste discharges on the 

benthic environment at Ketchikan, Alaska. Prepared for Tetra Tech, Inc., Mountlake 

Terrace, WA. G&A Project No. R603-02. 

Gill, R. E., M. R. Peterson, and P. D. Jorgensen. 1981. Birds of the northcentral Alaska 

Peninsula, 1978-1980. Arctic 34:286-306. 

Gilmartin, W.G., R.L. DeLong, A.W. Smith, L.A. Griner, and M.D. Dailey. 1980. An 

investigation into unusual mortality in the Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus 

schaauinslandi. In: Proceedings of the symposium on status of resource investigations 

in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, April 24-25, 1980. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, 

HI. R.W. Grigg and R.T. Pfund (Eds.) University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program, 

Honolulu, HI. 

Goddard, P. D., and D. J. Rugh. 1998. A group of right whales seen in the Bering Sea in 

July 1996. Marine Mammal Science 14:344-349. 

Good, T. P., R. S. Waples, P. Adams, and (editors). 2005. Updated Status of the 

Federally Listed ESUs of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Technical 

Memoradum NMFS-NWFSC-66. 

Gregr, E.J. and A.W. Trites. 2001. Predictions of Critical Habitat for Five Whale 

Species in the Waters of Coastal British Columbia. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 1265­

1285. 

Haigh, R., and F. J. R. Taylor. 1990. Distribution of potentially harmful phytoplankton 

species in the Northern Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Science 47:2339-2350. 

Hale, S.S. 1972. Some reactions of the ocean quahog Arctica islandica upon burial. 

Mimeo report. University of Rhode Island, School of Oceanography, Kingston, RI. 

Harington, C.R. 1968. Denning habits of the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) Phipps. Can. 

Wildl. Serv. Rep. Ser. 5. 33pp. 

Harper, D. E., and G. Gillen. 1989. Occurence of a dinoflagellate bloom associated with 

an influx of low salinity water at Galveston, Texas, and coincident mortalities of demersal 

fish and benthic invertebrates. Contributions in Marine Science 31:147-161. 

Hattori, A., and J. J. Goering. 1986. Nutrient distributions and dynamics in the eastern 

Bering Sea. Pages 975-992 in D. W. Hood, and J. A. Calder, editors. The Eastern Bering 

Sea Shelf: Oceanography and Resources. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 

Hazard, K. 1988. Beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas. Pp. 195-235 In J. W. Lentfer 

(ed.), Selected marine mammals of Alaska. Species accounts with research and 

management recommendations. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 

96
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Healy, M. C. 1991. Life hisotory of Chinook salmon in C. Groot, and L. Margolis, editors. 

Pacific Salmon Life Histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. 

Henley, W. E., M. A. Patterson, R. J. Neves, and A. D. Lemly. 2000. Effects of 

sedimentation and turbidity on lotic food webs: A concise review for natural resource 

managers. Reviews in Fisheries Science 8:125-139. 

Heyland, J.D. and K. Hay. 1976. An attack by a polar bear on a juvenile beluga. Arctic 

29:56-57. 

Hicks, M. 2000. Evaluating criteria for the protection of aquatic life in Washington's 

surface water quality standards- Dissolved oxygen. Washington State Department of 

Ecology. Olympia, WA. DRAFT discussion paper and literature summary No. 00-10-071. 

Hobbs, R.C., K.L. Laidre, D.J. Vos, B.A. Mahoney, and M. Eagleton. 2005. Movements 

and Area Use by Belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) in a Sub-Arctic Alaskan Estuary. 

Arctic 58(4): 331-340. 

Hobbs, R. C, D. J. Rugh, and D. P. DeMaster. 2000. Abundance of belugas, 

Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska, 1994-2000. Mar. Fish. Rev. 62(3):37-45. 

Hodge, R. P. 1979. Dermochelys coriacea schlegeli (Pacific leatherback) USA: Alaska. 

Herpetological Review 10. 

Howarth, R., Anderson, D., Cloern, J., Elfring, C., Hopkinson, C., Lapointe, B., Malone, 

T., Marcus, N., McGlathery, K., Sharpley, A., Walker, D. 2000. Nutrient Pollution of 

Coastal Rivers, Bays, and Seas. Issues in Ecology, Number 7, Fall 2000. Ecological 

Society of America. pp. 1-15 

Hunt, G. L., H. Kato, and S. M. McKinnell. 2000. Predation by marine birds and 

mammals in the subarctic North Pacific Ocean. PICES Scientific Report, No. 14. 

Irving, J. S., and T. C. Bjornn. 1981. Status of Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon in 

Relation to the Endangered Species Act. Idaho Cooperative Fishery Reserach Unit, 

University of Idaho. Moscow, ID. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Islam, M. S., S. Khan, and M. Tanaka. 2004. Waste loading in shrimp and fish 

processing effluents: Potential source of hazards to the coastal and nearshore 

environments. Marine Pollution Bulletin 49:103-110. 

Johnson, J., and E. Weiss. 2006a. Catalog of Waters Important for Spawing, Rearing, or 

Migration of Anadromous Fishes- Southeastern Region Effective September 15, 2006. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Research and Technical 

Services. Anchorage, AK. Special Publication No. 06-17. Available at 

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/FishDistrib/FDD_catalogs.cfm. 

Johnson, J., and E. Weiss. 2006b. Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing, 

or Migration of Anadromous Fishes- Arctic Region, Effective September 15, 2006. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Research and Technical 

97
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Services. Anchorage, AK. Special Publication No. 06-14. Available at 

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/FishDistrib/FDD_catalogs.cfm. 

Johnson, J., and E. Weiss. 2006c. Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing, 

or Migration of Anadromous Fishes- Interious Region, Effective September 15, 2006. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Research and Technical 

Services. Anchorage AK. Special Publication No. 06-15. Available at 

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/FishDistrib/FDD_catalogs.cfm. 

 Johnson, J., and E. Weiss. 2006d. Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing, 

or Migration of Anadromous Fishes- Southcentral Region, Effective September 15, 2006. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Research and Technical 

Services. Anchorage, AK. Special publication 06-16. Available at 

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/FishDistrib/FDD_catalogs.cfm. 

 Johnson, J., and E. Weiss. 2006e. Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing, 

or Migration of Anadromous Fishes- Southwestern Region, Effective September 15, 

2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Research and 

Technical Services. Anchorage, AK. Special Publication No. 06-18. Available at 

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/FishDistrib/FDD_catalogs.cfm. 

Johnson, J., and E. Weiss. 2006f. Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing, 

or Migration of Anadromous Fishes- Western Region, Effective September 15, 2006. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Research and Technical 

Services. Anchorage, AK. Special Publication No. 06-19. Available at 

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/FishDistrib/FDD_catalogs.cfm. 

Jonkel, C.J., G.B. Kolenosky, R.J. Robertson and R.H. Russell. 1972. Further notes on 

polar bear denning habits. Pages 142-158 in S. Herrero, ed. Bears – Their Biology and 

Management. IUCN Publ. New Serv. 23. 

Karna, D. W. 2003. A Review of Some of the Effects of Reduced Dissolved Oxygen on 

the Fish and Invertebrate Resources of Ward Cove, Alaksa. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Watershed Restoration Univt, Region 10. Seattle, 

WA. 

Kenyon, K. W. 1969. The sea otter in the eastern Pacific Ocean. North American Fauna 

68:1-352. 

Kenyon, K. W., and D. W. Rice. 1961. Abundance and distribution of the Steller sea lion. 

Journal of Mammology 42:223-234. 

Kiliaan, H.P.L. and I. Sitrling. 1978. Observations on Overwintering Walruses in the 

Eastern Canadian High Arctic. Journal of Mammology. Vol 59(1): 197-200. 

Kimor, B. 1992. Impact of eutrophication of phytoplankton composition. Pages 871-878 

in R. A. Vollenweider, R. Marchetti, and R. Vicviani, editors. Marine Coastal 

Eutrophication. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 

98
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Kinder, T. H., and J. D. Schumacher. 1981. Hydrographic Structure Over the Contiental 

shelf of the Southeastern Bering Sea. Pages 31-52 in D. W. Hood, and J. A. Calder, 

editors. The Eastern Bering Sea Shelf: Oeanography and Resources. University of 

Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 

Kissling, M., K. J. Kuletz, and S. Brockmann. 2005. Distribution and abundance of 

Bracnyramphus murrelets from Icy Bay to Cross Sound and in selected mainland fjords 

of Southeast Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Juneau, AK. 

Kozie, K.D. 1993. Coastal Wildlife Survey- Seabirds and marine mammals along the 

Malaspina Forelands 1992. Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve (WRST) 

Research and Resource Management Report (Report No. 92-07). 

Kranz, P. M. 1974. The anastrophic burial of bivalves and its peleroecologica 

significance. Journal of Geology 82:237-265. 

Kuletz, K. J., S. W. Stephensen, D. B. Irons, E. A. Labundki, and K. M. Brenneman. 

2003. Changes in distribution and abundance of Kittletz's murrelets Brachyramphus 

brevirostris relative to glacial recession in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine 

Ornithology 31:133-140. 

Kuletz, K. J., B. Manly, D. Nations, and D. B. Irons. 2005. Declines in Kittletz's and 

marbled murrelets in Prince William Sound, Alaska: Dealing with uncertainty. Pages 

173-195 in K. J. Kuletz, editor. Foraging Behavior and Productivity of a Non-Colonial 

Seabird, the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), Relative to Prey and 

Habitat, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Victoria, British Columbia. 

Kvitek, R., and C. Bretz. 2004. Harmful algal bloom toxins protect bivalve populations 

from sea otter predation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 271. 

Larned, W. W., and G. R. Balogh. 1997. Eider breeding population survey, Arctic 

Coastal Plain, Alaska, 1992-1996. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird 

Management. Anchorage, AK. 

Larned, W. W., G. R. Balogh, and M. R. Petersen. 1995. Late winter distribution of 

spectacles eiders (Somateria fischeri) in the Bering Sea, 1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management. Anchorage, AK. 

Leask, L., M. Killorin, and P. Craves. 2006. Understanding Alaska: People, Economy, 

and Resources. Institue of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska 

Anchorage. Anchorage, AK. 

Leatherwood, S., R. R. Reeves, W. F. Perrin, and W. E. Evans. 1982. Whales, dolphins, 

and porpoises of the eastern North Pacific and adjacent Arctic waters: A guide to their 

identification. NOAA Technical Rept. NMFS Circular 444. 245 pp. 

LeDuc, R., J. Carretta, and W. Perryman. 2002. Summary of the SWFSC research 

efforts on right whales from 1998-2002. Page 8. Unpublished manuscript, Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, LaJolla, CA. 

99
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Lee, S. H., and D. M. Schell. 1999. Climate change effects on bowhead whale feeding: 

stable istope evidence. 13th biennial conference on the biology of marine mammals, 

Society of Marine Mammalogy in NMFS 2005. 

Legendre, L. 1990. The significance of microalgal blooms for fisheries and for the export 

of particulate organic carbon in oceans. Journal of Plankton Research 12:681-699. 

Lefebvre, K. A., C. L. Powell, M. Busman, G. L. Doucette, and e. al. 1999. Detection of 

domoic acid in northern anchovies and California sea lions associataed with an unusual 

mortaility event. Natural Toxins 7:85-92. 

Lefebvre, K. A., S. L. Dovel, and M. W. Silver. 2001. Tissue distribution and neurotoxic 

effects of domoic acid in a prominent vector species, the northern anchovy, Engraulis 

mordax). Marine Biology 138:693-700. 

Lentfer, J.W. 1982. Polar bear (Ursus maritimus). Pages 557-566 in J.A. Chapman 

and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and 

Economics. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 

Lentfer, J.W. and R.J. Hensel. 1980. Alaskan polar bear denning. Pages 101-108 in 

C.J. Martinka and K.L. McArthur, eds. Bears – Their Biology and Management. Fourth 

International Conference on Bear Research and Management. U.S. Gov. Print Off., 

Washington, D.C. 

Lentfer, J.W., R.J. Hensel, J.R. Gilbert and F.E. Sorensen. 1980. Population 

characteristics of Alaskan polar bears. Pages 102-115 in C.J. Martinka and K.L 

McArthur, eds. Bears – Their Biology and Management. Fourth International 

Conference on Bear Research and Management. U.S. Gov. Print Off., Washington, 

D.C. 

Livingston, P. A., and S. Tjelmeland. 2000. Fisheries in boreal ecosystems. ICES 

Journal of Marine Science:57. 

Lloyd, C., M. L. Tasker, and K. Partridge 1991. The status of seabirds in Britian and 

Ireland. Nature Conservancy Council and Seabird Group, T & A D Poyser, London, 

England. 

Lono, O. 1970. The polar bear in the Svalbard area. Norsk Poarinst. Skrifter 149:1­

103. 

Loughlin, T.R., A.S. Perlov, and V.A. Vladimirov. 1992. Range-wide Survey and 

Estimation of Total Abundance of Steller Sea Lion in 1989. Marine Mammal Science 8: 

220-239. 

Loughlin, T.R. and A.E. York. 2000. An Accounting of the Sources of Steller Sea Lion 

Mortality, Eumetopias jubatus, Mortality. Marine Fisheries Review 62: 40-45. 

Lowry, L.F., J.J. Burns, and R.R. Nelson. 1987. Polar bear, Ursus maritimus, predation 

on belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in the Bering and Chukchi seas. Can. Field. Nat. 

101:141-146. 

100
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Lunn, N.J. and G.B. Stenhouse. 1985. An observation of possible cannibalism by polar 

bears (Ursus maritimus). Can. J. Zool. 63:1516-1517. 

Mallek, E. J. 2002. Aerial breeding pair surveys of the Arcitc Coastal Plain of Alaska, 

2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fairbanks, AK. 

Martin, M. and T.W. Barry. 1978. Nesting behavior and food habits of parasitic jaegers 

and Anderson River Delta, Northwest Territories. Canadian Field-Naturalist 92: 45-50. 

Mauer, D. L., R. T. Keck, J. C. Tinsman, W. A. Leathem, C. A. Wethe, M. Huntzinger, C. 

Lord, and T. M. Church. 1978. Vertical migration of benthos in simulated dredged 

material overburdens. Vol 1: Marine Benthos. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways 

Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report D-78-35. 

Mauritzen, M., A. E. Derocher, and Ø. Wiig. 2001. Space-use strategies of female polar 

bears in a dynamic sea ice habitat. Can. J. Zool. 79:1704–1713. 

McClure, M., B. Sanderson, E. Holmes, C. Jordan, P. Kareiva, and P. Levin. 2000. 

Revised Appendix B of Standardized Quantitative Analysis of the Risks Faced by 

Salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. 

Seattle, WA. 

McDonald, M. A. 1999. Passive acoustic methods applied to fin whale population 

density estimatin. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (Lancaster, 

Pennsylvania) 105:2643-2647. 

Mendenhall, V. 1993. Monitoring of populations and productivity of seabirds at Cape 

Peirce, Bluff, and Cape Thompson, Alaska, 1990. MMS, Environmental Studies Unit. 

Anchorage, AK. Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, Final 

Report OCS Study MMS 920-0047. 

Mendenhall, V. and H. Milne. 1985. Factors affecting duckling survival of eiders 

Somateria mollissima in northeast Scotland. Ibis 127: 148-158. 

Metzner, K. A. 1993. Ecological strategies of wintering Steller's Eiders on Izembek 

Lagoon and Cold Bay, Alaska-. Page 193. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO in 

USFWS 2002a. 

MMS. 2003. Cook Inlet Planning Area. Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. 

Derpartment of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Alaska Outer Continental 

Shelf. Anchorage, AK. OCS EIS/EA MMS 94-0066 in EPA 2006. 

Moore, S. E. 2000. Variability in cetacean distribution and habitat section in the Alaskan 

Arctic, autumn 1982-91. Arctic. 53(4):448-460. 

101
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Moore, S. E., K. M. Stafford, M. E. Dahlheim, C. G. Fox, H. W. Braham, J. J. Polovina, 

and D. E. Bain. 1998. Seasonal variation in reception of fin whale calls at five geographic 

areas in the North Pacific. Marine Mammal Science 14:617-627 in NMFS 2006c. 

Mueter, F. J. 2004. Gulf of Alaska. Pices Special Publication: Marine Ecosystems of the 

North Pacific. North Pacific Marine Science Organization. 

Mueter, F. J., and B. L. Norcross. 2002. Spatial and temporal patterns in the demersal 

fish community on the shelf and upper slope regions of the Gulf of Alaksa. Fishery 

Bulletin 100:559-581. 

Munro, J. and J. Bedard. 1977. Gull predation and creching behavior in the common 

eider. Journal of Animal Ecology 46: 799-810. 

Musgrave, D. L., T. J. Weingartner, and T. C. Royer. 1992. Circulation and hydrography 

in the northwest Gulf of Alaska. Deep Sea Research 39:1499-1519 in NMFS 2005. 

Nettleship, D.N. 1977. Seabird resources of eastern Canada: Status, problems, and 

prospects. In: Proc. Symp. On can. Threatened Species and Habitats, Can. Nat. Fed. T. 

Mosquin and C. Suchal (Eds.). 

NMFS. 1991. Final Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). 

Natioanal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS. 1992. Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Steller Sea 

Lion Recovery Team, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS. 1993. Final conservation plan for the northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus). 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory/Alaska Fisheries Center & Office of Protected 

Resources. Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS. 1997. Recovery plan for the U.S. Pacific populations of the leatherback turtle 

(Dermochelys coriacea). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS. 2001. Stock Assessment Report: Humpback Whale (Megaptera noveagliae) 

Central Northeast Pacific Stock. Natioanl Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS. 2003. Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis): Eastern North Pacific Stock. National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

NMFS. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Essential Fish Habitat 

Identification and Conservation in Alaska (Chapter 3). National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Nationa Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region. Available 

at: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/seis/efheis.htm. 

102
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

NMFS. 2006a. Draft Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan: Eastern and Western Distinct 

Population Segments (Eumetopias jubatus). National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Services, Office of Protected Resources. 

Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS. 2006b. Right Whales (Eubalaena glacialis/ Eubalaena australis). National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Accessed 

8/6/09 by J. Zodrow U.S. EPA. Available at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/rightwhale.htm. 

NMFS. 2006c. Draft recovery plan for the fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus). National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver 

Spring, MD. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet 

beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, 

Alaska. 

NMFS. 2009a. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. Accessed 8/6/09 by J. Zodrow U.S. EPA. Available at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/chinooksalmon.htm. 

NMFS. 2009b. Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Office of Protected Resources. Accessed 8/6/09 by J. 

Zodrow U.S. EPA. Available at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/steelheadtrout.htm. 

NMFS. 2009c. Sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Accessed 8/6/09 by J. 

Zodrow U.S.EPA. Available at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/spermwhale.htm. 

NMFS. 2009d. Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Accessed 8/6/09 by J. 

Zodrow U.S.EPA. Available at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/leatherback.htm. 

NMFS. 2009e. Green turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Accessed 8/6/09 by J. Zodrow 

U.S.EPA. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm. 

NMFS. 2009f. Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus). National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Accessed 8/6/09 by J. 

Zodrow U.S.EPA. Available at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/bowheadwhale.htm 

103
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

NMFS. 2009g. Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas). National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Accessed 8/6/09 by J. 

Zodrow U.S.EPA. Available at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/belugawhale.htm 

NMFS, and USFWS. 1998. Recovery plan for the U.S. Pacific populations of the East 

Pacific green turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, MD. 

NovaTec Consultants. 1994a. Wastewater Characterization of Fish Processing Plant 

Effluents. Fraser River Estuary Management Program. Vancouver, BC. Technical Report 

Series FREMP WQWM-93-10 DOE FRAP 1993-39. 

NovaTec Consultants. 1994b. Guide for Best Management Practices for Process Water 

Management at Fish Processing Plants in British Columbia. Environment Canada 

Industrial Programs Section Environmental Protection. 

NPAART. 2003. Management of Wastes from Altantic Seafood Processing Operations. 

National Programme of Action Atlantic Regional Team. Environment Canada Atlantic 

Region. Dartmouth, NS. Final Report TE23016. 

O’Shea, T.J., G.B. Rathbun, R.K. Bonde, C.D. Buergelt, D.K. Odell. 1991. An epizootic 

of Florida manatees associated with a dinoflagellate bloom. Marine Mammal Science 

7:165-179. 

Oliver, J. S., and P. N. Slattery. 1973. Dredging, dredge spoil disposal and benthic 

invertebrates in Montery Bay. Moss Landing Marine Laboratory Report. Montery, CA in 

EPA 1994b. 

Ohsumi, S., and S. Wada. 1974. Status of whale stocks in the North Pacific,1972. 

Report to the International Whaling Commission 24:114-126 in NMFS 2006c. 

Pearson, T. H., and R. Rosenberg. 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic 

enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanography and Marine Biology 

Annual Review 16:229-311 in EPA 1994b. 

Pendashteh, A. R., and N. Chaibakhsh. 2005. Efficient control of emissions in fish and 

meat processing plants. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 82: 696. 

Perry, S. L., D. P. DeMaster, and G. K. Silber. 1999. The sei whale. Marine Fisheries 

Review 61:52-58 in NMFS 2005. 

Peterson, M. R. 1981. Populations, feeding ecology and molt of Steller's Eiders. Condor 

83:256-262 in USFWS 2002a. 

Piatt, J.F., M.D. Romano, V.Gill and A. DeGange. 2005. Density and abundance of 

Kittlitz’s and Marbled Murrelets in the Near Islands, Aleutian Islands, Alaska, July 2003. 

U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Rep. ANMWR 05/22 

104
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Piatt, J.F., S.A. Hatch, B.D. Roberts, W.W. Lidster, J.L. Wells, and J.C. Haney. 1988. 

Populations, productivity, and feeding habits of seabirds on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. 

U.S. Fish and Wildl. Ser. Final Rep. for Minerals Management Service (OCS Study MMS 

88-0022). 235 pp. 

Priest, W. I. 1981. The effects of dredging impacts on water quality and estuarine 

organisms: A literature review, special report. Applied Marine Science and Ocean 

Engineering. Virginia Institue of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA. 

Ramsay, M.A. and I. Stirling. 1982. Reproductive biology and ecology of female polar 

bears in western Hudson Bay. Nat. Can. (Que.) 109:941-946. 

Reed, J.A., and Flint, P.L. 2007. Movement and Foraging Effort of Stetter’s Eiders and 

Harlequin Ducks Wintering Near Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Journal of Field Ornithology. 

78(1)124-132, 2007. 

Reed, R. K. 1984. Flow of the Alaskan Stream and its variations. Deep-Sea Research 

31:369-386. 

Reeves, J. E., G. K. Silber, and P. M. Payne. 1998a. Draft Recovery Plan for the fin 

whale Balaenoptera physalus and sei whale Balaenoptera borealis. National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected 

Resouces. Silver Spring, MD. 

Reeves, R. R., P. J. Clapham, R. L. Brownell, and G. K. Silber. 1998b. Recovery Plan 

for the Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus). National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Silver 

Spring, MD. 

Regehr, E.V., N.J. Lunn, S.C. Amstrup, and I. Stirling. 2007a. Effects of earlier sea ice 

breakup on survival of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 71(8): 2673-2683. 

Regehr, E.V., C.M. Hunter, H. Caswell, S.C. Amstrup and I. Stirling. 2007b. Polar bears 

in the southern Beaufort Sea: survival and breeding in relation to sea ice conditions, 

2001-2006. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Report, 

Reston, Virginia, 45pp. 

Regehr, E.V., S.C. Amstrup and I. Stirling. 2006. Polar bear population status in the 

Southern Beaufort Sea. Report Series 2006-1337, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Anchorage, Alaska, 55pp. 

Reilly, S. B., and V. G. Thayer. 1980. Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) distribution in 

the eastern Tropical Pacific. Marine Mammal Science 6:265-277. 

Rice, D. W. 1998. Marine Mammals of the World: Systematics and Distribution. Allen 

Press, Inc in NMFS 2005. 

105
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Richard, P.R., M.P. Heide-Jorgensen, J.R. Orr Jr., R. Diets, and T.G. Smith. 2001. 

Summer and Autumn Movements and Habitat Use by Belugas in the Canadian High 

Arctic and Adjacent Areas. Arctic 54(3): 207-222. 

Ridgeway, S. and Sir R. Harrison (eds). 1981. Handbook of Marine Mammals Vol. 4. 

London: Academic Press. 

Riegman, R. 1995. Nutrient-related selection mechanisms in marine plankton 

communities and the impact of eutrophication on the plankton food web. Water Science 

Technology 32:63-75. 

Rinella, D. J., D. L. Bogan, and E. B. Major. 2003. 2002 Alaska Biological Monitoring and 

Water Quality Assessment Program Report. Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation. Anchorage, AK. 

Robards, M., G. Drew, J. F. Piatt, J. M. Anson, A. Abookire, J. Bodkin, P. Hooge, and S. 

Speckman. 2003. Ecology of selected marine communities in Glacier Bay: zooplankton, 

forage fish, seabirds and marine mammals. Final report to the National Park Service. 

Anchorage, AK in USFWS 2005b. 

Rode, K.D., S.C. Amstrup, and E.V. Regehr. 2007. Polar Bears in the southern 

Beaufort Sea III: stature, mass and cub recruitment in relationship to time and sea ice 

extent between 1982 and 2006. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey 

Administrative Report, Renton, Virginia, 28pp. 

Rosenberg, R., B. Hellman, and B. Johansson. 1991. Hypoxic tolerance of marine 

benthic fauna. Marine Ecology Progress Series 79:127-131. 

Russell, R.H. 1975. The food habits of polar bears of James Bay and southwest Hudson 

Bay in summer and autumn. Arctic 28:117-129. 

Saila, S. B., S. D. Pratt, and T. T. Polgar. 1972. Dredge spoil disposal in Rhode Island 

Sound. University of Rhode Island. Marine Technical Report No. 2. in EPA 1994b. 

Schafer, W. 1972. Ecology and paleoecology of the marine environment in G. Y. Craig, 

editor in EPA 1994b. 

Scholin, C. A., F. Gulland, G. L. Doucette, S. Benson, and e. al. 2000. Mortality of sea 

lions along the central California coat linked to toxic diatom bloom. Nature 403:80-84. 

Sheldon, K. E. W., and D. J. Rugh. 1995. The Bowhead Whale, Balena mysticetus: Its 

Historic and Current Status. Marine Fisheries Review 57:1-20. 

Smimizu, Y. 1989. Toxicology and pharmacology of red tides: An overview. Pages 17-21 

in T. Okaichi, D. M. Anderson, and T. Nemoto, editors. First international symposium on 

red tides, Takamatsu, Kagawa Prefecture, Japan. 

Smayda, T.J. 1990. Novel and nuisance phytoplankton blooms in the sea: Evidence for 

a global epidemic. In: Toxic marine phytoplankton. Graneli, E., B. Sundtrom, L. Edler, 

and D. Anderson (Eds). Elsevier, NY. 

106
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Smayda, T.J. and A.W. White. 1990. Has there been a global expansion of algal 

blooms: If so, is there a connection with human activities? In: Toxic marine 

phytoplankton. Graneli, E., B. Sundtrom, L. Edler, and D. Anderson (Eds). Elsevier, NY. 

Smayda, T. J., and P. Fofonoff. 1989. An extraordinary, noxious brown-tide in 

Narragansett Bay. 

Speckman, S., J. F. Piatt, and K. J. Kuletz. 2005. Population status and trends of 

Brachyramphus murrulets in lower Cook Inlet, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

USGS Alaska Science Center. Anchorage, AK. Science Support Program/ Species at 

Risk Annual Report in USFWS 2005b. 

Stafford, K. M. 2003. Two types of blue whale calls recorded in the Gulf of Alaska. 

Marine Mammal Science 19:682-693 in NMFS 2005. 

Stafford, K. M., S. L. Nieukirk, and C. G. Fox. 2001. Geographic and seasonal variation 

of blue whale calls in the North Pacific. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 

3:65-76 in NMFS 2005. 

Stebbins, R. C. 1966. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin, 

Boston, MA in NMFS 2005. 

Stehn, R., C. P. Dau, B. Conant, and W. I. Butler. 1993. Decline of Spectacled Eiders 

nesting in western Alaska. Arctic 46:264-277 in USFWS 1996. 

Stephenson, B. 1994. Arctic fox: Wildlife Notebook. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game. Available at http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/furbear/arcfox.php. 

Stevens, B.G. and J.A. Haaga. 1994. Ocean dumping of seafood processing wastes: 

Comparisons of epibenthic megafauna sampled by submersible in impacted and nonimpacted Alaskan bays, and estimation of waste decomposition rate. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Kodiak Laboratory, Kodiak, AK. 

Stinson, M. L. 1984. Biology of sea turtles in San Diego, California, and in the 

northeastern Pacific Ocean. Master’s Thesis. San Diego State University, San Diego, 

CA in NMFS 2005. 

Stirling, I. 2002. Polar Bears and Seals in the Eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen 

Gulf: A Synthesis of Population Trends and Ecological Relationships over Three 

Decades. Arctic. Vol 55. Supl. 1: 59-76. 

Stirling, I. 1997. Importance of polynyas, ice edges and leads to marine mammals and 

birds. Journal of Marine Systems 10:9-21. 

Stirling, I. 1980. The biological importance of polynyas in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic 

33: 303-315. 

Stirling, I. and W.R. Archibald. 1977. Aspects of predation of seals by polar bears. J. 

Fish. Res. Board Can. 34:1126-1129. 

107
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Stirling, I. and A.E. Derocher. 1990. Factors affecting the evolution and behavioral 

ecology of the modern bears. International Conference on Bear Research and 

Management 8:189-204. 

Stirling, I. and P.B. Latour. 1978. Comparative hunting abilities of polar bear cubs of 

different ages. Can. J. Zool. 56:1768-1772. 

Stirling, I., and McEwan, E.H. 1975. The caloric value of whole ringed seals (Phoca 

hispida) in relation to polar bear (Ursus maritimus) ecology and hunting behavior. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 53:1021– 1026. 

Stirling, I. and N.A. Oritsland. 1995. Relationships between estimates of ringed seal and 

polar bear populations in the Canadian Arctic. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 52:2594–2612. 

Stirling, I. and T.G. Smith. 1975. Interrelationships of Arctic Ocean mammals in the sea 

ice habitat. Circumpolar Conference on Northern Ecology 2:129-36. 

Stirling, I., N.J. Lunn, and J. Iacozza. 1999. Long-term trends in the population ecology 

of polar bears in western Hudson Bay in relation to climate change. Arctic 52: 294-306. 

Stirling, I., Andriashek, D.A., and Calvert, W. 1993. Habitat preferences of polar bears in 

the western Canadian Arctic in late winter and spring. Polar Record 29:13–24. 

Stirling, I., W. Calvert, and D. Andriashek. 1984. Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) ecology 

and environmental considerations in the Canadian High Arctic. Pp. 201-222 in R. Olson, 

F. Geddes and R. Hastings, eds. Northern ecology and resource management. Univ. 

Alberta Press, Edmonton. 

Stirling, I., W. Calvert, and D. Andriashek. 1980. Population ecology studies of the polar 

bear in the area of southeastern Baffin Island. Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional 

Paper 44. 30 p. 

Sundtrom, B., L. Edler, and E. Graneli. 1990. The global distribution of harmful effects of 

phytoplankton. Pages 537-541 in E. Graneli, B. Sundtrom, L. Edler, and D. M. Anderson, 

editors. Toxic marine pytoplankton. Elsevier, New York NY. 

Suydam, RS, LF Lowry, KJ Frost, GM O’Corry-Crow, and D. Pikok Jr. 2001. Satellite 

tracking of eastern Chukchi Sea beluga whales into the Arctic Ocean. Arctic 54(3):237­

243. 

Taylor, F. J. R. 1990. Red tides, brown tides and other harmful algal blooms. The view 

into the 1990s in E. Graneli, B. Sundtrom, L. Edler, and D. M. Anderson, editors. Toxic 

marine phytoplankton. Elsevier, New York, NY. 

Taylor, J. C., and J. M. Miller. 2001. Physiological performance of juvenile southern 

flounder, Paralichthys lethostigma, in chronic and episodic hypoxia. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 258:195-214. 

108
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Taylor, M.K., T. Larsen and R.E. Schweinsburg. 1985. Observations of intraspecific 

aggression and cannibalism in polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Arctic 38:303-309. 

Thatcher, T.O. 1980. The relative sensitivity of Pacific Northwest fishes and 

invertebrates to chlorinated sea water. In: Water chlorination – Environmental impact 

and health effects, Volume I. R.L. Jolley (Ed.). Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI. 

Thorne, R. E., and R. Crawford. 2007. Seafood Waste Discharge in Orca Inlet. The 

Breakwater: Newsletter of the Prince William Sound Science Center. 

Thorne, R., G. Thomas, and M. Bishop. 2006. Alternative seafood waste disposal 

procedures for Alaskan waters. Proceedings of Oceans 06, Boston, MA. 

Tyler, H. 1975. Common terns, Arctic terns, and roseate terns in Maine. Prepared for 

the Maine Critical Areas Program. 

Tynan, C.T., D.P. DeMaster and W.P. Peterson. 2001. Endangered right whales on the 

southeastern Bering Sea shelf. Science 294:1,894. 

Tynan, C. T. 1999. Critical habitat and abundance estimation of right whales in the 

southeast Bering Sea. International Whaling Commission in NMFS 2005. 

United Nations. 1990. Review of potentially harmful substances. Nutrients. United 

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Paris, France. Reports and 

Studies No. 34 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Conservation Plan for the Polar Bear in 

Alaska. Marine Mammals Management. Anchorage, AK. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996. Spectacled Eider: Recovery Plan. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, AK. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2000. Final Rule to list the short-tailed 

albatross as Endangered. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002a. Steller's Eider: Recovery Plan. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Fairbanks, AK. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002b. Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris): Southwest 

Alaska Stock. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Mangement. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Species assessment and listing priority 

assignment form: Kittlitz’s Murrelet. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. 38 

pp. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005a. Short-tailed Albatross: Draft Recovery 

Plan. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService. Anchorage, AK. 

109
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species 

Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form: Brachyramphus brevirostris. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, AK. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Southwest Alaska Distinct 

Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni). 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. ESA Basics: 30 Years of Protecting 

Endangered Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program. 

Arlington, VA. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006b. Spectacled Eider (Somateria fischeri): 

Fact sheet. Available at http://alaska.fws.gov/media/SpecEider_FactSheet.htm. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) 

Throughout Its Range. Federal Register. Vol 73(95): 28212-28303. 

Van Pelt, T.I., and Piatt, J.F. 2003. Population Status of Kittlitz's and Marbled Murrelets 

and surveys for other marine bird and mammal species in the Kenai Fjords area, Alaska. 

Annual Report to USFWS, USGS Science Support Project. 

Waite, J. M. 1998. Northern right whale sighted off Alaska. Marine Mammal Society 

Newsletter 6:7 in NMFS 2005. 

Waples, R. S. 1991. Pacific Salmon, Oncorhynchus spp., and the definition of "species" 

under the Endangered Species Act. Marine Fisheries Review 53:11-12 in NMFS 2005. 

Watkins, W. A., M. A. Daher, G. M. Reppuci, J. E. George, D. L. Martin, N. A. DiMarzio, 

and D. P. Gamnon. 2000. Seasonality and distribution of whale calls in the North Pacific. 

Oceanography 13:62-67 in NMFS 2005. 

Wilber, P. 1992. Case studies of the thin-layer disposal of dredged material-Fowl River 

Alabama. Environmental Effects of Dredging, Vol. D-92-5. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS in EPA 1994b. 

Wilber, D. H., and D. G. Clark. 2001. Biological effects of suspended sediments: A 

review of suspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging 

activities in estuaries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:855-875. 

Wolfe, R. J. 2000. Subsistence in Alaska: A Year 2000 Update. Alaska Departement of 

Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Juneau, AK. 

Wolfe, R. J., and C. J. Utermohle. 2000. Wild Food Consumption Rate Estimates for 

Rural Alaska Populations. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Subsistence. Juneau, AK. Technical Paper No. 261. 

Wu, R. S. S. 2002. Hypoxia: from molecular responses to ecosystem responses. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 45:35-45. 

110
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Zaitsev, Y. P. 1992. Recent changes in the trophic structure of the Black Sea. Fish 

Oceanography 1:180-189. 

Zug, G. R., and J. F. Parham. 1996. Age and growth in leatherback turtlesm 

Dermochelys coriacea: A skelotochronological analysis. Chelonian Conservation and 

Biology 2:244-249 in NMFS 2005. 

9.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT 

9.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 

Please refer to Section 2 of this document for a description of the proposed action. 

9.2 EFH FOR APPROPRIATE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as 

amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires 

Federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on 

activities that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as 

“those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth 

to maturity” (50 CFR § 600.10). All federal agencies are required to consult with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on any actions authorized, funded, or 

undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH (50 CFR § 600.920.10). The 

objective of this EFH assessment is to determine whether or not the proposed actions 

“may adversely affect” designated EFH for relevant commercially, federally-managed 

fisheries species within the proposed action area. Again, NOAA has defined “adverse 

effect” in the context of EFH consultation as “any impact which reduces the quality 

and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, 

chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, 

benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if 

such modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH 

may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of EFH and may include sitespecific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic 

consequences of actions” (50 CFR 600.810). 

EFH has been designated in waters of Alaska for anadromous fish and certain life 

stages of marine fish under NMFS’ jurisdiction. EFH for Fishery Management Plans in 

Alaska are described in Chapter 6, “NMFS Recommendations on the Description and 

Identification of EFH” in the “Essential Fish Habitat – Environmental Assessment for 

Amendment 55 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Amendment 55 to the Fishery Management Plan 

for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for 

the King and Tanner Crab Fisheries in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands; Amendment 5 to 

the Fishery Management Plan for Scallop Fisheries off Alaska; Amendment 5 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off the Coast of Alaska,” 

dated January 20, 1999 (http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/efh_ea/; NPFMC, 1999). The 

discussion in the following three paragraphs is an excerpt from Chapter 6. Table 9.1 lists 

FMP-managed species in Alaska. 

111
 
 

 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Briefly, EFH for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) region groundfish includes 

pelagic, epipelagic, and meso-pelagic waters, as well as on-bottom and near-bottom 

habitats of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. It also includes pelagic and bottom 

nearshore, inshore, and intertidal waters of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. EFH 

for Gulf of Alaska (GOA) species include pelagic, pelagic inshore, epipelagic, and 

bottom habitats; EFH for BSAI crabs occurs throughout the water column and includes 

bottom habitats and inshore waters. 

EFH for the salmon fisheries off the coast of Alaska consists of the aquatic habitat, both 

fresh water and marine, necessary to allow for salmon production needed to support a 

long-term sustainable salmon fishery and salmon contributions to healthy ecosystems 

(NPFMC, 1999). For the purpose of identifying EFH, the distribution of salmon in a 

watershed can be assumed based on access to salt water, with the upstream limits 

determined by presence of migration blockages. According to the Alaska Forest 

Resources and Practices Act (AS 41.17), an “anadromous water body” means the 

portion of a fresh water body or estuarine area that (a) is cataloged under AS 16.05.870 

as important for anadromous fish; or (b) has been determined by AD&FG to contain or 

exhibit evidence of anadromous fish in which case the anadromous portion of the stream 

or waterway extends up to the first point of physical blockage. Therefore, if salmon 

occur in a stream’s estuary, the area of stream up to the first point of physical blockage 

is presumed to be salmon habitat. 

Information on life histories and salmon distributions can be found in the “Catalog of 

Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes” and the 

“Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Returning or Migration of 

Anadromous Fishes.” However, not all waters important to salmon are identified in the 

Catalog and Atlas. For example, these documents are derived from U.S. Geological 

Survey maps which may be out of date because of changes in channel and coastline 

configurations. In addition, only a limited number of water bodies have actually been 

surveyed and are not included in the Catalog or Atlas. Waters that may not be included 

may include small- and medium-sized tributaries, flood channels, intermittent streams 

and beaver ponds which are often used for rearing or otherwise provide important 

habitat for anadromous fish (NPFMC, 1999). 

Table 9.1 Fisheries management plan (FMP)-managed species in Alaska (from 

Appendix D, Section D-3, Final Environmental Impact Statement for Essential Fish 

Habitat Identification and Conservation in Alaska, NOAA, 2005. Available at: 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/seis/efheis.htm). 

Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands Groundfish 

Walleye pollock 

Shortraker/rougheye rockfish 

Pacific cod Northern rockfish 

Yellowfin sole Thornyhead 

rockfish 

Greenland turbot Yelloweye 

rockfish 

Arrowtooth flounder Dusky rockfish 

Gulf of Alaska Groundfish 

Walleye pollock Thornyhead 

rockfish 

Pacific cod Yelloweye 

rockfish 

Yellowfin sole Dusky rockfish 

Arrowtooth flounder Atka mackerel 

Rock sole Sculpins 

Alaska plaice Skates 

112
 
 

 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Rock sole Atka mackerel 

Alaska plaice Skates 

Rex sole Sculpins 

Dover sole Sharks 

Flathead fole Forage fish 

complex 

Sablefish Squid 

Pacific ocean perch Octopus 

Rex sole Sharkes 

Dover sole Forage fish 

complex 

Flathead sole Squid 

Sablefish Octopus 

Pacific ocean perch 

Shortraker/rougheye rockfish 

Northern rockfish 

Bering Sea-Aleutian Island Crab 

Red king crab Tanner crab 

Blue king crab Snow crab 

Golden king crab 

Alaska Stocks of Pacific Salmon 

Pink Chinook 

Chum Coho 

Sockeye 

Alaska scallops 

Weathervane scallop 

9.2.1 Walleye Pollock 

Pollock are widely distributed throughout the North Pacific Ocean in temperate and sub 

arctic waters (NMFS 2005). Pollock are found throughout the water column from the 

surface to about 500 meters (1,640 feet). Juveniles have EFH in inner continental shelf 

regions with water depths ranging from 1 to 50 meters (3 to 164 feet). Seasonal 

migrations occur from the outer continental shelf to shallow waters (90 to 140 meters 

[295 to 459 feet]) for spawning. Spawning takes place in early spring; the eggs are 

pelagic, and found at depths from 0 to 1000 meters, and hatch in about 10-20 days 

depending on water temperature. Epipelagic larvae have a similar distribution, spending 

20-30 days in the surface waters. Juvenile and adults are most often in lower and middle 

portion of the water column at depths less than 200 meters, for juveniles, and less than 

1000 meters for adults. These life stages have no substrate preference. 

9.2.2 Pacific Cod 

Pacific cod is a demersal species that occurs on the continental shelf and upper 

continental slope. Spawning habitat occurs along the continental shelf and slope 

between about 40 to 290 meters (131 to 951 feet) with spawning typically occurring from 

January to April. Pacific cod converge in large spawning masses over relatively small 

areas, with spawning occurring in the sublittoral/bathyl zone near the bottom. The eggs 

sink to the bottom and are somewhat adhesive. Little is known about the substrate type 

required for egg incubation. The optimal conditions for embryo development are water 

temperatures between 3 to 6oC, salinity between 13 to 23 parts per thousand (ppt), and 

dissolved oxygen concentrations from 2 to 3 parts per million (ppm). The larvae are 

epipelagic, occurring primarily in the upper 45 meters (148 feet) of the water column 

shortly after hatching, and they move downward in the water column as they grow. The 

larvae occur primarily in waters less than 100 meters deep over soft substrate. Cod are 

concentrated on the shelf edge and the upper slope (100 to 200 meters deep) in the 

winter and spring. These fish overwinter in this zone and spawn from January to April; 

then they move to shallower waters (less than 100 meters deep) in the summer. Adults 

113
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

occur in depths from the shoreline to 500 meters (1,640 feet); their preferred substrate is 

soft sediment from mud to clay or sand (NMFS 2005). All life stages of Pacific cod, 

except juveniles, have EFH in inner continental shelf regions with water depths ranging 

from 1 to 50 meters (3 to 164 feet). Juvenile and adult EFH occurs in the lower portion of 

the water column in the inner, middle, and outer continental shelf from 0 to 200 meters; 

where their preferred substrate is soft sediment primarily from mud to gravel (NMFS 

2005). 

9.2.3 Yellowfin Sole 

The EFH for all the life stages of the yellowfin sole occurs in either intertidal or inner 

continental shelf waters at depths less than 50 meters (164 feet). Yellowfin sole eggs, 

larvae, and juveniles are pelagic and are usually found in shallow areas. Larvae are 

planktonic for at least 2 to 3 months until metamorphosis occurs, usually inhabiting 

shallow nearshore areas. Adults are benthic and occupy separate winter and 

spring/summer spawning and feeding grounds. Adults overwinter near the shelf slopebreak at approximately 200 meters and move into nearshore spawning areas as the 

shelf ice recedes (NMFS 2005). Spawning is protracted and variable, beginning as early 

as May and continuing through August. Spawning primarily occurs in water less than 30 

meters deep. After spawning, adults disperse broadly over the continental shelf for 

feeding. Adults exhibit wintertime migration to deeper waters of the shelf margin to avoid 

extreme cold water temperatures, and feeding diminishes during this time. 

9.2.4 Greenland Turbot 

Also know as Greenland halibut, are distributed from Baja California northward 

throughout Alaska, although primarily found in the eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Island region. Spawning occurs in winter from September through March, on the eastern 

Bering Sea slope. The eggs are benthypelagic (suspended in the water column near the 

bottom). The larvae are planktonic for up to 9 months until metamorphosis occurs, 

usually with a widespread distribution throughout shallow waters. Juveniles spend the 

first 3 to 4 months on the continental shelf, and then move to the slope as adults. 

Greenland halibut or turbot are demersal to semi pelagic. Adults inhabit continental 

slope waters with annual spring/fall migrations from deeper to shallow waters. 

9.2.5 Arrowtooth Flounder 

All life stages of arrowtooth flounder occur in inner continental shelf regions with water 

depths ranging from 1 to 50 meters (3 to 164 feet). Spawning is thought to occur from 

September through March. Larvae are planktonic for at least 2 to 3 months until 

metamorphosis occurs; juveniles usually inhabit shallow areas. Adults are found in 

continental shelf waters until age four and occupy both shelf and deeper slope waters at 

older ages with highest concentrations at 100 to 200 meters (NMFS 2005). Both adults 

and juveniles are found often over softer substrate, typically mud and sand, in the lower 

portion of the water column. 

9.2.6 Rock Sole 

EFH for all life stages of rock sole, except egg, occurs in inner continental shelf regions 

with water depths ranging from 1 to 50 meters (3 to 164 feet) along the western portions 

of Alexander Archipelago extending eastward along the coastline to Kodiak Island. 

Spawning takes place during late winter/early spring near the edge of the continental 

shelf at depths from 125 to 250 meters (410 to 820 feet). Eggs are demersal and 

adhesive. The larvae are planktonic for at least 2-3 months until metamorphosis occurs. 

Juveniles inhabit shallow waters until at least age one (NMFS 2005). Juveniles and 

114
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

adults occur over moderate to softer substrates of sand, gravel and cobble mostly in 

depths from 0 to 200 m. 

9.2.7 Alaska Plaice 

Defined EFH for Alaska plaice includes eggs, larvae, late juveniles and adults. Alaska 

plaice is considered a “deep water” species in the Gulf of Alaska groundfish 

management area. Eggs are present over a range of depths (0 to 500 meters) in the 

spring. Juvenile and adult EFH is in the lower portion of the water column at depths of 0 

to 200 meters, over sand and mud substrate (NMFS 2005). 

9.2.8 Dover Sole 

EFH for Dover sole life stages from egg through late juvenile occurs in intertidal and 

inner shelf [1 to 50 meters (3 to 64 feet)]. These areas include areas adjacent to the 

western sides of Admiralty, Baronof, Chichagof, Kuiu, and Kupreano Islands. This fish is 

considered a “deep water flatfish” in the Gulf of Alaska management area. The EFH 

ranges to great depths (0 to 3000 meters) for larvae and eggs. Adults and juvenile EFH 

are less deep (0 to 500 meters) in the middle and outer shelf and upper slope areas, 

occurring in the lower portion of the water column over softer substrate of sand and mud 

(NMFS 2005). 

9.2.9 Flathead sole 

EFH for all life stages of flathead sole occurs in inner continental shelf regions with water 

depths ranging from 1 to 50 meters (3 to 164 feet). Adults are benthic and have separate 

winter spawning and summer feeding distributions. The fish over-winter near the 

continental shelf margin and then migrate onto the mid and outer-continental shelf areas 

in the spring to spawn. The eggs are pelagic and the larvae are planktonic and usually 

inhabit shallow areas. Egg and larvae EFH ranges from 0 to 3000 meters, while juvenile 

and adults’ EFH is shallower 0 to 200 meters occurring over sand and mud substrate. 

Like all flatfish they occur in the lower portion of the water column. 

9.2.10 Sablefish 

Sablefish are found in the Gulf of Alaska, westward to the Aleutian Islands, and in gullies 

and deep fjords generally at depths greater than 200 meters such as Prince William 

Sound and Southeast Alaska. Studies have shown that sablefish can be highly migratory 

for at least part of their lifecycle moving between the Gulf of Alaska to the Aleutian 

Islands and the Bering Sea. EFH for early juvenile sablefish occurs in inner continental 

shelf regions in water depths less than 50 meters (164 feet). Spawning is pelagic at 

depths of 300 to 500 meters (984 to 1,640 feet) near the edges of the continental slope. 

Larvae are oceanic through the spring; by late summer small juveniles [10-15 

centimeters (4-6 inches)] occur along the outer coasts of Southeast Alaska, where they 

predominantly spend their first winter. First to second year juveniles are found primarily 

in nearshore bays; they move to deeper offshore waters as they age with EFH habitat at 

depths of 200 to 1000 meters. Adults are found on the outer continental shelf mainly on 

the slope and in deep gullies at typical depths of 200 to 1000 meters, over varied habitat, 

usually in softer substrate (NMFS 2005). 

9.2.11 Pacific Ocean Perch 

This species has historically been the most abundant rockfish species in the Gulf of 

Alaska. Known spawning areas are southeast of the Pribilof Islands in the Eastern 

Bering Sea and in the Gulf of Alaska near Yakutat. Major feeding areas are found off 

Unimak Pass and Kodiak Island and adjoining islands. Most of the adult population 

occurs in patchy, localized aggregations. Pacific Ocean perch appear to exhibit annual 

bathymetric migration from deep water in winter (approximately 300 to 420 meters) to 

115
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

shallower water (150 to 300 meters) in the summer and fall. It is primarily a demersal 

species that inhabits the outer continental shelf and upper continental slope regions of 

the North Pacific Ocean. Similar to other rockfish, Pacific Ocean perch have internal 

fertilization and release live young. Insemination occurs in the fall, and release of larvae 

occurs in April or May. The larvae are thought to be pelagic and drift with the current. 

Later-stage juveniles are believed to migrate to an inshore, demersal habitat, where they 

seem to inhabit rockier, higher relief areas than adults. As they mature, juveniles move 

to progressively deeper waters of the continental shelf. Adults [longer than 25 

centimeters (10 inches)] are associated with pebble substrate on flat or low relief bottom, 

while juveniles prefer rugged areas containing cobble-boulder and epifaunal invertebrate 

cover (NMFS 2005). 

9.2.12 Shortraker/Rougheye Rockfish 

Shortraker and rougheye rockfish inhabit the outer continental shelf and upper 

continental slope of the northeastern Pacific from the Eastern Bering Sea to as far south 

as Point Conception, California. Trawl surveys have found juvenile rougheye rockfish at 

many inshore locations and also offshore on the continental shelf. In contrast, very few 

juvenile shortraker rockfish have ever been caught, and their preferred habitat is 

unknown. Adults of both species are semidemersal and are usually found on the 

continental slope in deeper waters and over rougher bottoms than Pacific Ocean perch. 

Shortraker and rougheye adults appear together often in trawl hauls and are 

concentrated in a narrow band along the slope at depths of 300 to 500 meters. Habitats 

with steep slopes and frequent boulders are used at a higher rate than those with 

gradual slopes and few boulders (NMFS 2005). 

9.2.13 Northern Rockfish 

Northern rockfish in the northeast Pacific range from the Eastern Bering Sea, throughout 

the Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska, to northernmost British Columbia. Little is 

known about the biology and life history of this species. Like other members of their 

genus, they are believed to bear live young in the early spring. There is no information 

on the habitat requirements of larval or early juvenile stages. Older juveniles are found 

on the continental shelf, generally at locations inshore of adult habitat, which is on 

relatively shallow rises of banks on the outer continental shelf at depths of 75 to 150 

meters (NMFS 2005). The fish appear to be associated with relatively rough bottoms on 

these banks, and they are mostly demersal in their distribution. 

9.2.14 Thornyhead Rockfish 

Thornyheads in Alaska comprise two species: the shortspine thornyhead and the 

longspine thornyhead. The shortspine thornyhead is a demersal species found in deep 

water from 93 to 1460 meters, from the Eastern Bering Sea to Baja California. The 

longspine thornyhead inhabit depths from 370 to 1600 meters. Little is known about 

thrornyhead life history. These fish spawn large masses of buoyant eggs during the late 

winter and early spring. Juveniles are pelagic for the first year. Thornyhead rockfish 

inhabit the outer shelf and slope region through the northeastern Pacific and the Eastern 

Bering Sea. 

9.2.15 Yelloweye Rockfish 

Yelloweye rockfish occur on the continental shelf from Northern Baja California to the 

Eastern Bering Sea, commonly in depths less than 200 meters (NMFS 2005). They 

inhabit areas of rugged, rocky relief, and adults appear to prefer complex bottoms with 

“refuge spaces”. 

9.2.16 Dusky Rockfish 

Dusky rockfish are included within the assemblage of rockfish species termed “pelagic 

shelf rockfish”. Genetic and morphometric studies indicate that two species of dusky 

116
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

rockfish occur in the North Pacific Ocean: an inshore, shallow water, dark-colored variety 

and an offshore lighter-colored variety (NMFS 2005). Life history information on the 

dusky rockfish is extremely sparse. Females give birth to live young apparently in the 

spring, but there is no information on the larval or early juvenile stages. Older juveniles 

have not been sampled in large numbers, but appear to live on the inner continental 

shelf, generally at locations inshore of adults. The preferred habitat of adult fish appears 

to occur over the offshore banks of the outer continental shelf at depths of 100 to 149 

meters (328 to 489 feet) (NMFS 2005). 

9.2.17 Atka Mackerel 

Atka mackerel are distributed from the east coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula, 

throughout the Aleutian Islands and the Eastern Bering Sea, and eastward through the 

Gulf of Alaska to Southeast Alaska (NMFS 2005). Their current center of abundance is 

in the Aleutian Islands, with marginal distributions extending into the southern Bering 

Sea and the western Gulf of Alaska. Adult Atka mackerel are semi-pelagic and spend 

most of the year over the continental shelf in water depths generally less than 200 

meters (656 feet). Adults migrate annually to shallow coastal waters during spawning. 

Females deposit adhesive eggs in nests or rocky crevices (NMFS 2005). Planktonic 

larvae are found up to 800 kilometers from shore, usually in the upper water column, but 

little is known about their distribution until the fish are 2 years old and appear in the 

fishery. 

9.2.18 Skates 

EFH for adult skates is defined as waters from 0 to 500 meters on shelf and upper slope 

areas. They are present in the lower portion of the water column over varied substrate 

from mud to rock. Skates are oviparous, fertilization is internal, and eggs are deposited 

in a horny case for incubation. After hatching, juveniles likely remain in shelf and slope 

waters, but distribution is unknown. Adults and juveniles are demersal and feed on 

bottom invertebrates and fish. Data from surveys indicates that Alaska skates are most 

common from 50 to 200 meters deep on the continental shelf in the Eastern Bering Sea 

and the Aleutian Islands and are less common in the Gulf of Alaska between 100 and 

350 meters. The Bering skate is found in the Gulf of Alaska and the Eastern Bering Sea 

between 100 and 350 meters. No data is available on habitat requirements or movement 

(NMFS 2005). 

9.2.19 Sculpins 

Both juvenile and adults sculpin species are present in the lower portion of the water 

column in the inner, middle and outer shelf (0 to 200 meters) and also in the upper slope 

(200 to 500 meters) in the Gulf of Alaska, over varied substrate (mud to rock). Most 

spawning occurs in the winter, with some species having internal fertilization. Typically 

eggs are laid in rocks where males guard them. Larvae often have diel migrations (near 

surface at night), and may be present year around. 

9.2.20 Sharks 

Sharks in the project area include spiny dogfish, the Pacific sleeper shark, and salmon 

sharks. Spiny dogfish are widely distributed in the Pacific Ocean. In the North Pacific, 

they are more common in the Gulf of Alaska, but are also found in the Eastern Bering 

Sea. They are a pelagic species, found from the surface down to 700 meters, but most 

commonly along the continental shelf to 200 meters depth. The females give birth in 

shallow coastal waters from September to January. Spiny dogfish move inshore in 

summer and offshore in winter. The Pacific sleeper shark is distributed throughout the 

Eastern Bering Sea, and occurs primarily on the outer shelf and the upper slope, but has 

also been seen near shore. Fertilization and development of these sharks is unknown. 

117
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Salmon sharks are distributed epipelagically along the continental shelf. They can be 

found in shallow waters throughout the Gulf of Alaska and the Eastern Bering Sea. 

These sharks have been found mostly on the outer shelf/upper slope areas in the 

Eastern Bering Sea, but from nearshore areas to the outer shelf in the Gulf of Alaska, 

especially near Kodiak Island and in Prince William Sound. Females likely give birth in 

offshore pelagic areas. 

9.2.21 Forage Fish Complex 

Forage fish, as a group, occupy a central position in the North Pacific Ocean food web, 

being consumed by a wide variety of fish, marine mammals, and seabirds. The complex 

includes many species, but the most common are capelin, eulachon, Pacific sand lance, 

and Pacific herring. 

Capelin are distributed along the entire coastline of Alaska and south along British 

Columbia to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Spawning occurs in the spring in intertidal zones 

of coarse sand and fine gravel, especially in Norton Sound, northern Bristol Bay, and 

around Kodiak Island. In the Eastern Bering Sea, adults are found only in nearshore 

habitats during the months surrounding the spawning run. During other times of year, 

capelin are found far offshore in the vicinity of the Pribilof Islands and the continental 

shelf break. This seasonal migration may be associated with the advancing and 

retreating polar ice front. Capelin have fairly narrow temperature preferences and 

probably are very susceptible to increases in water column temperatures. 

Eulachon spawn in the lower reaches of coastal rivers and streams from northern 

California to Bristol Bay. This fish plays a significant cultural and ecological role in the 

coastal areas of Alaska. The number of streams supporting eulachon on the west coast 

of North American is relatively small, but Southeast Alaska has more than 25 runs of 

eulachon. They spawn in the spring in the rivers of the Alaska Peninsula and are 

consistently found in groundfish surveys between Unimak Island and the Pribilof Islands 

in the Eastern Bering Sea, and the Shelikof Strait in the Gulf of Alaska. 

Pacific sand lance are usually found on the sea bottom, at depths between 0 and 100 

meters except when feeding (pelagically) on crustaceans and zooplankton. Spawning 

occurs in winter and little is known about their distribution and abundance. Near Kodiak 

Island, sand lance have been found to hatch between March and April after spending up 

to several months in beach sediments. Newly hatched sand lance migrate offshore in 

early spring and spend time in offshore bank areas. In late summer, massive schools of 

fish start migrating inshore to suitable beach habitat for spawning and overwintering. 

Pacific herring migrate in schools and are found along both shores of the ocean, ranging 

from San Diego Bay to the Bering Sea. They generally spawn during the spring in 

confined shallow vegetated areas in the intertidal and subtidal zones with eggs hatching 

about two weeks later. Young larvae drift and swim with the currents before 

metamorphosis into the juvenile form. Juveniles rear in sheltered bays and inlets. After 

spawning, most adults leave inshore waters and move offshore to feed. Herring schools 

spend daylight hours near the bottom and move upward in the evening to feed. 

9.2.22 Squid 

Juvenile and adult squid use the entire water column over the shelf (0 to 500 meters) 

and the entire slope (500 to 1,000 meters) regions (NMFS 2005). Reproduction is poorly 

known. But fertilization is internal, and squid lay eggs in gelatinous masses in water 200 

to 800 meters deep. Young juveniles are often in water less than 100 meters deep, while 

older juveniles and adults are more often in waters 150 to 500 meters deep. Spawning 

occurs in the spring (NMFS 2005). 

9.2.23 Octopi 

118
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

In the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska, the most commonly encountered octopi are the 

shelf demersal species Enteroctopus dofleini (the giant octopus), which inhabits the 

sublittoral to upper slope regions, and the bathypelagic species Vampyroteuthis 

infernalis, which lives at depths well below the thermocline, most commonly from 700 to 

1500 meters depth. Little is know of their food habits, longevity, or abundance. 

9.2.24 Red King Crab 

The red king crab is widely distributed in the Gulf of Alaska and the BSAI, but defined 

EFH is restricted to the BSAI. They are present in the shelf areas to 250 meters depth. 

Mating occurs in water less than 50 meters deep from January to June. Larvae spend 2 

to 3 months in a pelagic stage. After metamorphosis young of the year juvenile crabs are 

present in water less than 50 meters. At age of 1.5 to 2 years juveniles migrate in large 

pods to deeper water. Early stage juveniles use high relief coarse substrate (e.g., 

boulders, cobbles) areas. This habitat is present in the continental shelf area of 0 to 200 

meters wherever there is substrate of rock, cobble, gravel and biogenic structures. 

Defined late juvenile and adult stage EFH is located primarily in Bristol Bay, with small 

areas in the Aleutian Islands and Norton Sound (NMFS 2005). 

9.2.25 Blue King Crab 

Blue king crab are found in discontinuous populations throughout their range which 

includes Alaskan regions from the Bering Sea, Pribilof Islands, St. Mathews Island, St. 

Lawrence Island to Southeast Alaska (NMFS 2005). Defined EFH is restricted to the 

BSAI region and excludes the GOA region. Adults are found at an average depth of 70 

meters. Larvae, after 3.5 to 4 months as pelagic stage, settle to the bottom between 40 

to 60 meters. Juveniles require rocky shell hash nearshore habitat, while adults reside 

typically at 45 to 75 meters in mud-sand substrate (NMFS 2005). The EFH 

characteristics for late juveniles is found in nearshore waters where rocky areas and 

shell hash are present in 0 to 50 meters, extending out wherever rock cobble and gravel 

are present to 200 meters in the continental shelf areas of the BSAI (NMFS 2005). Adult 

EFH characteristics are the same as late juveniles except substrate consists of sand and 

mud adjacent to rocky –shell hash areas. Defined late juvenile and adult stage EFH is 

located primarily in the central Bering Sea (Pribilofs, St. Mathews Island areas), with a 

very small region in Norton Sound. 

9.2.26 Golden King Crab 

Golden king crab in the Alaskan region has a wide distribution ranging from the BSAI to 

Southeast Alaska. They are present at great depths, 200 to 1000 meter deep, typically in 

regions of high relief such as inter Island passes (NMFS 2005). Defined EFH is 

restricted to the BSAI region and excludes the GOA. Life stage affects depth distribution. 

Legal males occur at about 274 to 639 meters, and females from 274 to 364 meters. 

Juveniles can be found at all depths within their depth range distribution. EFH 

characteristic for late juvenile crab ranges from upper slope (200 to 500 meters) to 

basins more than 3000 meters deep containing boulders, vertical walls, ledges and 

panicles in high relief with living substrate areas of the BSAI. EFH characteristics for 

adults are similar to juveniles except they extend into shallower outer shelf waters (100­

200 meters) as well as regions greater than 3000 meters. Defined late juvenile and adult 

stage EFH is located in small areas primarily surrounding the Aleutian Islands, and 

scattered areas in the Bering Sea. 

9.2.27 Tanner Crab 

Tanner crab in Alaska are concentrated around the Pribilof Islands, just north of the 

Alaskan Peninsula, and in low abundance in the GOA (NMFS 2005). Defined EFH is 

restricted to the BSAI and excludes regions in the GOA. Mating occurs in January to 

119
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

June and egg hatching from April to June. Larvae are pelagic in the 1 to 100 meters 

depth, and then settle to bottom areas of mud, 10 to 20 meters deep, in the summer. 

Late juveniles migrate offshore. EFH includes inner (0 to 50 meters) to outer (100 to 200 

meters) continental shelf regions for both late juveniles and adults, wherever substrate is 

primarily mud, in the regions designated as EFH (NMFS 2005). Defined late juvenile and 

adult stage EFH is located primarily in a triangular shape region extending from a wide 

area just north of the Alaskan Peninsula in Bristol Bay to the northwest central Bering 

Sea (NMFS 2005). 

9.2.28 Snow Crab 

Snow Crab in Alaskan waters are found from the Arctic Ocean to the Bering Sea and do 

not extent to the GOA (NMFS 2005). They are most common at depths less than 200 

meters. Immature crabs are more abundant at less than 80 meters depth. Mating occurs 

from January to June, with brooding likely occurs at depths greater than 50 meters. EFH 

characteristics for late juvenile and adult stages include inner (0 to 50 meters) to outer 

(100 to 200 meters) continental shelf regions throughout the BSAI where mainly mud 

bottom is present. Defined late juvenile and adult stage EFH is located primarily in a 

large central Bering Sea area surrounding the Pribilof Islands and St. Matthews Island, 

mostly well offshore. 

9.2.29 Weathervane Scallop 

Weathervane scallops can be present from intertidal to 300 meters, but highest 

abundance is 40 to 130 meters (NMFS 2005). They mature in 3 years and spawn from 

May to July by releasing eggs and sperm into the water. Larvae are pelagic for a month 

before settling to the bottom. The defined EFH of late juvenile and adult stage 

weathervane scallops extends to suitable depths from about the entrance of Icy Straits 

west of Juneau, to north just short of Prince William Sound and then again from the 

Cook Inlet entrance along the south region of the Alaskan Peninsula, with a small area 

extending into the Bering sea near the end of the Alaskan Peninsula. EFH habitat of late 

juveniles and adults are along the sea floor in the middle (50 to 100 meters) to outer 

(100 to 200 meters) shelf areas. Their distribution is generally elongated with the current 

flow direction lines (NMFS 2005). They are typically present over clay to gravel 

substrates. While they are capable of swimming they generally remain along sea floor 

depressions. Fertilization is external, with pelagic larvae drifting for a month before 

settling to the sea floor (NMFS 2005). 

9.2.30 Salmon 

There are five Pacific salmon species (pink, chum, sockeye, Chinook and coho salmon) 

that are present in Alaskan waters. They have broad distribution in Alaskan waters with 

some species found in nearly all potential marine or freshwater action areas. They are 

unique among the EFH species with EFH in the project area in being present in the 

freshwater, estuarine and marine environments. While each species has specific life 

history characteristics, several common characteristics are present among the species. 

They all deposit their eggs in freshwater or estuarine (some) environments, these eggs 

and early juveniles incubate within a gravel environment for several months. The 

juveniles emerge from gravel and spend days to years in mostly freshwater before 

entering estuarine and marine areas. They eventually move into the marine environment 

where they may rear for at least a year in regions that may be several hundred miles 

from where juveniles emerged from gravel. As they approach adult stage they all return 

to their natal freshwater source area to spawn once and die. So EFH in the overall 

potential action area may include any of the 6 life stage categories (freshwater eggs, 

120
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

freshwater larvae and juveniles, estuarine juveniles, marine juveniles, marine immature 

and maturing adults, and freshwater adults)(Table 8-4). 

9.2.30.1 Pink Salmon 

Pink salmon are the most common salmon species in Alaska and have freshwater 

distribution covering nearly the entire coastal areas. The EFH for pink salmon, within the 

potential project areas, includes adult spawning, juvenile freshwater rearing, estuarine 

juvenile, marine juvenile and marine immature and maturing adults (NMFS 2005). The 

estuarine EFH would be the mouth areas of streams from the mean high tide line to the 

salinity transition zone. All other marine life stage EFH could be included in the entire 

potential project area, as EFH habitat for this species extends from the mean higher tide 

line to the 200 nautical mile limit of the U.S. EEZ. This species is pelagic to a depth of 

about 200 meters. Pink salmon spawn in small streams within a few miles of the shore, 

or within the intertidal zone, or at the mouths of streams. Eggs are laid in stream gravels. 

After hatching salmon fry move downstream to the open ocean. Pink salmon stay close 

to the shore moving along beaches during their first summer feeding on plankton, 

insects and small fish. At about 1 year of age, pink salmon move offshore to ocean 

feeding Adult pink salmon return to their natal streams to spawn between June and midOctober. This species is pelagic to a depth of about 200 meters, and generally rears in 

ocean areas south of the limits of spawning streams (NMFS 2005). 

9.2.30.2 Chum Salmon 

Chum salmon have the widest distribution in the North Pacific Ocean of any salmon 

species (NMFS 2005). The EFH for chum salmon, within the potential action areas, 

includes adult spawning, juvenile freshwater rearing, estuarine juvenile, marine juvenile, 

and marine immature and maturing adults (NMFS 2005). The estuarine EFH would be 

the mouths of streams from the mean high tide line to the salinity transition zone. All 

other marine life stage EFH could be included in the entire potential action area, as EFH 

habitat for this species extends from the mean higher tide line to the 200 nautical mile 

limit of the U.S. EEZ. This species is pelagic to a depth of about 200 meters. Most chum 

salmon spawn in small streams within 100 miles of the ocean, or within the intertidal 

zone, but sometimes travel great distances up large rivers (e.g., Yukon River). Adults 

return to spawn between June and January, with earliest spawning occurring in the 

northern portion of their range. Eggs are laid in stream gravels or in some areas in 

intertidal zones, such as Prince William Sound (NMFS 2005). After hatching salmon fry 

move downstream to estuaries then into the open ocean. Estuaries are very important to 

chum salmon during the spring and summer (NMFS 2005). 

9.2.30.3 Sockeye Salmon 

Sockeye salmon have wide distribution within Alaskan waters, but are unique among 

salmon species in usually requiring a lake for early rearing. The EFH for sockeye 

salmon, within the potential project area, includes adult spawning, juvenile rearing, 

estuarine juvenile, marine juvenile and marine immature and maturing adults (NMFS 

2005). The estuarine EFH includes the mouth areas of streams from the mean high tide 

line to the salinity transition zone. All other marine life stage EFH could be included in 

the potential project area, as EFH habitat for this species extends from the mean higher 

tide line to the 200 nautical mile limit of the U.S. EEZ. This species is pelagic to a depth 

of about 200 meters. Sockeye salmon spawn in stream systems with lakes, or on lake 

shoreline areas, during late summer or fall. After moving into lakes in the spring they 

typically rear in the limnetic zone. After one to 3 years in fresh water lakes the fry move 

downstream to the open ocean. During their first year in the ocean they generally stay in 

a narrow nearshore band until at least fall when they are suspected to move offshore 

(NMFS 2005). 

121
 
Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

9.2.30.4 Chinook Salmon 

Chinook salmon, which are the largest of all salmon species, are usually most abundant 

in the largest river systems in Alaska. The EFH for Chinook salmon, within the potential 

action area, includes adult spawning, juvenile freshwater rearing, estuarine juvenile, 

marine juvenile and marine immature and maturing adults (NMFS 2005). The estuarine 

EFH would be the mouth areas of streams from the mean high tide line to the salinity 

transition zone. All other marine life stage EFH could be included in the entire potential 

project area, as EFH habitat for this species extends from the mean high tide line to the 

200 nautical mile limit of the U.S. EEZ. This species is pelagic to a depth of about 200 

meters. Chinook salmon spawn in small and large streams, but may include some of the 

longest migration of any salmon, over 2000 miles in some systems. Adults return to 

streams at age 2 to 7 years. They usually spawn in freshwater systems during late 

summer or early fall. Eggs are laid in stream gravels. Two forms of juvenile freshwater 

rearing life history are present for Chinook salmon. Juveniles that emerge and migrate to 

the ocean within weeks or a few months are called “ocean type”, and have extensive 

estuary rearing. Those juveniles that rear in freshwater for typically 1 to 3 years before 

migrating to the ocean in the spring are called “stream type”, and spend less time in 

estuarine waters. Stream-type Chinook salmon are dominant in Alaska. Chinook salmon 

tend to stay deeper in the water column than other salmon, typically deeper than 30 

meters, while other species tend to stay in the upper 20 meters (NMFS 2005). 

9.2.30.5 Coho Salmon 

Coho salmon, which use the broadest environment of any salmon, are present in many 

streams south of Point Hope Alaska, including the Aleutian Islands (NMFS 2005). The 

EFH for coho salmon, within the potential project areas, includes adult spawning, 

juvenile freshwater rearing, estuarine juvenile, marine juvenile and marine immature and 

maturing adults (NMFS 2005). The estuarine EFH would be the mouth areas of streams 

from the mean high tide line to the salinity transition zone. All other marine life stage 

EFH could be included in the entire potential action area, as EFH habitat for this species 

extends from the mean higher tide line to the 200 nautical mile limit of the U.S. EEZ. 

This species is pelagic to a depth of about 200 meters. Coho salmon spawn in small 

streams. They are typically the last salmon to arrive at the spawning areas, generally 

from July to December (NMFS 2005). Eggs are laid in stream gravels. After one to 3 

years in fresh water ponds, lakes, and stream pools the salmon smolts move 

downstream to the open ocean. Some coho salmon may use estuarine areas in the 

summer of their first year in the ocean, but migrate upstream to overwinter in freshwater 

(NMFS 2005). 

9.3 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

9.3.1 Potential effects of action on BSAI groundfish EFH 

BSAI groundfish EFH is found within the action area, including federal waters 3 nautical 

miles (nm) or more from shoreline. Visual inspection of NOAA EFH maps 

(http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/efh.htm; accessed May 2006) and text descriptions of 

EFH indicate that EFH for multiple life stages of many BSAI groundfish are within the 

potential action area for offshore seafood processing facilities. The coastal waters of 

southeastern Alaska, the southern coast of the Kenai peninsula, waters of the Shelikof 

Strait, coastal waters surrounding Kodiak Island, coastal waters surrounding the Alaska 

Peninsula and Aleutian Islands, and some coastal waters of the Bristol Bay area are 

designated as EFH for one or more BSAI groundfish, including the following: walleye 

pollock, pacific cod, Greenland turbot, arrowtooth flounder, rock sole, Alaska plaice, rex 

122
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

sole, Dover sole, flathead sole, and yelloweye rockfish. No information was found on the 

geographic distribution of EFH for some BSAI groundfish, including forage fish complex 

or octopus. 

The following description of potential adverse effects from seafood processing 

discharges is provided in Appendix G to the Alaska Essential Fish Habitat Environmental 

Impact Statement (NOAA 2005) 

Offshore seafood processing wastes consist of biodegradable materials that contain high 

concentrations of soluble organic material. Seafood processing operations have the 

potential to adversely affect EFH through (1) direct source discharge, (2) particle 

suspension, and (3) increased turbidity and surface plumes. 

Seafood processing operations have the potential to adversely affect EFH through the 

direct discharge of nutrients, chemicals, fish byproducts and “stickwater” (water and 

entrained organics originating from the draining or pressing of steam-cooked fish 

products). EPA investigations show that impacts affecting water quality are direct 

functions of the receiving waters. In areas with strong currents and high tidal ranges, 

waste materials disperse rapidly. In areas of quieter waters, waste materials can 

accumulate and result in shell banks, sludge piles, dissolved oxygen depressions, and 

associated aesthetic problems (Stewart and Tangarone 1977). This permit covers 

offshore seafood processors 3 nm or more from shore and requires discharges to occur 

in areas with adequate flushing. 

Processors discharging fish waste are required to adhere to the technology based and 

water quality based limits outlined in the NPDES permits. Although fish waste, including 

heads, viscera and bones, is biodegradable, fish parts that are ground to fine particles 

may remain suspended for some time, thereby overburdening EFH from particle 

suspension (Council 1999). Such pollutants have the potential to adversely impact EFH. 

The wide differences in habitats, types of processors and seafood processing methods 

define those impacts and can also prevent the effective use of technology-based effluent 

limits. 

Seafood discharge piles can alter benthic habitat, reduce locally associated invertebrate 

populations and lower dissolved oxygen levels in overlying waters. Impacts from 

accumulated processing wastes are not limited to the area covered by the waste piles. 

Severe anoxic and reducing conditions occur adjacent to effluent piles (EPA 1979). 

Examples of localized damage to benthic environment include several acres of bottom 

driven anoxia by piles of decomposing waste up to 26 feet (7.9 meters) deep. Juvenile 

and adult stages of flatfish are drawn to these areas for food sources. One effect of this 

attraction may lead to increased predation on juvenile fish species by other flatfishes, 

diving seabirds and marine mammals drawn to the food source (Council 1999). The 

proposed permit covers offshore seafood processors which includes mobile vessels that 

are located in high tidal areas with good flushing which allows dispersion and dilution of 

the seafood discharges. In addition, ZODs are not permitted in this permit. Therefore, 

the potential for accumulated seafood wastes is minimal. 

Scum and foam from seafood waste deposits can also occur on the water surface or 

increase turbidity. Increased turbidity decreases light penetration into the water column, 

reducing primary production. Reduced primary production decreases the amount of 

123
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

food available for consumption by higher trophic level organisms. In addition, stickwater 

takes the form of a fine gel or slime that can concentrate on surface waters and move 

onshore to cover intertidal areas. However, this permit requires discharge in high tidal 

areas with adequate flushing which should minimize the potential for these impacts to 

occur. 

A number of important species including, walleye pollock, Pacific cod, rock sole, and 

sand lance release demersal eggs. As with other types of fish eggs, demersal eggs 

require oxygen for development. Seafood waste discharges resulting in waste piles are 

typically anoxic due to decay and decomposition of the waste. Thus, demersal eggs 

could be smothered if located beneath a discharge. Such smothering of demersal eggs 

could have a substantial adverse impact on these demersal species and other aquatic 

organisms that prey upon these fish. Seafood wastes that are discharged during 

spawning and egg production periods have the most potential to adversely affect these 

species. A number of studies have been conducted regarding effects of suspended 

solids on egg mortality, but the effect of waste deposition on egg mortality is not well 

documented (USEPA 1984b). In particular, it is not known at what depth of deposition 

egg survival would be impaired. However, it is reasonable to conclude that impairment 

may occur at fairly shallow waste depths (e.g., 0.4 in) if that depth of waste was 

sufficient to impair oxygen transfer to the egg or if anoxic conditions were present such 

as those commonly observed in and around the ZOD (e.g., Germano & Associates, 

2004). As stated earlier, this permit covers vessels located 3 nm or more in high tidal 

areas with good flushing, which should minimize the potential for waste piles and 

smothering of demersal eggs. 

For context, Alaska has approximately 47,000 miles of coastal marine shoreline, and the 

surface area of coastal bays and estuaries alone in Alaska is 33,211 square miles 

(ADEC, 2005). The potential aggregate area of all offshore seafood processor facilities 

in Alaska waters in the action area is unlikely to occupy more than a small fraction of the 

total offshore area. 

The revised offshore seafood processing permit may reduce, but does not mandate 

avoidance of, adverse effects from authorized offshore seafood processing to EFH. The 

mechanisms described in the preceding paragraphs, together with an understanding of 

the characteristics of offshore seafood processors that have been authorized in Alaska, 

suggests that there is potential for offshore seafood processor discharge to adversely 

affect EFH. 

EPA expects that these effects, while possible, are likely to be limited in extent for 

several reasons. First, the spatial scale of impacts to EFH would be limited given the 

large geographic ranges of BSAI groundfish species’ EFH and the limited aggregate size 

of offshore seafood processor discharges relative to other available offshore water. In 

addition, some BSAI groundfish may have the ability to avoid areas where seafood 

processing discharges are located. Secondly, in areas with strong currents and high 

tidal ranges, waste materials disperse rapidly. Since the offshore seafood processors 

covered under this permit will be at least 3 nm from shore, the seafood processing 

discharge would be in areas with strong currents and high tidal ranges and would 

dissipate rapidly not allowing for accumulation of the seafood discharge. 

124
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Despite these factors, however, EPA is unable to rule out the possibility that the 

proposed approval of the revised offshore seafood processor permit will adversely affect 

BSAI groundfish EFH. The State’s revised offshore seafood processor permit does not 

set forth a procedure for (a) assessing potential impacts of a permitting action on EFH 

or, in the event of a potential for adverse impact, (b) procedures or requirements for 

avoiding or otherwise addressing that impact. 

Therefore, EPA has determined that the offshore seafood processor permit may 

adversely affect BSAI groundfish EFH. 

9.3.2 Potential Effects of Action on GOA Groundfish EFH 

GOA groundfish EFH is found within the action area, which is defined as federal waters 

3 nm or more from shore. Visual inspection of NOAA EFH maps 

(http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/efh.htm; accessed July 2006) and text descriptions of 

EFH indicate that EFH for multiple life stages of many GOA groundfish are within the 

potential action area. For example, EFH has been defined for species including Pacific 

cod, arrowtooth flounder, Dover sole, flathead sole, northern rockfish, dusky rockfish, 

and Atka mackerel in coastal waters including those around the Aleutian Islands, Kodiak 

Island, and the Shelikof Strait. 

For the same reasons explained in detail in Section 9.3.1, EPA has determined that the 

approval of the offshore seafood processor permit may adversely affect GOA 

groundfish EFH. 

9.3.3. Potential Effects of Action on BSAI King and Tanner Crab EFH 

BSAI King and Tanner crab EFH is found within the action area, which is defined as 

federal waters 3 nm or more from shore. Visual inspection of NOAA EFH maps 

(http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/efh.htm; accessed July 2006) and text descriptions of 

EFH indicate that EFH for BSAI King and Tanner crab is found within the potential action 

area. For example, EFH has been defined for blue king crab, red king crab, and Tanner 

crab in coastal waters including those around the Aleutian Islands, Pribilof Islands, and 

St. Matthew’s Island. 

Tanner and King crabs, which feed on a wide variety of organisms including worms, 

clams, mussels, snails, crabs, other crustaceans, and fish parts, may suffer adverse 

effects from loss of prey species due to burial from seafood processor discharge. 

The revised offshore seafood processor permit may reduce, but does not mandate 

avoidance of, adverse effects from authorized offshore seafood processing to EFH. 

Indeed, the potential for adverse effects to EFH within offshore seafood processing 

facilities authorized by DEC has been recognized elsewhere. 

EPA expects that these effects, while probable, are likely to be limited in extent for 

several reasons. First, the spatial scale of impacts to EFH would be limited given the 

large geographic ranges of BSAI King and Tanner crabs’ EFH and the limited aggregate 

size of offshore seafood discharges relative to other available offshore water. Secondly, 

in areas with strong currents and high tidal ranges, waste materials disperse rapidly. 

125
 
 

 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

Since the offshore seafood processors covered under this permit will be at least 3 nm 

from shore, the seafood processing discharge would be in areas with strong currents 

and high tidal ranges and would dissipate rapidly not allowing for accumulation of the 

seafood discharge. 

Despite these factors, however, EPA is unable to rule out the possibility that the 

proposed approval of the offshore seafood processor permit will adversely affect BSAI 

crab EFH. The revised offshore seafood processor permit does not set forth a 

procedure for (a) assessing potential impacts of a permitting action on EFH or, in the 

event of a potential for adverse impact, (b) procedures or requirements for avoiding or 

otherwise addressing that impact. 

Therefore, EPA has determined that the offshore seafood processor permit may 

adversely affect BSAI crab EFH. 

9.3.4 Potential Effects of Action on Alaska Scallop EFH 

Alaska scallop EFH is found within the action area. Visual inspection of NOAA EFH 

maps (http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/efh.htm; accessed July 2006) and text 

descriptions of EFH suggests that much of the scallop EFH may lie within the action 

area. 

For the same reasons explained in detail in Section 9.3.1, EPA has determined that the 

proposed approval of the offshore seafood processor permit may adversely affect 

Alaska scallop EFH. 

9.3.5 Potential Effects of Action on Alaska Stocks of Pacific Salmon EFH 

EFH for Alaska stocks of Pacific salmon is also found within the action area. As 

described in Section 9.2.30, the five FMP-managed Pacific salmon have broad 

distribution in Alaskan waters with some species found in nearly all potential marine 

action areas. EFH for the FMP-managed Alaska stocks of Pacific salmon are present in 

the estuarine and marine environments. EFH in the potential action area may include 

any of the 6 life stage categories (freshwater eggs, freshwater larvae and juveniles, 

estuarine juveniles, marine juveniles, marine immature and maturing adults, and 

freshwater adults). 

For the same reasons explained in detail in Section 9.3.1, EPA has determined that the 

proposed approval of offshore seafood processor permit may adversely affect EFH for 

Alaska stocks of Pacific salmon. 

9.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION 

As described in Section 9.3.1-9.3.5, EPA’s proposed action may adversely affect BSAI 

groundfish, BSAI crab, GOA groundfish, Alaska scallop and Alaska stocks of Pacific 

salmon EFH. These adverse effects relate to physical, chemical, and biological changes 

to EFH within areas of offshore seafood processor discharge. 

EPA has included the following list of conservation measures that are identified in 

Appendix G of the Alaska Essential Fish Habitat Environmental Impact Statement 

126
 
 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

(NMFS 2005). This is a potential approach that could identify, prevent, and/or mitigate 

any site-specific adverse effects of offshore seafood processor discharge authorized 

under Alaska’s proposed NPDES permit. 

The proposed conservation measures are as follows: 

1) To the maximum extent practicable, base effluent limitations on site-specific water 

quality parameters including water depth, current velocity, tidal exchange, salinity, 

temperature, pH, etc. This permit requires that offshore processors discharge in 60 

feet depths (MLLW) in areas of good flushing to avoid potential impacts to species. 

2) To the maximum extent practicable, avoid the practice of discharging untreated solid 

and liquid waste directly into the environment. Encourage the use of secondary or 

wastewater treatment systems where possible. This permit requires that sanitary 

wastes are treated with a system that meets the applicable U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG) pollution control standards in effect [33 CFR 159: "Marine sanitation 

devices"]. 

3) Minimization of new ZODs and reduction of footprints of existing ZODs. The 

proposed permit does not allow for ZODs. The current proposed permit is for mobile 

offshore facilities located in federal waters 3 nm or more from shore. According to 

the requirements of the permit, these processor vessels are expected to be in high 

tidal areas with good flushing so accumulation of seafood deposits on the seafloor is 

expected to be minimal. 

4) Control stickwater by physical or chemical methods. Often, stickwater is collected 

and evaporated to produce condensed fish solubles which can be used as an 

attractant for fish meal rather than eliminating stickwater through processor effluent. 

5) Promote sound fish waste management through a combination of fish-cleaning 

restrictions, public education and proper disposal of fish waste. 

6) Encourage the alternative use of fish processing wastes (e.g. fertilizer for agriculture 

and animal feed). While some of the vessels covered under this permit have fish 

meal plants on board, which help minimize the disposal of fish processing wastes, 

not many of the processors can add them to vessels that do not have them already 

due to costs and ability of boats to handle the heavy equipment. 

7) Explore options for additional research to minimize effects from seafood processor 

effluent. Look at potential to update technology-based effluent guidelines. The 

permit requires daily inspections of the grinder system and seafood wastes to ensure 

that wastes are reducing the seafood to 0.5 inches in size. The permit also requires 

daily sea surface inspections to ensure that residues and mats are not forming on 

the sea surface. This should further inform the potential effects seafood processor 

influent is having on EFH species. 

8) Locate new plants outside rearing and nursery habitat. As the majority of offshore 

processors are moving vessels 3 nm or more from shore it is expected that most of 

the vessels will discharge outside rearing and nursery habitat. Biological and 

chemical changes to the sites should be minimal as the offshore processor vessels 

are in areas of high tidal activity which allow for dispersion and dilution of the 

discharges from the vessels. 

9) Consider cumulative impacts of the discharges as well as other discharges into 

receiving waters and assure that the permittee is using state-of-the-art technology for 

collecting monitoring data for analyses. The current permit requires quarterly 

monitoring of both the influent and effluent for metals including arsenic, copper, 

cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver and zinc for a minimum of two 

127
 
 

 

Final Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for 

Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska 

August 2009
 

years. This monitoring along with daily monitoring of the sea surface should provide 

additional information on cumulative impacts of offshore discharges along with other 

discharges into receiving water. 

9.5 CONCLUSIONS BY EFH 

Several specific mechanisms by which offshore seafood processors could impact 

aspects of essential fish habitat have been described in Section 9.1. For example, 

various fish and crab species have a diet composed mainly of small benthic 

invertebrates. Impacts from accumulated processing wastes can alter benthic habitat, 

reduce locally associated invertebrate populations and lower dissolved oxygen levels in 

overlying waters. This could result in reduced prey availability or loss of habitat for some 

of the EFH managed species. A number of important species including, walleye 

pollock, Pacific cod, rock sole, and sand lance release demersal eggs. Seafood waste 

discharges resulting in waste piles are typically anoxic due to decay and decomposition 

of the waste which could affect the viability of the demersal eggs. In addition, demersal 

eggs could be smothered if located beneath a discharge. 

EPA expects that these effects, while possible, are likely to be limited in extent for 

several reasons. First, the spatial scale of impacts to EFH would be limited given the 

large geographic ranges of EFH species’ habitat and the limited aggregate size of 

offshore seafood processor discharges relative to other available coastal water. In 

addition, some EFH species may have the ability to avoid areas where seafood 

processing discharges are located. Secondly, in areas with strong currents and high 

tidal ranges, waste materials disperse rapidly. Since the offshore seafood processors 

covered under this permit will be 3 nm from shore, the seafood processing discharge 

would be in areas with strong currents and high tidal ranges and would dissipate rapidly 

preventing accumulation of the seafood discharge in waste piles. 

Due to the possibility that adverse effects on EFH may arise from offshore seafood 

processors, and because the provisions in the regulation do not ensure that adverse 

effects to EFH will be avoided, EPA has determined that EPA’s proposed approval of 

the General NPDES permit for offshore seafood processors in Alaska may 

adversely affect essential fish habitat. 

9.6 REFERENCES 

NMFS. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Essential Fish Habitat 

Identification and Conservation in Alaska (Chapter 3). National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region. 

Available at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/seis/efheis.htm. 

128