Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 64541 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of 

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

NMFS has estimated that take for all 

species authorized is less than two 

percent of their respective stock 

abundance (Table 7). Based on the 

analysis contained herein of the 

planned activity (including the required 

mitigation and monitoring measures) 

and the anticipated take of marine 

mammals, NMFS finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental 

harassment authorizations with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

determined that the issuance of the IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is authorized or expected to 

result from this activity. Therefore, 

NMFS has determined that formal 

consultation under section 7 of the ESA 

is not required for this action. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to WSDOT 

for the incidental take of marine 

mammals due to in-water construction 

work associated with the US 101/ 

Chehalis River Bridge-Scour Repair 

Project for a period of one year, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: December 11, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27199 Filed 12–14–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG628 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Railroad 

Dock Dolphin Installation Project, 

Skagway, Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from White Pass & Yukon Route 

(WP&YR) for authorization to take 

marine mammals incidental to the 

Railroad Dock dolphin installation 

project in Skagway, Alaska. Pursuant to 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to 

incidentally take marine mammals 

during the specified activities. NMFS is 

also requesting comments on a possible 

one-year renewal that could be issued 

under certain circumstances and if all 

requirements are met, as described in 

Request for Public Comments at the end 

of this notice. NMFS will consider 

public comments prior to making any 

final decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorizations and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than January 16, 

2019. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Physical 

comments should be sent to 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

and electronic comments should be sent 

to ITP.Piniak@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments received 

electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wendy Piniak, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. In case of problems accessing 

these documents, please call the contact 

listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
64542 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

The NDAA (Pub. L. 108–136) 

removed the ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

‘‘specified geographical region’’ 

limitations indicated above and 

amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’ 

as it applies to a ‘‘military readiness 

activity.’’ The definitions of all 

applicable MMPA statutory terms cited 

above are included in the relevant 

sections below. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental 

harassment authorizations with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On August 21, 2018, NMFS received 

a request from WP&YR for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to the 

Railroad Dock dolphin installation 

project in Skagway, Alaska. WP&YR 

submitted a revised version of the 

application on November 9, 2018 which 

was deemed adequate and complete on 

November 15, 2018. WP&YR’s request is 

for take of seven species of marine 

mammals by Level B harassment and 

Level A harassment incidental to impact 

pile driving, vibratory pile driving and 

removal, and down-the-hole drilling 

activities. Neither WP&YR nor NMFS 

expects serious injury or mortality to 

result from this activity and, therefore, 

an IHA is appropriate. In-water 

activities (pile installation and 

extraction) associated with the project 

are scheduled to begin February 1, 2019, 

and be completed April 30, 2019. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

WP&YR requested the authorization 

of take of small numbers of marine 

mammals incidental to pile driving/ 

removal and down-the-hole drilling 

associated with the installation of two 

new 200-ton pile supported mooring 

dolphins in Skagway Harbor, Alaska. 

The purpose of the project is to provide 

ample safe moorage when both 

Norwegian Breakaway and Royal 

Caribbean Quantum class cruise ship 

vessels are in port. The existing dolphin 

infrastructure does not allow for both 

cruise ships to be moored at the dock at 

the same time. The additional dolphins 

would allow for both ships to be docked 

simultaneously. To facilitate dual 

mooring, the proposed project includes 

the installation of two 200-ton dolphins, 

each comprised of six 42-inch steel 

permanent piles 300 feet in length. 

WP&YR would also install and 

subsequently remove 14 36-inch 

template (temporary) piles (200 feet in 

length) at the two dolphin locations 

which are approximately 100 feet and 

200 feet, respectively, south of the 

existing southernmost mooring dolphin 

at the WP&YR Railroad Dock. The 

template and permanent piles are 

comprised of two to three 100-feet long 

segments which would be spliced (i.e., 

welded) together as they are installed. 

All temporary and permanent piles 

would require a combination of three 

pile installation methods: Vibratory 

driving, impact driving, and down-thehole drilling. Sounds produced by these 

activities may result in take, by Level A 

and Level B harassment, of marine 

mammals located in Taiya Inlet, Alaska. 

Dates and Duration 

In-water activities (pile installation 

and extraction) associated with the 

project are scheduled to begin February 

1, 2019, and be completed April 30, 

2019. Pile installation and removal 

would occur for 89 days over the course 

of the three months. WP&YR anticipates 

up to 10 hours of activity (vibratory 

driving, impact driving, and down-thehole drilling) during daylight hours 

would occur per day. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The activities would occur at the 

south end of WP&YR’s Railroad Dock 

located in Skagway Harbor, Alaska. 

Skagway Harbor is located at the 

southwestern end of the 2.5-mile (mi)- 

long Skagway River valley. Three 

anadromous rivers are located near the 

project site including Skagway River, 

Taiya River, and Pullen Creek. The 

Skagway and Taiya Rivers empty into 

Taiya Inlet at the head of Lynn Canal 

west and northwest of the project site 

respectively. Pullen Creek empties into 

the Taiya Inlet on the southeast side of 

the valley northeast of the project site. 

Taiya Inlet/Lynn Canal is the 

northernmost fjord on the Inside 

Passage of the south coast of Alaska. 

The project site is located south of ADL 

108521 and seaward of upland Lot 8, 

U.S. Survey 5110; Latitude 59.44° North 

(N), Longitude 135.33° West (W) (see 

Figures 1–3 of WP&YR’s application). 

Limited information is available on the 

benthic habitat beneath the Railroad 

Dock, however the basin is composed of 

glacial till sediments, consisting of mud, 

silty gravel, cobbles and boulders. The 

shoreline along Railroad dock is 

armored with riprap and contains little 

to no riparian vegetation. This armoring 

extends to below the mean higher high 

water (MHHW) mark to an unknown 

depth. At the project site, the Taiya Inlet 

is approximately 2 kilometers (km) wide 

and water depth ranges from 

approximately 100–200 feet (ft) (30–60 

meters (m)); however water depth in 

Taiya Inlet reaches over 500 ft (152 m), 

within and south of the project area. 

Skagway Harbor is frequently visited 

by cruise ship vessels during the 

summer and is a site of recreational and 

commercial activity. Vessels must travel 

up Taiya Inlet to enter the Skagway 

Harbor. 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

To facilitate dual mooring of large 

cruise ship vessels, the proposed 

Railroad Dock dolphin installation 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 64543 

project includes installation of two 200- 

ton dolphins. Two crane barges, one 

material barge, and three work boats 

(each under 25 feet) would be used to 

complete the project. Barges would be 

moored on-site for the duration of 

construction. Each dolphin would 

require the installation and removal of 

seven 36-inch steel pipe template piles 

(14 total) and the installation six 42- 

inch steel pipe permanent piles (12 

total). The temporary template piles 

would be installed to aid in 

construction and would be removed 

after the permanent dolphin piles are 

installed. Each temporary template pile 

would be approximately 200 ft in length 

and would consist of up to two sections 

that would be spliced (e.g. welded) 

together as they are installed (for a total 

of up to 28 segments). Each permanent 

pile would be approximately 300 ft in 

length and would consist of up to three 

sections that would be spliced together 

as they installed (for a total of 36 

segments). 

Template and permanent piles would 

be installed in water depths up to 140- 

feet deep and into loose substrate that 

is intermixed with cobbles and bouldersized rocks. Due to the nature of deepwater pile installation in loose 

sediment, each pile (consisting of two to 

three segments) would be installed 

using a combination of installation 

methods: Vibratory hammer, impact 

hammer, and drilling (Table 1). Removal 

of template piles would only require the 

use of a vibratory hammer. It may be 

necessary to switch between installation 

methods multiple times per day 

depending on encountered conditions. 

However, no activities would occur 

simultaneously (e.g., only one 

installation method would occur on one 

pile at any time). Throughout the 

project, one crane would be dedicated to 

drilling only and the second crane 

would alternate between the vibratory 

and impact hammers (as noted, only one 

crane would be active at any given 

time). In addition to alternating between 

installation methods, the project would 

require the piles segments to be spliced 

together to make the piles longer before 

continuing installation. That is, the first 

segment of pile would be installed using 

one or more methods; the second 

segment would then be welded to the 

first segment and the process would be 

repeated until the entire pile is 

installed. 

TABLE 1—PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL EQUIPMENT

Pile installation equipment Model/size Description/purpose 

Crane .......................... 200–250–ton barge with a 200–250–ft boom (up to 2 

cranes).

Install piles, set dolphin caps, set catwalks, move material, 

etc. 

Vibratory Hammer ....... APE 200 or equivalent ......................................................... Advance pile through overburden to vibratory refusal. 

Impact Hammer .......... Delmag D100 Diesel hammer or equivalent ....................... Advance pile through overburden once vibratory refusal 

has been reached. 

Drill .............................. Rock Anchor (8-inch hole): ICE–HS–27 Top drive downhole hammer PDQL–80 or equivalent.

Socket (42-inch hole): PPV ring bit MF34 down hole hammer or equivalent.

A drill is inserted through the pile all the way down to bedrock. The drill breaks up rock into small flakes (tailings) 

which are removed from the drilled hole as the pile or 

casing advances. 

The tips of all template piles would 

be embedded approximately 60 ft 

beneath the mudline using impact or 

vibratory hammering and drilling. The 

structural design of the dolphins 

requires the tips of all permanent piles 

to bear on and be socketed in bedrock 

located 100–200 ft beneath the mudline. 

During installation, some or all piles 

will encounter obstructions prior to 

reaching final tip depth and will require 

drilling through obstructions to meet 

project specifications. The first segment 

of each pile would be impact or 

vibratory driven to first refusal. First 

refusal occurs when the pile tip cannot 

be advanced any further with a 

vibratory or impact hammer. This will 

most likely occur when the pile tip is 

located on an obstruction (prior to 

reaching bedrock) or at bedrock. To 

determine whether the pile tip has 

reached bedrock, the contractor would 

then drill past the segment tip. If the 

drill advances up to 20 ft past the 

segment tip through rock, bedrock is 

encountered. If the drill ‘‘punches 

through’’ the obstruction and 

encounters soft overburden material, the 

pile would continue to be advanced 

using drilling, impact, or vibratory 

methods. Once second refusal is 

reached, bedrock would again need to 

be verified by drilling up to 20-ft past 

the pile tip into bedrock. This process 

is repeated until bedrock is confirmed 

(permanent piles) or the required depth 

has been achieved (template piles), 

however it is possible that template 

piles may be fully installed without 

encountering bedrock. 

As each pile segment is installed, 

WP&YR would splice segments to 

increase the length of the pile and 

continue with the pile installation. 

Splicing pipe pile involves welding 

pipe pile end to end with a complete 

joint penetration weld. On average, 

splicing is anticipated to require three to 

five days to complete per pile. For 

permanent piles, once bedrock is 

confirmed and all segments are welded 

together, a smaller 8-inch drill would be 

used to drill a rock anchor hole into 

bedrock 50 ft past the pile tip. The 8- 

inch hole for the rock anchor is drilled 

beneath the pile tip from within the 

hollow pipe pile. A steel bar would be 

grouted into this hole. Once the grout 

sets, a jack would be applied to the top 

of the bar and the rock anchor would be 

locked off to plates at the top of the pile. 

After the permanent piles are installed, 

temporary piles would be removed. 

WP&YR estimates drilling and 

vibratory hammering would occur for a 

maximum of 10 hours per day (although 

the amount of time within that 10 hour 

window dedicated to each method 

cannot be determined at this time as it 

is dependent upon substrate conditions) 

and total number of impact pile driving 

strikes would not exceed 2,000 per day. 

WP&YR estimates that it would take 8 

hours to install and remove one 

template pile and 28.1 hours (over the 

course of multiple days) to install one 

permanent pile (additional details can 

be found in section 2 of WP&YR’s 

application). 

After all dolphin piles are installed, a 

prefabricated steel dolphin cap would 

be set on top of the piles and welded to 

the cap. The project also involves 

modifications to an existing dolphin cap 

and installation of two catwalks; 

however, this work does not include inwater work and is not anticipated to 

take marine mammals. All barges, 

cranes, equipment, personnel, 

temporary structures, unused materials, 

etc. would be removed from the site 

upon project completion. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
64544 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 

WP&YR anticipates all in-water 

construction would occur between 

February 1, 2019 and April 30, 2019 (89 

days) with mobilization occurring 

December through January, 2019 and 

above water work and demobilization 

occurring April through May, 2019. 

Multiple or all installation methods of 

template and permanent piles may 

occur on the same day, but would not 

occur at the same time. Work may occur 

seven days per week. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’ Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’ 

website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). 

Table 2 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the Taiya 

Inlet and larger Lynn Canal and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

ESA and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 

follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017). 

PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’ 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ U.S. Alaska SARs (e.g., Muto et 

al. 2018). All values presented in Table 

2 are the most recent available at the 

time of publication and are available in 

the 2017 SARs (Muto et al. 2018) and 

draft 2018 SARs (available online at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

draft-marine-mammal-stockassessment-reports). 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT WITHIN TAIYA INLET DURING THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITY

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

Gray whale ......................... Eschrichtius robustus ................ Eastern North Pacific ................ -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 

2016).

801 138 

Family Balaenidae: 

Humpback whale ................ Megaptera novaeangliae .......... Central North Pacific ................. -, -, Y 10,103 (0.3, 7,890, 2006) 83 25 

Minke Whale ....................... Balaenoptera acutorostrata ...... Alaska ....................................... -, -, N N/A .................................. UND 0 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Physeteridae: 

Sperm whale .............................. Physeter macrocephalus .......... North Pacific ............................. E, D, Y N/A (N/A, N/A, 2015) ...... UND 4.4 

Family Delphinidae: 

Killer whale ......................... Orcinus orca ............................. Alaska Resident ........................ -, -, N 2,347 (N/A, 2,347, 

2012) 4.

24 1 

Northern Resident -, -, N 261 (N/A, 261, 2011) 4 .... 1.96 0 

Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, 

Bering Sea Transient 

-, -, N 587 (N/A, 587, 2012) 4 .... 5.87 1 

West Coast Transient -, -, N 243 (N/A, 243, 2009) 4 .... 2.4 0 

Pacific White-Sided Dolphin Lagenorhynchus obliquidens .... North Pacific ............................. -, -, N 26,880 (N/A, N/A, 1990) UND 0 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise .................. Phocoena phocoena ................. Southeast Alaska ...................... -, -, Y 975 (0.12–0.14, 897, 

2012) 5.

8.9 34 

Dall’s porpoise .................... Phocoenoides dalli .................... Alaska ....................................... -, -, N 83,400 (0.097, N/A, 

1991).

UND 38 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

Steller sea lion .................... Eumetopias jubatus .................. Western U.S ............................. E, D, Y 54,267 (N/A, 54,267, 

2017).

326 252 

Eastern U.S T, D, Y ...................................... 41,638 

(N/A, 

41,638, 

2015) 

2498 ................................ 108 

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 64545 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT WITHIN TAIYA INLET DURING THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITY—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Harbor seal ......................... Phoca vitulina richardii .............. Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage -, -, N 9,478 (N/A, 8,605, 2011) 155 50 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the 

ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or 

which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically 

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable (N/A). 3These values, found in NMFS’ SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, 

ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 4 N is based on counts of individual animals identified from photo-identification catalogs. 

5 In the SAR for harbor porpoise, NMFS identified population estimates and PBR for porpoises within inland southeast Alaska waters (these abundance estimates 

have not been corrected for g(0); therefore, they are likely conservative). 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the proposed survey areas are 

included in Table 2. However, the 

temporal and/or spatial occurrence of 

the Pacific white-sided dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), gray 

whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and 

sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) 

are such that take is not expected to 

occur, and they are not discussed 

further beyond the explanation 

provided here. The range of Pacific 

white-sided dolphin is suggested to 

overlap with Lynn Canal (Muto et al. 

2018), but no sightings have been 

documented in the project area 

(Dahlheim et al. 2009; K. Gross, Never 

Monday Charters, personal 

communication; R. Ford, Taiya Inlet 

Watershed Council, personal 

communication reported in MOS 2016). 

Gray whale sightings in this northern 

portion of Southeast Alaska are very 

rare; there have only been eight 

sightings since 1997 (J. Neilson, 

National Park Service, personal 

communication reported in MOS 2016). 

None of these observations occurred in 

the Taiya Inlet/Lynn Canal. Tagged 

sperm whales have been tracked within 

the Gulf of Alaska, with one whale 

tracked up Lynn Canal during October 

2014 (SEASWAP 2017). Tagging studies 

primarily show that sperm whales use 

the deep water slope habitat extensively 

for foraging (Mathias et al. 2012). This 

species prefers deeper waters, and are 

unlikely to occur in Taiya Inlet. 

WP&YR requested take for seven 

marine mammal species documented in 

the waters of the Taiya Inlet/Lynn Canal 

(Dahlheim et al. 2009; Muto et al. 2018). 

One of the species, the harbor seal, is 

known to regularly occur near the 

project site year round; however the 

closest seasonal haulout site is three 

miles (4.8 km) from the project area and 

not within the Level B harassment 

ensonified area (see Estimated Take). 

Moderate to high abundances of Steller 

sea lions are also known to seasonally 

occupy the inlet, with the closest 

seasonal haulout located 11 miles (18 

km) from the project site. Several 

humpback whales have been observed 

within Taiya Inlet, sometimes close to 

Skagway, during non-winter months. 

The remaining four species (harbor 

porpoise, Dall’s porpoise, killer whale, 

and minke whale) may occur in Taiya 

Inlet/Lynn Canal, but less frequently 

and farther from Skagway Harbor and 

the project site. Information on presence 

and distribution in the WP&YR project 

area can be found in the 

Habitat 

No Biologically Important Areas 

(BIAs) or ESA-designated critical habitat 

overlap with the project area, however 

there is seasonally important foraging 

habitat for some species of marine 

mammal which overlap spatially and 

temporally with proposed project 

activities. The annual eulachon run 

(which occurs for approximately three 

to four weeks during April through 

May) in Lynn Canal is important to all 

marine mammals (particularly Steller 

sea lions, and harbor seals, and 

humpback whales) for seasonal foraging 

and many species travel into Taiya Inlet 

to forage on this prey. 

Cetaceans 

Humpback Whale 

The humpback whale is distributed 

worldwide in all ocean basins. In 

winter, most humpback whales are 

found in the subtropical and tropical 

waters of the Northern and Southern 

Hemispheres, and then migrate to high 

latitudes in the summer to feed. The 

historic summer feeding range of 

humpback whales in the North Pacific 

encompassed coastal and inland waters 

around the Pacific Rim from Point 

Conception, California, north to the Gulf 

of Alaska and the Bering Sea, and west 

along the Aleutian Islands to the 

Kamchatka Peninsula and into the Sea 

of Okhotsk and north of the Bering 

Strait (Johnson and Wolman 1984). 

There are currently three MMPAdesignated stocks of humpback whales 

in the North Pacific: (1) The California/ 

Oregon/Washington stock, consisting of 

winter/spring populations in coastal 

Central America and coastal Mexico 

which migrate to the coast of California 

to southern British Columbia in 

summer/fall (Calambokidis et al. 1989; 

Steiger et al. 1991; Calambokidis et al. 

1993); (2) the Central North Pacific 

stock, consisting of winter/spring 

populations of the Hawaiian Islands 

which migrate primarily to northern 

British Columbia/Southeast Alaska, the 

Gulf of Alaska, and the Bering Sea/ 

Aleutian Islands (Perry et al. 1990; 

Calambokidis et al. 1997); and (3) the 

Western North Pacific stock, consisting 

of winter/spring populations off Asia 

which migrate primarily to Russia and 

the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands. The 

Central North Pacific stock is the only 

stock that is found near the project area. 

On September 8, 2016, NMFS 

published a final decision changing the 

status of humpback whales under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) (81 FR 

62259), effective October 11, 2016. 

Previously, humpback whales were 

listed under the ESA as an endangered 

species worldwide. In the 2016 

decision, NMFS recognized the 

existence of 14 distinct population 

segments (DPSs), classified four of those 

as endangered and one as threatened, 

and determined that the remaining nine 

DPSs do not warrant protection under 

the ESA. Whales occurring in the 

project area would primarily include 

individuals from the delisted Hawaii 

DPS (93.9 percent probability), but 

could also include individuals from the 

threatened Mexico DPS (6.1 percent 

probability) (Wade et al. 2016). 

Humpback whales are found 

throughout southeast Alaska in a variety 

of marine environments, including 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
64546 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 

open-ocean, near-shore waters, and 

areas with strong tidal currents 

(Dahlheim et al. 2009). Humpback 

whales generally arrive in southeast 

Alaska in March and return to their 

wintering grounds in November. Some 

humpback whales depart late or arrive 

early to feeding grounds, and therefore 

the species occurs in southeast Alaska 

year-round (Straley 1990). Dahlheim et 

al. (2009) observed humpback whales 

throughout all major waterways in 

southeast Alaska with concentrations of 

whales consistently observed in Icy 

Strait, Lynn Canal, Stephens Passage, 

Chatham Strait, and Frederick Sound. 

Mean group size varied among season 

with group sizes of 1.38, 1.65, and 1.95 

in spring, summer, and fall respectively. 

Subsistence hunters in Alaska are not 

authorized to take Central North Pacific 

stock humpback whales and no takes 

were reported from 2012–2016 (Muto et 

al. 2018). Threats to the Central North 

Pacific stock include changes in prey 

distribution due to climate change, 

entanglement in fishing gear, ship 

strike, and anthropogenic sound, 

however the Central North Pacific stock 

is increasing (Muto et al. 2018). 

Minke Whale 

Minke whales are found throughout 

the northern hemisphere in polar, 

temperate, and tropical waters. In the 

North Pacific, minke whales occur from 

the Bering and Chukchi seas south to 

near the Equator (Leatherwood et al. 

1982). Minke whales are generally 

found in coastal waters shallower than 

200 m and are usually observed solitary 

or in small groups of two to three 

whales (Zerbini et al. 2006; Zerbini et 

al. 2006). In Alaska, there is only one 

stock of minke whales and seasonal 

movements are associated with feeding 

areas that are generally located at the 

edge of the pack ice (NMFS 2014). 

Although no comprehensive 

abundance estimate is available for the 

Alaska stock of minke whales, recent 

surveys provide estimates for portions 

of the stock’s range. A 2010 survey 

conducted on the eastern Bering Sea 

shelf produced a provisional abundance 

estimate of 2,020 (CV = 0.73) whales 

(Friday et al. 2013). This estimate is 

considered provisional because it has 

not been corrected for animals missed 

on the trackline, animals submerged 

when the ship passed, or responsive 

movement. Additionally, line-transect 

surveys were conducted in shelf and 

nearshore waters (within 30–45 nautical 

miles of land) in 2001–2003 between the 

Kenai Peninsula (150° W) and Amchitka 

Pass (178° W). Minke whale abundance 

was estimated to be 1,233 (CV = 0.34) 

for this area (also not corrected for 

animals missed on the trackline) 

(Zerbini et al. 2006). The majority of the 

sightings were in the Aleutian Islands, 

rather than in the Gulf of Alaska, and in 

water shallower than 200 m. These 

estimates cannot be used as an estimate 

of the entire Alaska stock of minke 

whales because only a portion of the 

stock’s range was surveyed. 

Surveys in southeast Alaska have 

consistently identified individuals 

throughout inland waters in low 

numbers, however none were observed 

in Taiya Inlet or Lynn Canal (Dahlheim 

et al. 2009). As few minke whales were 

observed during recent offshore Gulf of 

Alaska surveys for cetaceans in 2009, 

2013, and 2015, a population estimate 

for minke whales in this area cannot be 

determined (Rone et al. 2017). There are 

no data available to determine trends in 

minke whale abundance in Alaska 

waters. Subsistence takes of minke 

whales in Alaska is rare, with the last 

known catch occurring in 1989. 

Although no incidents of human-related 

serious injury and mortality were 

recorded for Alaska stock minke whales 

between 2012 and 2016, threats to the 

population include entanglement in 

fishing gear, ship strikes, and 

anthropogenic sound, as well as changes 

in prey distribution due to climate 

change (Muto et al. 2018). 

Killer Whale 

Killer whales have been observed in 

all oceans and seas of the world, but the 

highest densities occur in colder and 

more productive waters found at high 

latitudes. Killer whales are found 

throughout the North Pacific, and occur 

along the entire Alaska coast, in British 

Columbia and Washington inland 

waterways, and along the outer coasts of 

Washington, Oregon, and California 

(Muto et al. 2018). Based on data 

regarding association patterns, 

acoustics, movements, and genetic 

differences, eight killer whale stocks are 

now recognized in the Pacific Ocean: (1) 

The Alaska Resident stock; (2) the 

Northern Resident stock; (3) the 

Southern Resident stock; (4) the Gulf of 

Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea 

Transient stock; (5) the AT1 Transient 

stock; (6) the West Coast Transient 

stock; and (7) the Offshore stock, and (8) 

the Hawaii stock. Only the Alaska 

Resident, Northern Resident, Gulf of 

Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea 

Transient, and West Coast Transient 

stocks are considered in this analysis 

because other stocks occur outside the 

geographic area under consideration. 

Any of these four stocks could be seen 

in the action area; however, the Alaska 

and Northern Resident stocks are most 

likely to overlap with the project area 

(Muto et al. 2018). 

The Alaska Resident stock is found 

from southeastern Alaska to the 

Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea. 

Intermixing of Alaska Residents have 

been documented among the three 

areas, at least as far west as the eastern 

Aleutian Islands. The Northern Resident 

stock occurs from Washington State 

through part of southeastern Alaska. 

The Northern Resident stock is a 

transboundary stock, and includes killer 

whales that frequent British Columbia, 

Canada and southeastern Alaska 

(Dahlheim et al. 1997; Ford et al. 2000). 

The Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, 

and Bering Sea Transient stock occurs 

mainly from Prince William Sound 

through the Aleutian Islands and Bering 

Sea. The West Coast Transient stock 

includes animals that occur in 

California, Oregon, Washington, British 

Columbia and southeastern Alaska. 

Transient killer whales occur in 

smaller, less matrilineal groupings than 

resident killer whales. They are also 

more likely to rely on stealth tactics 

when foraging, making fewer and less 

conspicuous calls, and edging along 

shorelines and around headlands in 

order to hunt their prey, including, 

Steller sea lions, harbor seals, and 

smaller cetaceans, in highly coordinated 

attacks (Barrett-Lennard et al. 2011). 

Residents often travel in much larger 

and closer knit groups within which 

they share any fish they catch. 

Resident and transient killer whales 

have been documented in the middle to 

lower reaches of Lynn Canal, but not 

within the upper reaches or in Taiya 

Inlet (Dahlheim et al. 2009). Dahlheim 

et al. (2009) frequently observed two 

resident pods identified as AF and AG 

pods (Alaska Resident stock) throughout 

Icy Strait, Lynn Canal, Stephens 

Passage, Frederick Sound and upper 

Chatham Strait. The seasonality of 

resident killer whales could not be 

investigated statistically due to low 

encounter rates and mean group size of 

resident whales did not vary 

significantly among seasons and ranged 

from 19 to 33 individuals (Dahlheim et 

al. 2009). 

Dahlheim et al. (2009) observed 

transient killer whales in all major 

waterways, including Lynn Canal, in 

open-strait environments, near-shore 

waters, protected bays and inlets, and in 

ice-laden waters near tidewater glaciers. 

The transient killer whale mean group 

size also did not vary with season and 

ranged from four to six individuals in 

Southeast Alaska (Dahlheim et al. 2009). 

Transient killer whale numbers were 

highest in summer, with lower numbers 

observed in spring and fall. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 64547 

No reliable data on trends in 

population abundance for the entire 

Alaska Resident, Gulf of Alaska, 

Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea 

Transient, and West Coast Transient 

stocks of killer whales are unavailable 

(Muto et al. 2018). The Northern 

Resident stock is increasing with an 

average 2.1 percent increase over a 36 

year time period (Ellis et al. 2011). 

There are no reports of subsistence 

harvest of killer whales in Alaska, 

however other threats to the stocks 

include interactions with fisheries, 

vessel collisions, and decreases in prey 

abundance (Muto et al. 2018). 

Harbor Porpoise 

The harbor porpoise inhabits 

temporal, subarctic, and arctic waters. 

In the eastern North Pacific, harbor 

porpoises range from Point Barrow, 

Alaska, to Point Conception, California. 

While harbor porpoise primarily 

frequent coastal waters and occur most 

frequently in waters less than 100 m 

deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010), they may 

occasionally be found in deeper offshore 

waters. Within the inland waters of 

Southeast Alaska, harbor porpoise 

distribution is clumped, with greatest 

densities observed in the Glacier Bay/ 

Icy Strait region, and near Zarembo and 

Wrangell Islands and the adjacent 

waters of Sumner Strait (Allen and 

Angliss 2014). Group sizes were on 

average between 1.37–1.59 animals (less 

than 2) (Dahlheim et al. 2009; 2015). 

In Alaska, harbor porpoises are 

currently divided into three stocks, 

based primarily on geography. These are 

(1) the Southeast Alaska stock— 

occurring from the northern border of 

British Columbia to Cape Suckling, 

Alaska, (2) the Gulf of Alaska stock— 

occurring from Cape Suckling to 

Unimak Pass, and (3) the Bering Sea 

stock—occurring throughout the 

Aleutian Islands and all waters north of 

Unimak Pass (Allen and Angliss 2014). 

Only the Southeast Alaska stock is 

considered in this analysis because it is 

the only stock found in the project area. 

No reports of subsistence harvest of 

harbor porpoises from the Southeast 

Alaska stock have been reported since 

the early 1900s (Shelden et al. 

2014).The total estimated annual level 

of human-caused mortality and serious 

injury for Southeast Alaska stock (n = 

34) exceeds the calculated PBR of 8.9 

porpoises. However because the 

calculated PBR is based on surveys from 

2010–2012 in only a portion of the 

stock’s range (the inside water of 

southeast Alaska), PBR is likely biased 

low for the entire stock (Muto et al. 

2018). Population trends and status of 

this stock relative to its Optimum 

Sustainable Population are currently 

unknown. 

Dall’s Porpoise 

Dall’s porpoise are widely distributed 

across the entire North Pacific Ocean. 

They are found over the continental 

shelf adjacent to the slope and over 

deep (greater than 2,500 m) oceanic 

waters and have been sighted 

throughout the North Pacific as far north 

as 65° N (Hall 1979; Buckland et al. 

1993). The only apparent distribution 

gaps in Alaska waters are upper Cook 

Inlet and the shallow eastern flats of the 

Bering Sea. They are present during all 

months of the year in much of the 

eastern North Pacific, although they 

may make seasonal onshore-offshore 

movements along the west coast of the 

continental United States and winter 

movements out of areas with ice (Hall 

1979; Leatherwood and Fielding 1974; 

Loeb 1972). 

Currently one stock of Dall’s porpoise 

is recognized in Alaskan waters (Muto 

et al. 2018). Dahlheim et al. (2009) 

observed Dall’s porpoise throughout 

Southeast Alaska, but only observed 

Dall’s porpoise in Lynn Canal as far 

north as Haines, Alaska, about 15 miles 

south of Skagway. Infrequent 

observations (three to six) of Dall’s 

porpoise have been observed in Taiya 

Inlet during the early spring and late 

fall, however they have not been 

observed near the project site near the 

Skagway waterfront (K. Gross, Never 

Monday Charters, personal 

communication reported in MOS 2016). 

At present, there is no reliable 

information on trends in abundance for 

the Alaska stock of Dall’s porpoise 

(Muto et al. 2018). There are no 

subsistence uses of this species (Muto et 

al. 2018), however Dall’s porpoise are 

vulnerable to fisheries-related 

entanglement and injury and to physical 

modifications of nearshore habitats 

resulting from urban and industrial 

development (including waste 

management and nonpoint source 

runoff), and noise (Linnenschmidt et al. 

2013). 

Pinnipeds 

Steller Sea Lion 

The Steller sea lion is the largest of 

the eared seals (otariids), ranging along 

the North Pacific Rim from northern 

Japan to California, with centers of 

abundance and distribution in the Gulf 

of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. Steller 

sea lions use terrestrial haulout sites to 

rest and take refuge. They also gather on 

well-defined, traditionally used 

rookeries to pup and breed. These 

habitats are typically gravel, rocky, or 

sand beaches; ledges; or rocky reefs 

(Muto et al. 2018). Steller sea lion 

populations that primarily occur west of 

144° W (Cape Suckling, Alaska) 

comprise the western Distinct 

Population Segment (wDPS) or Western 

U.S. stock, while all others comprise the 

eastern DPS (eDPS) or Eastern U.S. 

stock; however, there is regular 

movement of both DPSs across this 

boundary (Muto et al. 2018). Both of 

these populations may occur in the 

action area, however in Lynn Canal/ 

Taiya Inlet Steller sea lions are most 

likely part of the eDPS/Eastern U.S. 

stock. Based on the percent of branded 

animals at Gran Point it is estimated 

that 2 percent of the sea lions in the 

project area are potentially from the 

wDPS/Eastern U.S. stock (personal 

communication, L. Jemison Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, 2017). 

Steller sea lions were listed as 

threatened range-wide under the ESA 

on 26 November 1990 (55 FR 49204). 

Steller sea lions were subsequently 

partitioned into the western and eastern 

DPSs in 1997, with the wDPS being 

listed as endangered under the ESA and 

the eDPS remaining classified as 

threatened (62 FR 24345) until it was 

delisted in November 2013. In August 

1993, NMFS published a final rule 

designating critical habitat for the 

Steller sea lion as a 20-nautical mile 

buffer around all major haul-outs and 

rookeries, as well as associated 

terrestrial, air and aquatic zones, and 

three large offshore foraging areas (50 

CFR 226.202). There is no Steller sea 

lion critical habitat located in the action 

area. 

Gran Point, which is located 24 mi (38 

km) south of the project area, is the 

closest year-round Steller sea lion 

haulout. However, during the spring 

eulachon run, a seasonal haulout site is 

located on Taiya Point at the southern 

tip of Taiya Inlet, approximately 11 mi 

(18 km) from the project site. Twentyfive to 40 sea lions are estimated to use 

this haulout for about three weeks 

during spring run, during which they 

frequently are observed in the inlet. The 

eulachon run (which occurs for 

approximately three to four weeks 

during mid-March through May) in 

Lynn Canal is important to Steller sea 

lions for seasonal foraging. These 

spawning aggregations of forage fish 

provide densely aggregated, high-energy 

prey for Steller sea lions (and harbor 

seals) for brief time periods and 

influence haulout use (Sigler et al. 2004; 

Womble et al. 2005; Womble and Sigler 

2006). The pre-spawning aggregations 

and spawning season for many forage 

fish species occur between March and 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
64548 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 

May in Southeast Alaska just prior to 

the breeding season of sea lions (Pitcher 

et al. 2001; Womble and Sigler 2006). 

After May, Steller sea lion presence in 

the project action area declines. During 

surveys conducted in 2002 and 2003, 

Womble et al. (2005) observed a 

maximum of approximately 400 Steller 

sea lions in the water at the mouth of 

the Taiya River feeding on eulachon in 

2003, but observed very few in the same 

area in 2002. Steller sea lions have also 

been observed in Lutak Inlet, a foraging 

site closer to both Taiya Point and Gran 

Point haulouts. 

Steller sea lions are included in 

Alaska subsistence harvests. The mean 

annual subsistence take of Western U.S. 

Steller sea lions was 203 from 2004– 

2016, and the mean annual take of 

Eastern U.S. Steller sea lions was 11 

from 2005–2008 and 2012 (Muto et al. 

2018). Entanglements in fishing gear 

and marine debris, and interactions 

with fishing gear are sources of 

mortality and serious injury for Steller 

sea lions. The Eastern U.S. stock is 

increasing with models indicating the 

rate of increase as 4.76 percent per year 

based on pup counts and 2.84 percent 

per year based on non-pup counts (Muto 

et al. 2018). Pup and non-pup counts of 

Western U.S. stock Steller sea lions in 

Alaska have increased 1.78 percent per 

year and 2.14 per year respectively 

between 2002 and 2017. 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals range from Baja 

California north along the west coasts of 

Washington, Oregon, California, British 

Columbia, and Southeast Alaska; west 

through the Gulf of Alaska, Prince 

William Sound, and the Aleutian 

Islands; and north in the Bering Sea to 

Cape Newenham and the Pribilof 

Islands (Muto et al. 2018). They haul out 

on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting 

glacial ice, and feed in marine, 

estuarine, and occasionally fresh waters. 

Harbor seals generally are nonmigratory, 

with local movements associated with 

such factors as tides, weather, season, 

food availability, and reproduction 

(Scheffer and Slipp 1944; Fisher 1952; 

Bigg 1969, 1981; Hastings et al. 2004). 

Harbor seals in Alaska are partitioned 

into 12 separate stocks based largely on 

genetic structure: (1) The Aleutian 

Islands stock, (2) the Pribilof Islands 

stock, (3) the Bristol Bay stock, (4) the 

North Kodiak stock, (5) the South 

Kodiak stock, (6) the Prince William 

Sound stock, (7) the Cook Inlet/Shelikof 

stock, (8) the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait 

stock, (9) the Lynn Canal/Stephens 

Passage stock, (10) the Sitka/Chatham 

stock, (11) the Dixon/Cape Decision 

stock, and (12) the Clarence Strait stock. 

Only the Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage 

stock is considered in this analysis. The 

stock range includes north along the 

east and north coast of Admiralty Island 

from the north end of Kupreanof Island 

through Lynn Canal, including Taku 

Inlet, Tracy Arm, and Endicott Arm 

(Muto et al. 2018). The most current 

(2007–2011) estimate of the population 

trend for the stock is ¥176 seals per 

year, with a probability that the stock is 

decreasing of 0.71 (Muto et al. 2018). 

Harbor seals are included in 

subsistence harvests. Annual harvests 

from the Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage 

in 2011 and 2012 were 50 animals each 

year, which is higher than previous 

estimates of 30 animals, on average, per 

year from 2004–2008 (Muto et al. 2018). 

Entanglement in fishing gear is also a 

large contributor to their annual humancaused serious injury/mortality. 

Additional information on the biology 

and local distribution of these species 

can be found in the NMFS Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, 

which may be found at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten 1999; Au and Hastings 2008). To 

reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 dB 

threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (note 

that these frequency ranges correspond 

to the range for the composite group, 

with the entire range not necessarily 

reflecting the capabilities of every 

species within that group): 

• Low-frequency cetaceans 

(mysticetes): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz; 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger 

toothed whales, beaked whales, and 

most delphinids): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz; 

• High-frequency cetaceans 

(porpoises, river dolphins, and members 

of the genera Kogia and 

Cephalorhynchus; including two 

members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, 

on the basis of recent echolocation data 

and genetic data): Generalized hearing 

is estimated to occur between 

approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz. 

• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between approximately 50 Hz 

to 86 kHz; 

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae 

(eared seals): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 

39 kHz. 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al. 2006; Kastelein et al. 

2009; Reichmuth and Holt 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Seven marine 

mammal species (five cetacean and two 

pinniped (one otariid and one phocid) 

species) have the reasonable potential to 

co-occur with the proposed activities. 

Please refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean 

species that may be present, two are 

classified as low-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., all mysticete species), one is 

classified as a mid-frequency cetacean 

(i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid species 

and the sperm whale), and two are 

classified as high-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., harbor porpoise and Kogia spp.). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment section later in this 

document includes a quantitative 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 64549 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis 

and Determination section considers the 

content of this section, the Estimated 

Take by Incidental Harassment section, 

and the Proposed Mitigation section, to 

draw conclusions regarding the likely 

impacts of these activities on the 

reproductive success or survivorship of 

individuals and how those impacts on 

individuals are likely to impact marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Description of Sound Sources 

The marine soundscape is comprised 

of both ambient and anthropogenic 

sounds. Ambient sound is defined as 

the all-encompassing sound in a given 

place and is usually a composite of 

sound from many sources both near and 

far (ANSI 1994). The sound level of an 

area is defined by the total acoustical 

energy being generated by known and 

unknown sources. These sources may 

include physical (e.g., waves, wind, 

precipitation, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, 

dredging, aircraft, construction). 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’ 

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and shipping activity) but 

also on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

(Richardson et al. 1995). The result is 

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the project would 

include impact pile driving, vibratory 

pile driving and removal, and drilling. 

The sounds produced by these activities 

fall into one of two general sound types: 

Impulsive and non-impulsive. 

Impulsive sounds (e.g., explosions, 

gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile 

driving) are typically transient, brief 

(less than 1 second), broadband, and 

consist of high peak sound pressure 

with rapid rise time and rapid decay 

(ANSI 1986; NIOSH 1998; ANSI 2005; 

NMFS 2018). Non-impulsive sounds 

(e.g. aircraft, machinery operations such 

as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile 

driving, and active sonar systems) can 

be broadband, narrowband or tonal, 

brief or prolonged (continuous or 

intermittent), and typically do not have 

the high peak sound pressure with raid 

rise/decay time that impulsive sounds 

do (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS 

2018). The distinction between these 

two sound types is important because 

they have differing potential to cause 

physical effects, particularly with regard 

to hearing (e.g., Ward 1997 in Southall 

et al. 2007). 

Two types of pile hammers would be 

used on this project: Impact and 

vibratory. Impact hammers operate by 

repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto 

a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. 

Sound generated by impact hammers is 

characterized by rapid rise times and 

high peak levels, a potentially injurious 

combination (Hastings and Popper 

2005). Vibratory hammers install piles 

by vibrating them and allowing the 

weight of the hammer to push them into 

the sediment. Vibratory hammers 

produce significantly less sound than 

impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be 180 

dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 

dB lower than SPLs generated during 

impact pile driving of the same-sized 

pile (Oestman et al. 2009). Rise time is 

slower, reducing the probability and 

severity of injury, and sound energy is 

distributed over a greater amount of 

time (Nedwell and Edwards 2002; 

Carlson et al. 2005). 

Drilling would be conducted using a 

down-the-hole drill inserted through the 

hollow steel piles. A down-the-hole 

drill is a drill bit that drills through the 

bedrock using a pulse mechanism that 

functions at the bottom of the hole. This 

pulsing bit breaks up rock to allow 

removal of debris and insertion of the 

pile. The head extends so that the 

drilling takes place below the pile. The 

pulsing sounds produced by the downthe-hole drilling method are continuous, 

however this method likely increases 

sound attenuation because the noise is 

primarily contained within the steel pile 

and below ground rather than impact 

hammer driving methods which occur 

at the top of the pile (R&M 2016). 

The likely or possible impacts of 

WP&YR’s proposed activity on marine 

mammals could involve both nonacoustic and acoustic stressors. 

Potential non-acoustic stressors could 

result from the physical presence of the 

equipment and personnel; however, any 

impacts to marine mammals are 

expected to primarily be acoustic in 

nature. Acoustic stressors include 

effects of heavy equipment operation 

during pile installation and removal and 

drilling. 

Acoustic Impacts 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile driving and removal and down-thehole drilling is the primary means by 

which marine mammals may be 

harassed from WP&YR’s specified 

activity. In general, animals exposed to 

natural or anthropogenic sound may 

experience physical and psychological 

effects, ranging in magnitude from none 

to severe (Southall et al. 2007). In 

general, exposure to pile driving and 

drilling noise has the potential to result 

in auditory threshold shifts and 

behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance, 

temporary cessation of foraging and 

vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). 

Exposure to anthropogenic noise can 

also lead to non-observable 

physiological responses such an 

increase in stress hormones. Additional 

noise in a marine mammal’s habitat can 

mask acoustic cues used by marine 

mammals to carry out daily functions 

such as communication and predator 

and prey detection. The effects of pile 

driving and drilling noise on marine 

mammals are dependent on several 

factors, including, but not limited to, 

sound type (e.g., impulsive vs. nonimpulsive), the species, age and sex 

class (e.g., adult male vs. mom with 

calf), duration of exposure, the distance 

between the pile and the animal, 

received levels, behavior at time of 

exposure, and previous history with 

exposure (Wartzok et al. 2004; Southall 

et al. 2007). Here we discuss physical 

auditory effects (threshold shifts) 

followed by behavioral effects and 

potential impacts on habitat. 

NMFS defines a noise-induced 

threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually 

an increase, in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS 2018). The amount of 

threshold shift is customarily expressed 

in dB. A TS can be permanent or 

temporary. As described in NMFS 

(2018), there are numerous factors to 

consider when examining the 

consequence of TS, including, but not 

limited to, the signal temporal pattern 

(e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive), 

likelihood an individual would be 

exposed for a long enough duration or 

to a high enough level to induce a TS, 

the magnitude of the TS, time to 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
64550 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 

recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to 

days), the frequency range of the 

exposure (i.e., spectral content), the 

hearing and vocalization frequency 

range of the exposed species relative to 

the signal’s frequency spectrum (i.e., 

how animal uses sound within the 

frequency band of the signal; e.g., 

Kastelein et al. 2014b), and the overlap 

between the animal and the source (e.g., 

spatial, temporal, and spectral). 

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)— 

NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 

irreversible increase in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS 2018). Available data from 

humans and other terrestrial mammals 

indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al. 

1958, 1959; Ward 1960; Kryter et al. 

1966; Miller 1974; Ahroon et al. 1996; 

Henderson et al. 2008). PTS levels for 

marine mammals are estimates, as with 

the exception of a single study 

unintentionally inducing PTS in a 

harbor seal (Kastak et al. 2008), there are 

no empirical data measuring PTS in 

marine mammals largely due to the fact 

that, for various ethical reasons, 

experiments involving anthropogenic 

noise exposure at levels inducing PTS 

are not typically pursued or authorized 

(NMFS 2018). 

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)—A 

temporary, reversible increase in the 

threshold of audibility at a specified 

frequency or portion of an individual’s 

hearing range above a previously 

established reference level (NMFS 

2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS 

measurements (see Southall et al. 2007), 

a TTS of 6 dB is considered the 

minimum threshold shift clearly larger 

than any day-to-day or session-tosession variation in a subject’s normal 

hearing ability (Schlundt et al. 2000; 

Finneran et al. 2000, 2002). As 

described in Finneran (2016), marine 

mammal studies have shown the 

amount of TTS increases with 

cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At 

low exposures with lower SELcum, the 

amount of TTS is typically small and 

the growth curves have shallow slopes. 

At exposures with higher higher SELcum, 

the growth curves become steeper and 

approach linear relationships with the 

noise SEL. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery 

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. We 

note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 

a simple function of aging has been 

observed in marine mammals, as well as 

humans and other taxa (Southall et al. 

2007), so we can infer that strategies 

exist for coping with this condition to 

some degree, though likely not without 

cost. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas), harbor 

porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise 

(Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) and five 

species of pinnipeds exposed to a 

limited number of sound sources (i.e., 

mostly tones and octave-band noise) in 

laboratory settings (Finneran 2015). TTS 

was not observed in trained spotted 

(Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa 

hispida) seals exposed to impulsive 

noise at levels matching previous 

predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et 

al. 2016). In general, harbor seals and 

harbor porpoises have a lower TTS 

onset than other measured pinniped or 

cetacean species (Finneran 2015). 

Additionally, the existing marine 

mammal TTS data come from a limited 

number of individuals within these 

species. No data are available on noiseinduced hearing loss for mysticetes. For 

summaries of data on TTS in marine 

mammals or for further discussion of 

TTS onset thresholds, please see 

Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and 

Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and 

Table 5 in NMFS (2018). Installing piles 

requires a combination of impact pile 

driving, vibratory pile driving, and 

down-the-hole drilling. For the project, 

these activities would not occur at the 

same time and there would likely be 

pauses in activities producing the sound 

during each day. Given these pauses 

and that many marine mammals are 

likely moving through the action area 

and not remaining for extended periods 

of time, the potential for TS declines. 

Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to 

noise from pile driving and removal and 

drilling also has the potential to 

behaviorally disturb marine mammals. 

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 2005). 

Disturbance may result in changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where sound sources are located. 

Pinnipeds may increase their haul-out 

time, possibly to avoid in-water 

disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific and 

any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

(e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok et 

al. 2003; Southall et al. 2007; Weilgart 

2007; Archer et al. 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

(Ellison et al. 2012), and can vary 

depending on characteristics associated 

with the sound source (e.g., whether it 

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). In 

general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant 

of, or at least habituate more quickly to, 

potentially disturbing underwater sound 

than do cetaceans, and generally seem 

to be less responsive to exposure to 

industrial sound than most cetaceans. 

Please see Appendices B–C of Southall 

et al. (2007) for a review of studies 

involving marine mammal behavioral 

responses to sound. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 64551 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

(e.g., Croll et al. 2001; Nowacek et al. 

2004; Madsen et al. 2006; Yazvenko et 

al. 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

In 2016, the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities 

(ADOT&PF) documented observations 

of marine mammals during construction 

activities (i.e., pile driving and downhole drilling) at the Kodiak Ferry Dock 

(see 80 FR 60636 for Final IHA Federal 

Register notice). In the marine mammal 

monitoring report for that project (ABR 

2016), 1,281 Steller sea lions were 

observed within the Level B disturbance 

zone during pile driving or drilling (i.e., 

documented as Level B harassment 

take). Of these, 19 individuals 

demonstrated an alert behavior, 7 were 

fleeing, and 19 swam away from the 

project site. All other animals (98 

percent) were engaged in activities such 

as milling, foraging, or fighting and did 

not change their behavior. In addition, 

two sea lions approached within 20 

meters of active vibratory pile driving 

activities. Three harbor seals were 

observed within the disturbance zone 

during pile driving activities; none of 

them displayed disturbance behaviors. 

Fifteen killer whales and three harbor 

porpoise were also observed within the 

Level B harassment zone during pile 

driving. The killer whales were 

travelling or milling while all harbor 

porpoises were travelling. No signs of 

disturbance were noted for either of 

these species. Given the similarities in 

activities and habitat and the fact the 

same species are involved, we expect 

similar behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to the specified activity. That 

is, disturbance, if any, is likely to be 

temporary and localized (e.g., small area 

movements). Monitoring reports from 

other recent pile driving and down-thehole drilling projects in Alaska have 

observed similar behaviors (for example, 

the Biorka Island Dock Replacement 

Project). 

Masking—Sound can disrupt behavior 

through masking, or interfering with, an 

animal’s ability to detect, recognize, or 

discriminate between acoustic signals of 

interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al. 1995). 

Masking occurs when the receipt of a 

sound is interfered with by another 

coincident sound at similar frequencies 

and at similar or higher intensity, and 

may occur whether the sound is natural 

(e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, 

precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 

pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic 

exploration) in origin. The ability of a 

noise source to mask biologically 

important sounds depends on the 

characteristics of both the noise source 

and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-tonoise ratio, temporal variability, 

direction), in relation to each other and 

to an animal’s hearing abilities (e.g., 

sensitivity, frequency range, critical 

ratios, frequency discrimination, 

directional discrimination, age or TTS 

hearing loss), and existing ambient 

noise and propagation conditions. 

Masking of natural sounds can result 

when human activities produce high 

levels of background sound at 

frequencies important to marine 

mammals. Conversely, if the 

background level of underwater sound 

is high (e.g. on a day with strong wind 

and high waves), an anthropogenic 

sound source would not be detectable as 

far away as would be possible under 

quieter conditions and would itself be 

masked. Skagway Harbor contains an 

active port of call for cruise ships and 

hosts numerous recreational and 

commercial vessels; therefore, 

background sound levels in the harbor 

are already elevated. 

Airborne Acoustic Effects—Pinnipeds 

that occur near the project site could be 

exposed to airborne sounds associated 

with pile driving and removal and 

down-the-hole drilling that have the 

potential to cause behavioral 

harassment, depending on their distance 

from pile driving activities. Cetaceans 

are not expected to be exposed to 

airborne sounds that would result in 

harassment as defined under the 

MMPA. 

Airborne noise would primarily be an 

issue for pinnipeds that are swimming 

or hauled out near the project site 

within the range of noise levels elevated 

above the acoustic criteria. We 

recognize that pinnipeds in the water 

could be exposed to airborne sound that 

may result in behavioral harassment 

when looking with their heads above 

water. Most likely, airborne sound 

would cause behavioral responses 

similar to those discussed above in 

relation to underwater sound. For 

instance, anthropogenic sound could 

cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit 

changes in their normal behavior, such 

as reduction in vocalizations, or cause 

them to temporarily abandon the area 

and move further from the source. 

However, these animals would 

previously have been ‘taken’ because of 

exposure to underwater sound above the 

behavioral harassment thresholds, 

which are in all cases larger than those 

associated with airborne sound. Thus, 

the behavioral harassment of these 

animals is already accounted for in 

these estimates of potential take. 

Therefore, we do not believe that 

authorization of incidental take 

resulting from airborne sound for 

pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne 

sound is not discussed further here. 

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects 

WP&YR construction activities at the 

Railroad Dock could have localized, 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat and their prey by increasing inwater sound pressure levels and slightly 

decreasing water quality. Increased 

noise levels may affect acoustic habitat 

(see masking discussion above) and 

adversely affect marine mammal prey in 

the vicinity of the project area (see 

discussion below). During impact pile 

driving, elevated levels of underwater 

noise would ensonify Taiya Inlet where 

both fish and mammals occur and could 

affect foraging success. 

Construction activities are of short 

duration and would likely have 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat through increases in underwater 

and airborne sound. These sounds 

would not be detectable at the nearest 

known Steller sea lion haulouts, and all 

known harbor seal haulouts are well 

beyond the maximum distance of 

predicted in-air acoustical disturbance. 

In-water pile driving, pile removal, 

and drilling activities would also cause 

short-term effects on water quality due 

to increased turbidity. Local strong 

currents are anticipated to disburse 

suspended sediments produced by 

project activities at moderate to rapid 

rates depending on tidal stage. WP&YR 

would employ standard construction 

best management practices (BMPs; see 

section 11 and Appendix B in 

application), thereby reducing any 

impacts. Therefore, the impact from 

increased turbidity levels is expected to 

be discountable. 

In-Water Construction Effects on 

Potential Foraging Habitat 

The area likely impacted by the 

project is relatively small compared to 

the available habitat in Lynn Canal/ 

Taiya Inlet (e.g., most of the impacted 

area is limited to the northern and 

western portions of Taiya Inlet) and 

does not include any BIAs or ESAdesignated critical habitat. Pile 

installation/removal and drilling may 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
64552 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 

temporarily increase turbidity resulting 

from suspended sediments. Any 

increases would be temporary, 

localized, and minimal. WP&YR must 

comply with state water quality 

standards during these operations by 

limiting the extent of turbidity to the 

immediate project area. In general, 

turbidity associated with pile 

installation is localized to about a 25- 

foot radius around the pile (Everitt et al. 

1980). Cetaceans are not expected to be 

close enough to the project pile driving 

areas to experience effects of turbidity, 

and any pinnipeds would be transiting 

the area and could avoid localized areas 

of turbidity. Therefore, the impact from 

increased turbidity levels is expected to 

be discountable to marine mammals. 

Furthermore, pile driving and removal 

at the project site would not obstruct 

movements or migration of marine 

mammals. 

Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish) 

of the immediate area due to the 

temporary loss of this foraging habitat is 

also possible. The duration of fish 

avoidance of this area after pile driving 

stops is unknown, but a rapid return to 

normal recruitment, distribution and 

behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral 

avoidance by fish of the disturbed area 

would still leave significantly large 

areas of fish and marine mammal 

foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity in 

Lynn Canal/Taiya Inlet. 

The duration of the construction 

activities is relatively short. The 

construction window is for a maximum 

of 89 days and during each day, 

construction activities would only occur 

during daylight hours. Impacts to 

habitat and prey are expected to be 

minimal based on the short duration of 

activities. 

In-Water Construction Effects on 

Potential Prey (Fish)—Construction 

activities would produce continuous 

(i.e., vibratory pile driving and downthe-hole drilling) and pulsed (i.e. impact 

driving) sounds. Fish react to sounds 

that are especially strong and/or 

intermittent low-frequency sounds. 

Short duration, sharp sounds can cause 

overt or subtle changes in fish behavior 

and local distribution. Hastings and 

Popper (2005) identified several studies 

that suggest fish may relocate to avoid 

certain areas of sound energy. 

Additional studies have documented 

effects of pile driving on fish, although 

several are based on studies in support 

of large, multiyear bridge construction 

projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan 2001, 

2002; Popper and Hastings 2009). Sound 

pulses at received levels of 160 dB may 

cause subtle changes in fish behavior. 

SPLs of 180 dB may cause noticeable 

changes in behavior (Pearson et al. 

1992; Skalski et al. 1992). SPLs of 

sufficient strength have been known to 

cause injury to fish and fish mortality. 

The most likely impact to fish from 

pile driving and drilling activities at the 

project area would be temporary 

behavioral avoidance of the area. The 

duration of fish avoidance of this area 

after pile driving stops is unknown, but 

a rapid return to normal recruitment, 

distribution and behavior is anticipated. 

In general, impacts to marine mammal 

prey species are expected to be minor 

and temporary due to the short 

timeframe for the project. 

Construction activities, in the form of 

increased turbidity, have the potential 

to adversely affect forage fish and 

juvenile salmonid outmigratory routes 

in the project area. Both herring and 

salmon form a significant prey base for 

Steller sea lions, herring is a primary 

prey species of humpback whales, and 

both herring and salmon are 

components of the diet of many other 

marine mammal species that occur in 

the project area. Increased turbidity is 

expected to occur in the immediate 

vicinity (on the order of 10 feet or less) 

of construction activities. However, 

suspended sediments and particulates 

are expected to dissipate quickly within 

a single tidal cycle. Given the limited 

area affected and high tidal dilution 

rates any effects on forage fish and 

salmon are expected to be minor or 

negligible. In addition, best management 

practices would be in effect, which 

would limit the extent of turbidity to the 

immediate project area. Finally, 

exposure to turbid waters from 

construction activities is not expected to 

be different from the current exposure; 

fish and marine mammals in the Lynn 

Canal/Taiya Inlet region are routinely 

exposed to substantial levels of 

suspended sediment from glacial 

sources. 

In summary, given the short daily 

duration of sound associated with 

individual pile driving and drilling 

events and the relatively small areas 

being affected, pile driving and drilling 

activities associated with the proposed 

action are not likely to have a 

permanent, adverse effect on any fish 

habitat, or populations of fish species. 

Thus, we conclude that impacts of the 

specified activity are not likely to have 

more than short-term adverse effects on 

any prey habitat or populations of prey 

species. Further, any impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

result in significant or long-term 

consequences for individual marine 

mammals, or to contribute to adverse 

impacts on their populations. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

the negligible impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which 

(i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as use of the 

impact and vibratory hammers and 

down-the-hole drilling has the potential 

to result in disruption of behavioral 

patterns for individual marine 

mammals. There is also some potential 

for auditory injury (Level A harassment) 

to result, primarily for low-frequency 

cetaceans, high-frequency cetaceans, 

and/or phocids because predicted 

auditory injury zones are larger than for 

mid-frequency cetaceans and otariids. 

Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for 

mid-frequency cetaceans and otariids. 

The proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

minimize the severity of such taking to 

the extent practicable. As described 

previously, no mortality is anticipated 

or proposed to be authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) and the number of days of 

activities. We note that while these 

basic factors can contribute to a basic 

calculation to provide an initial 

prediction of takes, additional 

information that can qualitatively 

inform take estimates is also sometimes 

available (e.g., previous monitoring 

results or average group size). Below, we 

describe the factors considered here in 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 64553 

more detail and present the proposed 

take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al.; 2007, Ellison et al. 2012). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

for continuous (e.g., vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 

(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. WP&YR’s 

proposed activity includes the use of 

continuous (vibratory pile driving/ 

removal and drilling) and impulsive 

(impact pile driving) sources, and 

therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) thresholds are applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (NMFS 

2018) identifies dual criteria to assess 

auditory injury (Level A harassment) to 

five different marine mammal groups 

(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result 

of exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). WP&YR’s proposed activity 

includes the use of impulsive (impact 

pile driving) and non-impulsive 

(vibratory pile driving/removal and 

drilling) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 3. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the thresholds are described in NMFS 

2018 Technical Guidance, which may 

be accessed at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance. 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Lp,0-pk,flat: 219 dB; LE,p, LF,24h: 183 dB ............................ LE,p, LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Lp,0-pk,flat: 230 dB; LE,p, MF,24h: 185 dB ........................... LE,p, MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Lp,0-pk,flat: 202 dB; LE,p,HF,24h: 155 dB ............................. LE,p, HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Lp,0-pk.flat: 218 dB; LE,p,PW,24h: 185 dB ............................ LE,p,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Lp,0-pk,flat: 232 dB; LE,p,OW,24h: 203 dB ............................ LE,p,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

* Dual metric thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound 

has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds are recommended 

for consideration. 

Note: Peak sound pressure level (Lp,0-pk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and weighted cumulative sound exposure level (LE,p) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to be more reflective of International Organization for Standardization standards 

(ISO 2017). The subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing 

range of marine mammals (i.e., 7 Hz to 160 kHz). The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The weighted cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying 

exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these 

thresholds will be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

and transmission loss coefficient. 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

proposed project. Marine mammals are 

expected to be affected via sound 

generated by the primary components of 

the project (i.e., impact pile driving, 

vibratory pile driving and removal and 

down-the-hole drilling). The maximum 

(underwater) ensonification area of 17.9 

km 2 due to project activities is governed 

by the topography of Taiya Inlet (see 

Figure 6 in the application). The eastern 

shoreline of the inlet is acoustically 

shadowed due to land located just south 

of the proposed project site. Similarly, 

Yakutania Point and Dyea Point would 

inhibit transmission of project sounds 

from reaching Nahku Bay and the upper 

inlet at the mouth of the Taiya River. 

Additionally, vessel traffic and other 

commercial and industrial activities in 

the project area may contribute to 

elevated background noise levels which 

may mask sounds produced by the 

project. 

In order to calculate distances to the 

Level A and Level B harassment 

thresholds for piles of various sizes 

being used in this project, NMFS used 

acoustic monitoring data from other 

locations. Note that piles of differing 

sizes have different sound source levels. 

Empirical data from recent sound 

source verification (SSV) studies in 

Anchorage and Kodiak, Alaska were 

used to estimate sound source levels 

(SSLs) for impact pile driving, vibratory 

pile driving/removal, and down-thehole drilling installations of the 42-inch 

steel pipe permanent piles and the 36- 

inch steel pipe template piles (Austin et 

al. 2016; Denes et al. 2016). These 

Alaskan construction sites were 

generally assumed to best represent the 

environmental conditions found in 

Skagway and represent the nearest 

available source level data for 42-inch 

steel piles. 

Tables 4 provides the sound source 

values used in calculating harassment 

isopleths for each source type. No data 

are currently available for 42-inch steel 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
64554 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 

pipe piles. For impact and vibratory 

hammer source levels WP&YR used the 

median levels measured by Austin et al. 

(2016) during installation of 48-inch 

piles at Port of Anchorage (197.9 and 

166.8 dB re 1 mPa (rms at 11 m)). These 

48-inch pile impact and vibratory levels 

are conservatively used for both the 42- 

inch permanent piles and the 36-inch 

template piles. Little SSL data are 

available for down-the-hole drilling. 

WP&YR used the 90th percentile source 

levels measured by Denes et al. (2016) 

during drilling down the center of 30- 

inch piles in Kodiak (171 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms at 10 m)). 

TABLE 4—SOURCE LEVELS AND ANTICIPATED DAILY DURATIONS FOR UNDERWATER SOUND CALCULATIONS

[Hours or strikes per day represents the maximum duration of any single activity] 

Source Source 

type 

SPLPK

(dB) 

SPLRMS

(dB) SELS–S (dB) Hours or strikes per day 

Template Piles 

Vibratory Installation/Removal Non-impulsive, continuous ............ n/a 166.8 n/a 3 hours. 

Impact Installation ................... Impulsive, intermittent ................... 212.5 197.9 186.7 2,000 strikes. 

Drilling Installation ................... Non-impulsive, continuous ............ n/a 171.0 n/a 6 hours. 

Permanent Piles 

Vibratory Installation ................ Non-impulsive, continuous ............ n/a 166.8 n/a 8 hours. 

Impact Installation ................... Impulsive, intermittent ................... 212.5 197.9 186.7 2,000 strikes. 

Drilling Installation ................... Non-impulsive, continuous ............ n/a 171.0 n/a 8 hours. 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2), 

Where: 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical 

spreading equals 15 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement 

A practical spreading value of fifteen is 

often used under conditions, such as at 

the WP&YR Railroad Dock, where water 

increases with depth as the receiver 

moves away from the shoreline, 

resulting in an expected propagation 

environment that would lie between 

spherical and cylindrical spreading loss 

conditions. Practical spreading loss is 

assumed here. 

When the NMFS Technical Guidance 

(2016) was published, in recognition of 

the fact that ensonified area/volume 

could be more technically challenging 

to predict because of the duration 

component in the new thresholds, we 

developed a User Spreadsheet that 

includes tools to help predict a simple 

isopleth that can be used in conjunction 

with marine mammal density or 

occurrence to help predict takes. We 

note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used for these tools, we anticipate that 

isopleths produced are typically going 

to be overestimates of some degree, 

which may result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A harassment 

take. However, these tools offer the best 

way to predict appropriate isopleths 

when more sophisticated 3D modeling 

methods are not available, and NMFS 

continues to develop ways to 

quantitatively refine these tools, and 

will qualitatively address the output 

where appropriate. For stationary 

sources such as pile driving and 

drilling, NMFS User Spreadsheet 

predicts the closest distance at which, if 

a marine mammal remained at that 

distance (or greater) the whole duration 

of the activity, it would not incur PTS. 

Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet and 

the resulting isopleths are reported in 

Tables 5 and 6. As WP&YR plans to 

employ two continuous sound sources 

(vibratory pile driving and drilling) it is 

necessary to account for accumulation 

of sound caused by both activities 

during the full 10 hour work day when 

calculating Level A harassment 

isopleths. As drilling has the higher 

sound pressure level we propose to use 

drilling to calculate the Level A 

harassment isopleths for both drilling 

and vibratory pile driving activities 

(Table 5). For impact pile driving, 

isopleths calculated using the SELCUM

metric will be used as it produces larger 

isopleths than SPLPK. Isopleths for Level 

B harassment associated with impact 

pile driving (160 dB) and vibratory pile 

driving/removal and drilling (120 dB) 

were also calculated and are can be 

found in Table 6. 

TABLE 5—USER SPREADSHEET INPUT PARAMETERS USED FOR CALCULATING HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS

Parameter Impact pile driving Vibratory pile driving and drilling 

Spreadsheet Tab Used ...................................... E.1) Impact pile driving .................................... A.1) Drilling/Vibratory pile driving. 

Source Level ...................................................... 186.7 dB SEL ................................................... 171 dB rms. 

Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz) ................... 2 ....................................................................... 2. 

Number of strikes per day .................................. 2,000 ................................................................ N/A. 

Activity Duration (h) within 24-hour period ......... N/A ................................................................... 10 hours. 

Propagation (xLogR) .......................................... 15LogR ............................................................. 15LogR. 

Distance of source level measurement (meters) 11 ..................................................................... 10. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 64555 

TABLE 6—CALCULATED DISTANCES TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS DURING PILE

INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL AND DRILLING

Source 

Level A 

harassment 

zone 

(meters) 

Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(meters) 

Lowfrequency 

cetacean 

Midfrequency 

cetacean 

Highfrequency 

cetacean 

Phocid 

pinniped 

Otariid 

pinniped 

Cetaceans 

and pinnipeds 

Drilling and Vibratory Installation ......... 148 8.3 129.7 79.2 5.8 1 13,000 

Impact Installation ................................ 3,077.2 109.4 3,665.4 1,646.8 119.9 3,698.8 

Source .................................................. PTS Onset Isopleth—Peak (meters) 

Impact Installation ................................ 4.1 n/a 55.1 4.7 n/a ............................

1Based on maximum distance before landfall. Calculated distance was 25.1 km. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Calculation and Estimation 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations, 

and how this information is brought 

together to produce a quantitative take 

estimate. 

Density information is not available 

for marine mammals in the project area 

in Taiya Inlet. Potential exposures to 

impact and vibratory pile driving noise 

for each threshold for all other marine 

mammals were estimated using 

published reports of group sizes and 

population estimates, and anecdotal 

observational reports from local 

commercial entities. For several species, 

it is not currently possible to identify all 

observed individuals to stock. 

Level B Harassment Calculations 

The estimation of takes by Level B 

harassment uses the following 

calculation: 

Level B harassment estimate = N 

(number of animals in the ensonified 

area) * Number of days of noise 

generating activities. 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales are the most 

commonly observed baleen whale in 

Southeast Alaska, particularly during 

spring and summer months. Humpback 

whales in Alaska, although not limited 

to these areas, return to specific feeding 

locations such as Frederick Sound, 

Chatham Strait, North Pass, Sitka 

Sound, Glacier Bay, Point Adolphus, 

and Prince William Sound, as well as 

other similar coastal areas (Wing and 

Krieger 1983). In Lynn Canal they have 

been observed in the spring and fall 

from Haines to Juneau, however 

scientific surveys have not documented 

the species within Taiya Inlet 

(Dahlheim et al. 2009). 

Local observations indicate that 

humpback whales are not common in 

the project action area but, if they are 

sighted, are generally present during 

mid to late spring and vacate the area by 

July to follow large aggregations of 

forage fish in lower Lynn Canal. Local 

observers have reported humpback 

whales in Taiya Inlet, sometimes fairly 

close to the Skagway waterfront. Due to 

seasonal migration patterns, the low 

frequency of humpbacks in the area, and 

that no humpback whales have been 

reported during winter months it is 

anticipated that no humpback whales 

will be present in the project area in 

February. On average, four to five 

individuals may occur near Skagway 

during the spring eulachon run in April 

and May, after which, only a few 

individuals are observed throughout the 

summer. In 2015, only one whale was 

observed (for several) weeks close to 

Skagway (K. Gross, personal 

communication reported in MOS 2016). 

Based on humpback whale occurrence 

in the project area and local 

observations, it is estimated that four 

individuals may be present in the action 

area each day during April, coinciding 

with 30 days of project activity (120 

exposures). As it is unclear whether 

humpback whales occur in the inlet in 

March (for example, should the 

eulachon run begin early), it is 

conservatively estimated that one whale 

might be found in the inlet during that 

month for five days (0.16 whales per 

day, 5 exposures), for an overall total of 

125 exposures (Table 7). 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED TAKES OF HUMPBACK WHALES PER MONTH

Month Animals in 

inlet per day 

Days in 

month Exposures 

February ....................................................................................................................................... 0 28 0 

March ........................................................................................................................................... 0.16 31 5 

April .............................................................................................................................................. 4 30 120 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 125 

Minke Whale 

Minke whales are rarely observed in 

the project area, and scientific surveys 

have not documented the species within 

Taiya Inlet (Dahlheim et al. 2009). A 

single minke whale was observed in the 

inlet in 2015 (K. Gross, Never Monday 

Charters, personal communication; R. 

Ford, Taiya Inlet Watershed Council, 

both personal communications reported 

in MOS 2016), and is the only known 

record of a minke whale in Taiya Inlet. 

However one minke whale was reported 

by local observers in the action area in 

2015. Based on the available 

information it is very unlikely minke 

whales will be present in the inlet, 

however, minke whale presence is 

possible based on a single sighting and 

presence of potential prey (eulachon) in 

the spring. Thus, we estimate a total of 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
64556 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 

two potential exposures of minke 

whales. 

Killer Whale 

Although killer whale stocks’ ranges 

include southeast Alaska, they have 

only been documented as far north as 

Lynn Canal; therefore, while possible, 

occurrence north of Lynn Canal into 

Taiya Inlet is rare. According to local 

observations, pods of resident killer 

whales are occasionally seen in Taiya 

Inlet. Local observations indicate killer 

whales are observed four or five times 

a year (between spring and fall) usually 

in a group of 15 to 20 whales. In 2015 

a resident pod was only observed in 

Taiya Inlet twice, remaining for one to 

four days per visit (K. Gross, personal 

communication reported in MOS 2016). 

There is no evidence of transient whales 

occurring within Taiya Inlet. While the 

resident pods remain in Alaska yearround there are no reports of sightings 

during winter months (January– 

February) in Taiya Inlet so it is assumed 

no killer whales will be present in the 

project area in February. Based on local 

observations in the project area in the 

spring, it is assumed that a group of 20 

whales may enter the project area once 

in each of March and April and remain 

within the inlet for two days each time, 

for a total of 80 potential exposures. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises are primarily found 

in coastal waters, and in the Gulf of 

Alaska and Southeast Alaska, they occur 

most frequently in waters less than 100 

meters (Dahlheim et al. 2009). 

Dedicated research studies of harbor 

porpoise in the project area only occur 

as far north in Lynn Canal as Haines 

during the summer (Dahlheim et al. 

2009; 2015), approximately 16 miles 

south of Skagway. Group sizes were, on 

average, between 1.37–1.59 animals 

(less than 2) (Dahlheim et al. 2009; 

2015). In Lynn Canal, observations were 

less frequent, primarily in lower Lynn 

Canal from Chatham Strait to Juneau, 

though harbor porpoises have been 

observed as far north as Haines during 

the summer (Dahlheim et al. 2009; 

2015). 

Despite lack of observations during 

dedicated surveys, local charter captains 

indicate that harbor porpoises 

commonly occur in small groups of two 

or three in Taiya Inlet, although they are 

not encountered on a daily basis and are 

rarely seen in areas close to the 

waterfront (K. Gross, personal 

communication reported in MOS 2016). 

Therefore, it is conservatively estimated 

that one group of three individuals may 

be present in the inlet 75 percent of the 

days during each month (or 2.25 

porpoises per day on average) for a total 

of 201 potential exposures (Table 8). 

TABLE 8—ESTIMATED TAKES OF HARBOR PORPOISES PER MONTH

Month Animals in 

inlet per day 

Days in 

month Exposures 

February ....................................................................................................................................... 2.25 28 63 

March ........................................................................................................................................... 2.25 31 70 

April .............................................................................................................................................. 2.25 30 68 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 201 

Dall’s Porpoise 

Dall’s porpoises are widely 

distributed across the entire North 

Pacific Ocean. Throughout most of the 

eastern North Pacific they are present 

during all months of the year, although 

there may be seasonal onshore-offshore 

movements along the west coast of the 

continental United States and winter 

movements of populations out of Prince 

William Sound and areas in the Gulf of 

Alaska and Bering Sea (Muto et al. 

2018). Dahlheim et al. (2009) observed 

Dall’s porpoise throughout Southeast 

Alaska, with concentrations of animals 

consistently found in Lynn Canal, 

Stephens Passage, Icy Strait, upper 

Chatham Strait, Frederick Sound, and 

Clarence Strait. Dahlheim et al. (2009), 

documented Dall’s porpoise in Lynn 

Canal as far north as Haines, Alaska, 

about 15 miles south of Skagway. 

Local observation indicate that three 

to six Dall’s porpoises may be present in 

Taiya Inlet during the early spring and 

late fall. Observations have been 

occasional to sporadic and do not occur 

on a daily basis. The species has not 

been observed during winter months 

and has not been observed near the 

waterfront (K. Gross, personal 

communication reported in MOS 2016). 

The mean group size of Dall’s porpoise 

in Southeast Alaska is estimated to be 

3.7 individuals (Dahlheim et al. 2009). 

Therefore, it is estimated that a group of 

four Dall’s porpoises will be present in 

the project area every other day in 

March and April (2 per day), for a total 

of 122 potential exposures (Table 9). 

TABLE 9—ESTIMATED TAKES OF DALL’S PORPOISES PER MONTH

Month Animals in 

inlet per day 

Days in 

month Exposures 

February ....................................................................................................................................... 0 28 0 

March ........................................................................................................................................... 2 31 62 

April .............................................................................................................................................. 2 30 60 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 122 

Steller Sea Lion 

Several long-term Steller sea lion 

haulouts are located in Lynn Canal, 

however none occur in Taiya Inlet. The 

nearest long-term Steller sea lion 

haulout is located at Gran Point, south 

of Haines and 24 mi (38 km) south of 

the project area. Other year-round 

haulouts in Lynn Canal are present at 

Met Point, Benjamin Island, and Little 

Island, closer to Juneau (Fritz et al. 

2015). Observations from local charter 

boat captains and watershed stewards 

indicate Steller sea lions can be 

abundant in the action area, particularly 

in April and May during the eulachon 

run, but are rarely observed in the 

project area during the winter (K. Gross, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 64557 

Never Monday Charters, personal 

communication; R. Ford, Taiya Inlet 

Watershed Council, personal 

communication reported in MOS 2016). 

This is consistent with the National 

Marine Mammal Laboratory database 

(Fritz et al. 2015), which has identified 

the largest number of Lynn Canal sea 

lions during the fall and winter months 

at Benjamin Island in the lower reaches 

of the canal. During surveys conducted 

in 2002 and 2003, Womble et al. (2005) 

observed a maximum of approximately 

400 Steller sea lions in the water at the 

mouth of the Taiya River feeding on 

eulachon in 2003, but observed very few 

in the same area in 2002. Steller sea 

lions have also been observed in Lutak 

Inlet, a foraging site closer to both Taiya 

Point and Gran Point haulouts. 

During the spring eulachon run, a 

seasonal haulout site is located on Taiya 

Point at the southern tip of Taiya Inlet, 

approximately 11 mi (18 km) from the 

project site. Twenty-five to 40 sea lions 

are estimated to use this haulout for 

about three weeks during spring run, 

during which they frequently are 

observed in the inlet (K. Gross, personal 

communication reported in MOS 2016). 

However, most animals leave the inlet 

shortly after the eulachon run and are 

rarely observed in the summer. Based 

on survey data and local observations in 

the project area, it is estimated that two 

animals may be present each day in 

February, 16 animals may be present on 

each day in March (half of the mean 

found on Taiya Rocks during the 

eulachon run), and 40 animals may be 

present each day in April for a total of 

1,032 potential exposures (Table 10). 

TABLE 10—ESTIMATED TAKES OF STELLER SEA LIONS PER MONTH

Month Animals in 

inlet per day 

Days in 

month Exposures 

February ....................................................................................................................................... 2 28 56 

March ........................................................................................................................................... 16 31 496 

April .............................................................................................................................................. 40 30 1,200 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,752 

Harbor Seal 

No long-term haulout sites have been 

documented for harbor seals in Taiya 

Inlet; however, seasonal haulouts are 

present within six miles of the project 

area at Seal Cove and at the mouth of 

the Taiya River. Based on reports from 

local observers, a few resident harbor 

seals are expected to occur within Taiya 

Inlet during the winter months, but 

during the April and May eulachon run 

numbers can range from 20 to over 100 

(K. Gross and R. Ford, personal 

communication reported in MOS 2016). 

Before and after the spawning run, 

much lower numbers of harbor seals are 

present. 

Based on survey data and local 

observations in the project area it is 

assumed that 20 seals (the lower 

estimate in the range) occur within the 

project area each day in February 

through March (560 takes in February 

and 620 takes in March) and 100 seals 

(the higher estimate in the range) during 

April (3,000 takes) for a total of 4,180 

potential exposures (Table 11). 

TABLE 11—ESTIMATED TAKES OF HARBOR SEALS PER MONTH

Month Animals in 

inlet per day 

Days in 

month Takes 

February ....................................................................................................................................... 20 28 560 

March ........................................................................................................................................... 20 31 620 

April .............................................................................................................................................. 100 30 3,000 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,180 

Level A Harassment Calculations 

WP&YR intends to avoid Level A 

harassment take by shutting down 

installation activities at approach of any 

marine mammal to the representative 

Level A harassment (PTS onset) 

ensonification zone up to a practical 

shutdown monitoring distance. As 

small/cryptic marine mammal species 

may enter the Level A harassment zone 

before shutdown mitigation procedures 

can be implemented, and some animals 

may occur between the maximum Level 

A harassment ensonification zone and 

the maximum shutdown safety zone, we 

conservatively estimate that 20 percent 

of the Level B harassment takes 

calculated above for humpback whales, 

harbor porpoises, Dall’s porpoises, and 

harbor seals, have the potential to be 

takes by Level A harassment (Table 12). 

Minke whale occurrence in Taiya Inlet 

is rare. Because vessel-based PSO are 

able to monitoring the entire Level A 

harassment zone (whales entering the 

inlet), WP&YR did not request, and 

NMFS is not proposing, to authorize 

Level A harassment take of minke 

whales. 

TABLE 12—ESTIMATED TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES AND STOCK, RESULTING FROM

PROPOSED WP&YR PROJECT ACTIVITIES

Common name Stock Stock 

abundance 1 Level A Level B Total 

proposed take 

Proposed 

take as 

percentage 

of stock 

Humpback whale ................ Central North Pacific .......... 210,103 25 100 125 1.23 

Minke Whale ....................... Alaska ................................. N/A 0 2 2 N/A 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
64558 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 12—ESTIMATED TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES AND STOCK, RESULTING FROM

PROPOSED WP&YR PROJECT ACTIVITIES—Continued 

Common name Stock Stock 

abundance 1 Level A Level B Total proposed take 

Proposed 

take as 

percentage 

of stock 

Killer whale .......................... Alaska Resident ................. 2,347 0 80 80 3.4 

Northern Resident .............. 261 30.6 

Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea Transient.587 13.6 

West Coast Transient ......... 243 32.9 

Harbor porpoise .................. Southeast Alaska ............... 975 40 161 201 20.6 

Dall’s porpoise .................... Alaska ................................. 83,400 24 98 122 0.01 

Steller sea lion .................... Western U.S ....................... 54,267 0 335 35 0.06 

Eastern U.S ........................ 41,638 0 1,717 1,717 4.1 

Harbor seal ......................... Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage.9,478 836 3,344 4,180 44.1 

1Stock or DPS size is Nbest according to NMFS 2018 Draft Stock Assessment Reports. 2For ESA section 7 consultation purposes, 6.1 percent are designated to the Mexico DPS and the remaining are designated to the Hawaii 

DPS; therefore, we assigned 2 Level B takes to the Mexico DPS. 3Based on the percent of branded animals at Gran Point and in consultation with the Alaska Regional Office, we used a 2 percent distinction 

factor to determine the number of animals potentially from the western DPS. 

There are a number of reasons why 

the estimates of potential incidents of 

take are likely to be conservative. Given 

the lack of density information, we use 

conservative estimates of marine 

mammal presence to calculate takes for 

each species. Additionally, in the 

context of stationary activities such as 

pile driving, and in areas where resident 

animals may be present, this number 

represents the number of instances of 

take that may occur to a small number 

of individuals, with a notably smaller 

number of animals being exposed more 

than once per individual. While pile 

driving or drilling can occur any day 

throughout the in-water work window, 

and the analysis is conducted on a per 

day basis, only a fraction of that time is 

actually spent pile driving. The 

potential effectiveness of mitigation 

measures in reducing the number of 

takes is also not quantified in the take 

estimation process. For these reasons, 

these take estimates may be 

conservative, especially if each take is 

considered a separate individual 

animal, and especially for pinnipeds. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on such species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of such species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) the likelihood 

of effective implementation (probability 

implemented as planned), and; 

(2) the practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

In addition to the measures described 

later in this section, WP&YR will 

employ the following standard 

mitigation measures: 

• Conduct briefings between 

construction supervisors and crews and 

the marine mammal monitoring team 

prior to the start of all pile driving 

activity, and when new personnel join 

the work, to explain responsibilities, 

communication procedures, marine 

mammal monitoring protocol, and 

operational procedures; 

• For in-water heavy machinery work 

other than pile driving (e.g., standard 

barges, etc.), if a marine mammal comes 

within 10 m, operations shall cease and 

vessels shall reduce speed to the 

minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions. 

This type of work could include the 

following activities: (1) Movement of the 

barge to the pile location; or (2) 

positioning of the pile on the substrate 

via a crane (i.e., stabbing the pile); 

• Work may only occur during 

daylight hours, when visual monitoring 

of marine mammals can be conducted; 

• For those marine mammals for 

which Level B harassment take has not 

been requested, in-water pile 

installation/removal and drilling will 

shut down immediately if such species 

are observed within or on a path 

towards the monitoring zone (i.e., Level 

B harassment zone); and 

• If take reaches the authorized limit 

for an authorized species, pile 

installation will be stopped as these 

species approach the Level B 

harassment zone to avoid additional 

take. 

The following measures would apply 

to WP&YR’s mitigation requirements: 

Establishment of Shutdown Zone for 

Level A Harassment—For all pile 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 64559 

driving/removal and drilling activities, 

WP&YR would establish a shutdown 

zone. The purpose of a shutdown zone 

is generally to define an area within 

which shutdown of activity would 

occur upon sighting of a marine 

mammal (or in anticipation of an animal 

entering the defined area). Conservative 

shutdown zones of 150 m for low- and 

high- frequency cetaceans, 80 m for 

phocid pinnipeds, and 10 m for midfrequency cetaceans and otariid 

pinnipeds would be used during all 

drilling and vibratory pile driving/ 

removal activities to prevent incidental 

Level A harassment exposure for these 

activities (Table 13). During impact pile 

driving a 150 m zone would be used for 

all species except for low-frequency 

cetacean for which a 2,000 m zone will 

be used. These shutdown zones would 

be used to prevent incidental Level A 

exposures from impact pile driving for 

mid-frequency cetaceans and otariid 

pinnipeds, and to reduce the potential 

for such take for other species (Table 

13). The placement of Protected Species 

Observers (PSOs) during all pile driving 

and drilling activities (described in 

detail in the Monitoring and Reporting 

Section) will ensure shutdown zones are 

visible. The 150 m zone is the practical 

distance WP&YR anticipates phocid 

pinnipeds and high-frequency cetaceans 

can be effectively observed in the 

project area. The 2,000 m zone for lowfrequency cetaceans is determined by 

the width of Taiya Inlet at Skagway 

Harbor. Observers will be present on 

vessels in the Taiya Inlet and able to 

observe large whales traveling north 

into the inlet and project area. 

TABLE 13—MONITORING AND SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR EACH PROJECT ACTIVITY

Source 

Monitoring 

zone 

(m) 

Shutdown zone 

(m) 

Drilling and Vibratory Installation/Removal ................................. 13,000 Low- and high- frequency cetaceans: 150. 

Phocid pinnipeds: 80. 

Mid-frequency cetaceans and otariid pinnipeds: 10. 

Impact Installation ....................................................................... 3,400 Low-frequency cetaceans: 2,000.

All other species: 150. 

Establishment of Monitoring Zones for 

Level B Harassment—WP&YR would 

establish monitoring zones to correlate 

with Level B disturbance zones or zones 

of influence which are areas where SPLs 

are equal to or exceed the 160 dB rms 

threshold for impact driving and the 120 

dB rms threshold during vibratory 

driving and drilling. Monitoring zones 

provide utility for observing by 

establishing monitoring protocols for 

areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. 

Monitoring zones enable observers to be 

aware of and communicate the presence 

of marine mammals in the project area 

outside the shutdown zone and thus 

prepare for a potential cease of activity 

should the animal enter the shutdown 

zone. The proposed monitoring zones 

are described in Table 13. The 

monitoring zone for drilling and 

vibratory pile driving/removal activities 

is 13,000 m, corresponding to the 

maximum distance before landfall. 

Placement of PSOs on vessels in the 

Taiya Inlet allow PSOs to observe 

marine mammals traveling north into 

the inlet and Skagway Harbor. Should 

PSOs determine the monitoring zone 

cannot be effectively observed in its 

entirety, Level B harassment exposures 

will be recorded and extrapolated based 

upon the number of observed take and 

the percentage of the Level B zone that 

was not visible. 

Soft Start—The use of soft-start 

procedures are believed to provide 

additional protection to marine 

mammals by providing warning and/or 

giving marine mammals a chance to 

leave the area prior to the hammer 

operating at full capacity. For impact 

pile driving, contractors would be 

required to provide an initial set of 

strikes from the hammer at reduced 

energy, with each strike followed by a 

30-second waiting period. This 

procedure would be conducted a total of 

three times before impact pile driving 

begins. Soft start would be implemented 

at the start of each day’s impact pile 

driving and at any time following 

cessation of impact pile driving for a 

period of thirty minutes or longer. Soft 

start is not required during vibratory 

pile driving and removal activities. 

Pre-Activity Monitoring—Prior to the 

start of daily in-water construction 

activity, or whenever a break in pile 

driving/removal or drilling of 30 

minutes or longer occurs, PSOs will 

observe the shutdown and monitoring 

zones for a period of 30 minutes. The 

shutdown zone will be cleared when a 

marine mammal has not been observed 

within the zone for that 30-minute 

period. If a marine mammal is observed 

within the shutdown zone, a soft-start 

cannot proceed until the animal has left 

the zone or has not been observed for 15 

minutes. If the Level B harassment zone 

has been observed for 30 minutes and 

non-permitted species are not present 

within the zone, soft start procedures 

can commence and work can continue 

even if visibility becomes impaired 

within the Level B monitoring zone. 

When a marine mammal permitted for 

Level B take is present in the Level B 

harassment zone, activities may begin 

and Level B take will be recorded. As 

stated above, if the entire Level B zone 

is not visible at the start of construction, 

piling or drilling activities can begin. If 

work ceases for more than 30 minutes, 

the pre-activity monitoring of both the 

Level B and shutdown zone will 

commence. 

Due to the depth of the water column 

and strong currents present at the 

project site, bubble curtains would not 

be implemented as they would not be 

effective in this environment. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means effecting the least practicable 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

and their habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the proposed action area. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as to ensuring that 

the most value is obtained from the 

required monitoring. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
64560 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Marine Mammal Visual Monitoring 

Monitoring shall be conducted by 

NMFS-approved observers. Trained 

observers shall be placed from the best 

vantage point(s) practicable to monitor 

for marine mammals and implement 

shutdown or delay procedures when 

applicable through communication with 

the equipment operator. Observer 

training must be provided prior to 

project start, and shall include 

instruction on species identification 

(sufficient to distinguish the species in 

the project area), description and 

categorization of observed behaviors 

and interpretation of behaviors that may 

be construed as being reactions to the 

specified activity, proper completion of 

data forms, and other basic components 

of biological monitoring, including 

tracking of observed animals or groups 

of animals such that repeat sound 

exposures may be attributed to 

individuals (to the extent possible). 

Monitoring would be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after pile driving/removal and drilling 

activities. In addition, observers shall 

record all incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and shall document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from piles being driven or 

removed. Pile driving/removal and 

drilling activities include the time to 

install or remove a single pile or series 

of piles, as long as the time elapsed 

between uses of the pile driving 

equipment is no more than 30 minutes. 

A total of five PSOs would be based 

on land and vessels. During all pile 

driving/removal and drilling activities 

observers will be stationed at the 

Railroad Dock, Yakutania Point, and 

Dyea Point. These stations will allow 

full monitoring of the impact hammer 

monitoring zone and the Level A 

shutdown zones. The vibratory and 

drilling monitoring zone will be 

additionally monitored using two PSOs 

stationed on boats anchored near the 

shoreline, with each team (vessel 

operator and observer) stationed 

approximately 2 km apart in the inlet 

south of the project site (Figure 2 in the 

WP&YR Marine Mammal Mitigation and 

Monitoring Plan). 

PSOs would scan the waters using 

binoculars, and/or spotting scopes, and 

would use a handheld GPS or rangefinder device to verify the distance to 

each sighting from the project site. All 

PSOs would be trained in marine 

mammal identification and behaviors 

and are required to have no other 

project-related tasks while conducting 

monitoring. In addition, monitoring will 

be conducted by qualified observers, 

who will be placed at the best vantage 

point(s) practicable to monitor for 

marine mammals and implement 

shutdown/delay procedures when 

applicable by calling for the shutdown 

to the hammer operator. WP&YR would 

adhere to the following observer 

qualifications: 

(i) Independent observers (i.e., not 

construction personnel) are required. 

(ii) At least one observer must have 

prior experience working as an observer. 

(iii) Other observers may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience. 

(iv) Where a team of three or more 

observers are required, one observer 

shall be designated as lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator. The lead 

observer must have prior experience 

working as an observer. 

(v) WP&YR shall submit observer CVs 

for approval by NMFS. 

Additional standard observer 

qualifications include: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols Experience or 

training in the field identification of 

marine mammals, including the 

identification of behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were suspended to avoid 

potential incidental injury from 

construction sound of marine mammals 

observed within a defined shutdown 

zone; and marine mammal behavior; 

and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report would be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal and drilling 

activities. It will include an overall 

description of work completed, a 

narrative regarding marine mammal 

sightings, and associated PSO data 

sheets. Specifically, the report must 

include: 

• Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period; 

• Weather parameters (e.g., percent 

cover, visibility); 

• Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tide state); 

• Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

sex and age class of marine mammals; 

• Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 

including bearing and direction of travel 

and distance from pile driving activity; 

• Distance from pile driving activities 

to marine mammals and distance from 

the marine mammals to the observation 

point; 

• Locations of all marine mammal 

observations; and 

• Other human activity in the area. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft final 

report will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such 

as an injury, serious injury or mortality, 

WP&YR would immediately cease the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 64561 

specified activities and report the 

incident to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator. 

The report would include the following 

information: 

• Description of the incident; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

Beaufort sea state, visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities would not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS would work with WP&YR to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. WP&YR would not be able 

to resume their activities until notified 

by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone. 

In the event that WP&YR discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead PSO determines that the cause 

of the injury or death is unknown and 

the death is relatively recent (e.g., in 

less than a moderate state of 

decomposition as described in the next 

paragraph), WP&YR would immediately 

report the incident to the Chief of the 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline 

and/or by email to the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinator. The report 

would include the same information 

identified in the paragraph above. 

Activities would be able to continue 

while NMFS reviews the circumstances 

of the incident. NMFS would work with 

WP&YR to determine whether 

modifications in the activities are 

appropriate. 

In the event that WP&YR discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal and the 

lead PSO determines that the injury or 

death is not associated with or related 

to the activities authorized in the IHA 

(e.g., previously wounded animal, 

carcass with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

WP&YR would report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding 

Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska 

Regional Stranding Coordinator, within 

24 hours of the discovery. WP&YR 

would provide photographs, video 

footage (if available), or other 

documentation of the stranded animal 

sighting to NMFS and the Marine 

Mammal Stranding Network. 

Acoustic Monitoring 

WP&YR will conduct acoustic 

monitoring for the purposes of SSV. 

WP&YR will collect acoustic data for at 

least one 42-inch permanent pile, using 

all three installation methods (impact 

pile driving, vibratory pile driving, and 

down-the-hole drilling) from at least 

two distances from the pile (one 

approximately 10 meters from the pile 

and at least one additional measurement 

in the far field). The following data, at 

minimum, shall be collected during 

acoustic monitoring and reported: 

• Hydrophone equipment and 

methods: recording device, sampling 

rate, distance from the pile where 

recordings were made; depth of 

recording device(s); 

• Type of pile (42-inch), and segment 

of pile (1, 2, or 3), being driven and 

method of driving/removal or drilling 

during recordings; and 

• Mean, median, maximum (or 90th 

percentile), and range sound levels (dB 

re 1mPa): cumulative sound exposure 

level (SELCUM), peak sound pressure 

level (SPLPK), root mean square sound 

pressure level (SPLRMS), and singlestrike sound exposure level (SELS–S) as 

appropriate for the sound source. 

For more details please see WP&YR’s 

acoustic monitoring plan, available at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

Pile driving/removal and drilling 

activities associated with the Railroad 

Dock installation project as outlined 

previously, have the potential to disturb 

or displace marine mammals. 

Specifically, the specified activities may 

result in take, in the form of Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

from underwater sounds generated from 

pile driving and removal and down-thehole drilling. Potential takes could 

occur if individuals of these species are 

present in the ensonified zone when 

these activities are underway. 

The takes from Level A and Level B 

harassment would be due to potential 

behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. 

No mortality is anticipated given the 

nature of the activity and measures 

designed to minimize the possibility of 

injury to marine mammals. Level A 

harassment is only anticipated for 

humpback whales, Dall’s porpoise, 

harbor porpoise, and harbor seal. The 

potential for harassment is minimized 

through the construction method and 

the implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures (see Proposed 

Mitigation section). 

As described previously, minke 

whales are considered rare in the 

proposed project area and we have 

proposed to authorize only nominal and 

precautionary take of two individuals. 

Therefore, we do not expect meaningful 

impacts to minke whales and 

preliminarily find that the total minke 

whale take from each of the specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

For remaining species, we discuss the 

likely effects of the specified activities 

in greater detail. Effects on individuals 

that are taken by Level B harassment, on 

the basis of reports in the literature as 

well as monitoring from other similar 

activities, will likely be limited to 

reactions such as increased swimming 

speeds, increased surfacing time, or 

decreased foraging (if such activity were 

occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff 

2006; HDR, Inc. 2012; Lerma 2014; ABR 

2016). Most likely, individuals will 

simply move away from the sound 

source and be temporarily displaced 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
64562 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 

from the areas of pile driving and 

drilling, although even this reaction has 

been observed primarily only in 

association with impact pile driving. 

The pile driving activities analyzed here 

are similar to, or less impactful than, 

numerous other construction activities 

conducted in southeast Alaska, which 

have taken place with no known longterm adverse consequences from 

behavioral harassment. Level B 

harassment will be reduced to the level 

of least practicable adverse impact 

through use of mitigation measures 

described herein and, if sound produced 

by project activities is sufficiently 

disturbing, animals are likely to simply 

avoid the area while the activity is 

occurring. While vibratory driving and 

drilling associated with the proposed 

project may produce sound at distances 

of many kilometers from the project site, 

thus intruding on some habitat, the 

project site itself is located in a busy 

harbor and the majority of sound fields 

produced by the specified activities are 

close to the harbor. Therefore, we expect 

that animals annoyed by project sound 

would simply avoid the area and use 

more-preferred habitats. 

In addition to the expected effects 

resulting from authorized Level B 

harassment, we anticipate that 

humpback whales, harbor porpoises, 

Dall’s porpoises, and harbor seals may 

sustain some limited Level A 

harassment in the form of auditory 

injury. However, animals in these 

locations that experience PTS would 

likely only receive slight PTS, i.e. minor 

degradation of hearing capabilities 

within regions of hearing that align most 

completely with the energy produced by 

pile driving, i.e. the low-frequency 

region below 2 kHz, not severe hearing 

impairment or impairment in the 

regions of greatest hearing sensitivity. If 

hearing impairment occurs, it is most 

likely that the affected animal would 

lose a few decibels in its hearing 

sensitivity, which in most cases is not 

likely to meaningfully affect its ability 

to forage and communicate with 

conspecifics. As described above, we 

expect that marine mammals would be 

likely to move away from a sound 

source that represents an aversive 

stimulus, especially at levels that would 

be expected to result in PTS, given 

sufficient notice through use of soft 

start. 

The project also is not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitat. The 

project activities would not modify 

existing marine mammal habitat for a 

significant amount of time. The 

activities may cause some fish to leave 

the area of disturbance, thus temporarily 

impacting marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities in a limited portion of the 

foraging range; but, because of the short 

duration of the activities and the 

relatively small area of the habitat that 

may be affected, the impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term negative 

consequences. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• Conduct the majority of pile 

driving/removal and drilling work 

outside of the eulachon run, minimizing 

harassment of marine mammals during 

important foraging times; 

• The Level A harassment exposures 

are anticipated to result only in slight 

PTS, within the lower frequencies 

associated with pile driving; 

• The anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment consist of, at worst, 

temporary modifications in behavior 

that would not result in fitness impacts 

to individuals; 

• The specified activity and 

ensonification area is very small relative 

to the overall habitat ranges of all 

species and does not include habitat 

areas of special significance (BIAs or 

ESA-designated critical habitat); and 

• The presumed efficacy of the 

proposed mitigation measures in 

reducing the effects of the specified 

activity to the level of least practicable 

adverse impact. 

In addition, although affected 

humpback whales and Steller sea lions 

may be from a DPS that is listed under 

the ESA, it is unlikely that minor noise 

effects in a small, localized area of 

habitat would have any effect on the 

stocks’ ability to recover. In 

combination, we believe that these 

factors, as well as the available body of 

evidence from other similar activities, 

demonstrate that the potential effects of 

the specified activities will have only 

minor, short-term effects on individuals. 

The specified activities are not expected 

to impact rates of recruitment or 

survival and will therefore not result in 

population-level impacts. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of 

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

Table 12 demonstrates the number of 

animals that could be exposed to 

received noise levels that could cause 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment for the proposed work in the 

WP&YR project area. With the exception 

of the Northern Resident and West Coast 

Transient killer whale stocks and harbor 

seals, our analysis shows that less than 

25 percent of each affected stock could 

be taken by harassment. The numbers of 

animals proposed to be taken for these 

stocks would be considered small 

relative to the relevant stock’s 

abundances even if each estimated 

taking occurred to a new individual—an 

extremely unlikely scenario. 

The total proposed authorized take for 

killer whales as compared to each 

potentially affected stock ranges from 

3.4 percent to 32.9 percent of each stock 

abundance. In reality, it is highly 

unlikely that 80 individuals of any one 

killer whale stock will be temporarily 

harassed. Instead, it is assumed that 

there will be a relatively brief period of 

takes of a smaller number of the same 

individuals from any stock (20, which is 

representative of the estimated group 

size, or 40, if individuals from the same 

stock are taken), which would result in 

smaller percentages of stocks (ranging 

from 0.9 percent to 8.2 percent if 20 

whales from the same stock, or 1.7 

percent to 16.5 percent if 40 whales 

from the same stock). We make this 

assumption because the Alaska and 

Northern resident stocks are known to 

occasionally occur in Taiya Inlet, but 

other stocks’ (e.g., transients) range 

extends into the project area, and 

therefore they may occur in the upper 

reaches of Lynn Canal into Taiya Inlet 

towards Skagway, albeit infrequently. 

Takes are not assumed to include 

multiple harassments of the same 

individual(s), resulting in estimates of 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 64563 

proposed take as a percentage of stock 

abundance that are high compared to 

actual take that will occur. This is the 

case with the resident stocks of killer 

whale and harbor seal (Lynn Canal/ 

Stephens Passage stock). 

As reported, a small number of harbor 

seals, most of which reside in Taiya 

Inlet year-round, will be exposed to 

construction activities for three months. 

The total population estimate in the 

Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage stock is 

9,478 animals over 1.37 million acres 

(5,500 km2) of area in their range, which 

results in an estimated density of 36 

animals within Taiya Inlet. The largest 

Level B harassment zone within the 

inlet occupies 17.9 km2, which 

represents less than 0.4 percent of the 

total geographical area occupied by the 

stock. The great majority of these 

exposures will be to the same animals 

given their residency patterns. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. The 

proposed project will occur near but not 

overlap with the subsistence area used 

by the villages of Hoonah and Angoon 

(Wolfe et al. 2013; N. Kovaces, Skagway 

Traditional Council, personal 

communication). Harbor seals and 

Steller sea lions are available for 

subsistence harvest in this area (Wolfe 

et al. 2013). Therefore, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the total 

taking of affected species or stocks 

would not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of such 

species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the Alaska Regional Office, 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

NMFS is proposing to authorize take 

of the Steller sea lion western DPS and 

humpback whale Mexico DPS, which 

are listed under the ESA. On November 

29, 2018, the NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources has requested initiation of 

section 7 consultation with the Alaska 

Regional Office for the issuance of this 

IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA 

consultation prior to reaching a 

determination regarding the proposed 

issuance of the authorization. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to WP&YR for conducting the 

Railroad Dock dolphin installation 

project in Skagway, Alaska from 

February 1, 2019 through April 30, 

2019, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

A draft of the IHA itself is available for 

review in conjunction with this notice 

at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this Notice of Proposed 

IHA for the proposed action. We also 

request comment on the potential for 

renewal of this proposed IHA as 

described in the paragraph below. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform our final decision on the 

request for MMPA authorization. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a second one-year IHA without 

additional notice when (1) another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Specified Activities 

section is planned or (2) the activities 

would not be completed by the time the 

IHA expires and a second IHA would 

allow for completion of the activities 

beyond that described in the Dates and 

Duration section, provided all of the 

following conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to expiration of 

the current IHA. 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted beyond the initial dates 

either are identical to the previously 

analyzed activities or include changes 

so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) 

that the changes do not affect the 

previous analyses, take estimates, or 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements. 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

• Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

remain the same and appropriate, and 

the original findings remain valid. 

Dated: December 12, 2018. 

Donna S. Weiting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27258 Filed 12–14–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Request for Input on Crypto-Asset 

Mechanics and Markets 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Request for input. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or 

‘‘CFTC’’) in furtherance of the LabCFTC 

initiative is seeking public comment 

and feedback on this Request for Input 

(‘‘RFI’’) in order to better inform the 

Commission’s understanding of the 

technology, mechanics, and markets for 

virtual currencies beyond Bitcoin, 

namely here Ether and its use on the 

Ethereum Network. The Commodity 

Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) grants the 

Commission regulatory authority over 

the commodity futures markets. The 

Commission is seeking public feedback 

in furtherance of oversight of these 

markets and regulatory policy 

development. The input from this 

request will advance the CFTC’s 

mission of ensuring the integrity of the 

derivatives markets as well as 

monitoring and reducing systemic risk 

by enhancing legal certainty in the 

markets. The RFI seeks to understand 

similarities and distinctions between 

certain virtual currencies, including 

here Ether and Bitcoin, as well as Etherspecific opportunities, challenges, and 

risks. The Commission welcomes all 

public comments on these and related 

issues. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 15, 2019. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1