Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 50057 

Marine Debris Research, Prevention, 

and Reduction Act (33 U.S.C. 1951 et 

seq.) as amended by the Marine Debris 

Act Amendments of 2012 (Pub. L. 112– 

213, Title VI, Sec. 603, 126 Stat. 1576, 

December 20, 2012) authorizes the MDP 

to enter into cooperative agreements and 

contracts and provide financial 

assistance in the form of grants to carry 

out the purposes of the Act—namely to 

identify, determine sources of, assess, 

reduce, and prevent marine debris and 

its adverse impacts on the marine 

environment and navigation safety. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; Business or other for-profit 

organizations; Not-for-profit 

institutions; State, Local, or Tribal 

government. 

Frequency: Variable (quarterly to 

semi-annually). 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

Obtain or Retain Benefits. 

Legal Authority: Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act of 2006, 16 U.S.C. 1891a and the 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 

U.S.C. 661, as amended by the 

Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970; Coral 

Reef Conservation Act of 2000 (16 

U.S.C. 6401 et seq.; Marine Debris 

Research, Prevention, and Reduction 

Act (33 U.S.C. 1951 et seq.) as amended 

by the Marine Debris Act Amendments 

of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–213, Title VI, Sec. 

603, 126 Stat. 1576, December 20, 2012). 

This information collection request 

may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. 

Follow the instructions to view the 

Department of Commerce collections 

currently under review by OMB. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be 

submitted within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice on the 

following website www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain. Find this 

particular information collection by 

selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day 

Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or 

by using the search function and 

entering either the title of the collection 

or the OMB Control Number 0648–0718. 

Sheleen Dumas, 

Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of 

the Chief Information Officer, Commerce 

Department. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19265 Filed 9–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JE–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB329] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Relocation 

of the Port of Alaska’s South Floating 

Dock, Anchorage, Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is given that 

NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

Port of Alaska (POA) to incidentally 

harass, by Level B harassment and Level 

A harassment, marine mammals during 

pile driving associated with the 

relocation of the POA’s South Floating 

Dock (SFD) within Knik Arm, in upper 

Cook Inlet, Alaska. 

DATES: This Authorization is effective 

from August 27, 2021 through August 

26, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Reny Tyson Moore, 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/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case 

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

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

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

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of an 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 the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable MMPA 

statutory terms cited above are included 

in the relevant sections below. 

Summary of Request 

On October 2, 2020, NMFS received a 

request from the POA for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to pile 

driving associated with the relocation of 

the SFD within Knik Arm in upper Cook 

Inlet, Alaska. Revised applications were 

submitted by the POA on December 15, 

2020, January 29, 2021, February 5, 

2021, and March 5, 2021 that addressed 

comments provided by NMFS. The 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on March 17, 2021. Additional 

revised applications were submitted on 

March 26, 2021, which addressed typos, 

and May 14 2021, which adjusted 

transmission loss rates based on the 

final Petroleum Cement Terminal (PCT) 

Hydroacoustic Monitoring Report for 

activities completed in 2020 (Reyff et 

al., 2021). The POA requested, and 

NMFS has authorized, take of a small 

number of six species of marine 

mammals by Level B harassment and 

Level A harassment. Neither the POA 

nor NMFS expects serious injury or 

mortality to result from this activity, nor 

did NMFS authorize any. Therefore, an 

IHA is appropriate. 

NMFS previously issued IHAs to the 

POA for pile driving (73 FR 41318, July 

18, 2008; 74 FR 35136, July 20, 2009; 81 

FR 15048, March 21, 2016; and 85 FR 

19294, April 06, 2020). The POA has 

complied with the requirements (e.g., 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of 

all previous IHAs and information 

regarding their monitoring results may 

be found in the Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals and their 

Habitat and Estimated Take sections. 

Description of Specified Activity 

The POA is modernizing its marine 

terminals through the Port of Alaska 

Modernization Program (PAMP). One of 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
50058 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 

the first priorities of the PAMP is to 

replace the existing Petroleum Oil 

Lubricants Terminal with a new PCT. 

For the PCT project to advance, the 

existing SFD, a small multipurpose 

floating dock important for staging, 

mooring, and docking of small vessels, 

such as first responder (e.g., Anchorage 

Fire Department, U.S. Coast Guard) 

rescue craft, small work skiffs, and 

occasionally tug boats, must be 

relocated south of the PCT. The existing 

location of SFD will not allow docking 

operations at SFD once the PCT is 

constructed due to the close proximity 

of one of the PCT mooring dolphins (a 

structure for berthing and mooring of 

vessels). Relocation of the SFD will 

include the removal of the existing 

access trestle and gangway, and 

vibratory or impact installation of 

twelve permanent 36-inch steel pipe 

piles: Ten vertical and two battered (an 

impact hammer may be required if a 

pile encounters refusal and cannot be 

advanced to the necessary tip elevation 

with the vibratory hammer; Table 1). 

Construction of the SFD will also 

require the installation and vibratory 

removal of up to six 24- or 36-inch 

temporary template piles (Table 1). Inwater pile installation and removal 

associated with SFD removal and 

construction is anticipated to take place 

on up to 24 nonconsecutive days 

between the date of issuance and 

November 2021. A detailed description 

of the POA’s SFD activities is provided 

in the Federal Register notice of the 

proposed IHA (86 FR 31870, June 15, 

2021). Since that time, no changes have 

been made to the planned relocation 

and construction activities, other than 

project timing due to delays in 

construction scheduling and the timing 

of the issuance of the IHA (The project 

was originally scheduled to occur on up 

to 24 nonconsecutive days between 

April and November 2021 but is now 

scheduled to occur between the date of 

issuance and November 2021). 

Therefore, a detailed description is not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for the 

description of the specific activity. 

TABLE 1—PILE DETAILS AND ESTIMATED EFFORT REQUIRED FOR PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL

Pipe pile 

diameter Feature Number of plumb piles 

Number of 

battered 

piles 

Vibratory 

installation 

duration per 

pile 

(minutes) 

Vibratory 

removal 

duration per 

pile 

(minutes) 

Potential 

impact 

strikes 

per pile, if 

needed 

(up to 5 

piles; one 

pile per day) 

Production rate 

(piles/day) 

Days of 

installation 

Days of 

removal 

Installation Removal 

36-inch ... Floating 

Dock.

6 2 45 .................... n/a ................... 1,000 1–3 n/a 4–12 n/a 

Gangway 4 0 n/a ................... 1,000 1–3 n/a n/a 

24- or 36- 

inch.

Temporary 

Template 

Piles.

6 0 45 .................... 75 .................... 1,000 1–2 1–3 3–6 2–6 

Project 

Totals.

................ 16 2 13.5 hours ....... 7.5 hours ......... .................... .................... .................... 7–18 2–6 

Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures are described in detail later in 

this document (please see Mitigation 

and Monitoring and Reporting). 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA to the POA was published in the 

Federal Register on June 15, 2021 (86 

FR 31870). That notice described, in 

detail, POA’s activity, the marine 

mammal species that may be affected by 

the activity, and the anticipated effects 

on marine mammals. During the 30-day 

public comment period, NMFS received 

comments from one private citizen and 

from the Defenders of Wildlife. A 

summary of the commenters’ 

recommendations as well as NMFS’ 

responses is below. Please see the 

Defender of Wildlife’s letter for full 

details regarding their recommendations 

and rationale. The letter is available 

online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. 

Comment 1: The Defenders of 

Wildlife raised concerns about the noise 

levels in Cook Inlet and the status of the 

Cook Inlet beluga whales (CIBWs). They 

commended our proposed measure to 

not allow battered piles to be driven 

during August and September but 

asserted that no pile driving activities 

associated with the project should be 

authorized in August or September in 

order for NMFS to justify our negligible 

impact and least practicable adverse 

impact findings. 

Response: The MMPA requires that an 

IHA include measures that will affect 

the least practicable adverse impact on 

the affected species and stock and, 

which may include conditions for the 

construction activities that avoid and/or 

minimize adverse effects on CIBWs in 

and around the project area, where 

practicable. Mitigation and monitoring 

requirements have been included in the 

IHA to ensure the least practicable 

adverse impact on CIBWs and other 

marine mammal species in the project 

area. These requirements include the 

use of a bubble curtain system for the 

installation and removal of all plumb 

piles, the implementation of a robust 

marine mammal monitoring program, 

which will consist of eleven Protected 

Species Observers (PSOs) working from 

four unique locations spread over a 9 

km-long stretch of surrounding 

coastline, and shutdown measures when 

CIBWs are observed approaching or 

entering the mouth of Knit Arm or the 

Level B harassment zone. These 

measures are designed to ensure CIBWs 

will not abandon critical habitat and 

that exposure to pile driving noise will 

not result in adverse impacts on the 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals. These mitigation and 

monitoring measures are modeled after 

the measures included in the final IHAs 

for Phase 1 and Phase 2 PCT 

construction (85 FR 19294, April 6, 

2020), which appeared to be effective at 

avoiding and minimizing impacts to 

marine mammals in the project area, as 

evidenced by observations made during 

PCT Phase 1 construction monitoring 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 50059 

(61 North Environmental, 2021) as 

described below. 

The commenters expressed concern 

that permitting the project as proposed 

will create and/or exacerbate a 

condition where it is not possible for 

any beluga whale to transit past the 

project area to or from critical foraging 

and nursing habitat in Knik Arm. This 

concern is not supported by 

observations made of CIBWs during pile 

driving activities at the POA (e.g., 

Kendall and Cornick, 2015, 61 North 

Environmental, 2021). As described in 

the Negligible Impact Analyses and 

Determinations sections of the Federal 

Notices of the proposed IHA (86 FR 

31870, June 15, 2021) and this final 

IHA, monitoring data from the POA 

suggest pile driving does not discourage 

CIBWs from entering and transiting 

through Knik Arm. For example, CIBWs 

continued to use Knit Arm during the 

duration of the PCT Phase 1 

construction project in 2020 and 

frequently transited past the project area 

to or from critical foraging grounds and 

possible nursing habitat such as those 

around Eagle Bay (61 North 

Environmental, 2021). Sighting rates 

have also not been different in the 

presence or absence of pile driving 

(Kendall and Cornick, 2015). While 

some individuals have demonstrated 

responses to pile driving activities, 

CIBWs were more likely to display no 

reaction or to continue to move towards 

the POA during pile installation and 

removal during PCT Phase 1 

construction monitoring (61 North 

Environmental, 2021). In situations 

during which CIBWs have shown a 

possible reaction to pile driving, 

observed behavioral responses have 

been limited to increased travel speeds 

and tighter group formations (e.g., 

Kendall and Cornick, 2015, 61 North 

Environmental, 2021); CIBWs did not 

abandon critical habitat and actively 

transited past the project area. This 

traveling behavior past the POA has also 

been verified by acoustic monitoring 

(e.g., Castellote et al., 2020). We 

anticipate that disturbance to CIBWs 

would manifest in the same manner 

when they are exposed to noise during 

the SFD project: Whales will not 

demonstrate a response or they will 

move quickly and silently through the 

area in more cohesive groups. We 

further do not believe exposure to 

elevated noise levels during transit past 

the POA will have adverse effects on 

reproduction or survival as the whales 

continue to access critical foraging 

grounds north of the POA, and that tight 

associations may help to mitigate the 

potential for any contraction of 

communication space for a group. 

The Defenders of Wildlife were also 

concerned that low levels of noise may 

have biological impacts by ‘‘masking’’ 

important communication signals, 

influencing communication behaviors 

and disrupting foraging for Cook Inlet 

beluga whales and that masking may not 

be detected by visible observations. 

While both masking of communication 

signals and temporary threshold shifts 

(TTS) could potentially occur, noise 

impacts will occur over a short time 

(i.e., up to 21 total hours spread over 

nine to 24 non-consecutive days), and 

would be limited to the short duration 

a marine mammal would likely be 

present within a Level B harassment 

zone during pile driving. This short 

timeframe minimizes the probability of 

multiple exposures on individuals, and 

any repeated exposures that do occur 

are not expected to occur on sequential 

days, decreasing the likelihood of 

physiological impacts caused by chronic 

stress or sustained energetic impacts 

that might affect survival or 

reproductive success. We agree that 

masking of important communication 

signals may not be detected by visible 

observations, and we discuss the 

implications of masking and TTS in the 

Federal Notice of the proposed IHA (86 

FR 31870, June 15, 2021). NMFS has 

determined that the temporary masking 

of signals that could result from the 

short-term, intermittent pile driving 

activities would not affect the annual 

rates of recruitment or survival for any 

marine mammal species present in the 

project area and, therefore, do not affect 

our negligible impact determination. 

Further, the required mitigation and 

monitoring measures included in this 

IHA are designed to minimize to the 

least practicable extent the impacts that 

noise from the POA’s pile driving 

activities will have on the health and 

behavior of marine mammals in the 

project area, including masking of their 

signals. 

The commenters also argued that the 

size of the (additive) ensonified area is 

less important than the amount of 

(additive) noise in the areas that belugas 

will likely use. While we acknowledge 

that the POA’s activities will add noise 

into the marine environment that CIBWs 

use, this small, short-term project is not 

expected to impact the reproduction or 

survival of any individual CIBWs or 

other marine mammal species in the 

project area. 

The commenters recommended that 

we assess alternatives for pile driving in 

August or September. Restricting all pile 

installation and removal in August and 

September as recommended is not 

practicable for the POA to implement. It 

is necessary for construction of the SFD 

to proceed in August and/or September 

for installation of at least the plumb 

(vertical) piles in order to allow for 

completion of the SFD project during 

the 2021 construction season. Pile 

installation for the new SFD must begin 

before the onset of poor fall weather, 

when snow, ice, and limited daylight 

hours can slow the pace of construction 

or prevent timely completion of 

required tasks. A delay in timing of 

construction, such as a prohibition on 

all pile installation in August and 

September, could extend construction 

into the spring of 2022 when no inwater construction work is currently 

scheduled. This delay results in the 

need for remobilization of pile 

installation construction equipment, 

and costly consequences for the POA. In 

addition, it would delay operation of the 

SFD to 2022. The SFD is a key facility 

for the Municipality of Anchorage and 

provides staging, mooring, and docking 

of small vessels, such as first responder 

(e.g., Anchorage Fire Department, U.S. 

Coast Guard) rescue craft; small work 

skiffs; and occasionally tug boats, in an 

area close to the daily operations at the 

Port. The SFD also supports dredging 

and bathymetric survey vessels and 

other municipal and port operations. 

Upper Cook Inlet near Anchorage 

exhibits the largest tide range in the U.S. 

and one of the largest tide ranges in the 

world, with an average daily difference 

between high and low tide of 8 meters 

(26.2 feet) and an extreme difference of 

up to 12.5 meters (41 feet) (NOAA 

2015). The ability of first responders to 

conduct response operations during low 

tide stages requires access to the SFD, as 

the waterline is inaccessible for vessels 

at the nearby Anchorage public boat 

launch at Ship Creek during low waters. 

Thus, it is imperative that construction 

of the SFD proceed as proposed given it 

is required to provide continuous, 

timely, and safe access for rescue 

personnel and vessels in the northern 

portion of Cook Inlet. Finally, a delay 

leading to construction in 2022 could 

result in additional harassment 

exposure to marine mammals next year. 

The POA has indicated that it is 

practicable that they not install the two 

permanent battered piles, which have 

Level B harassment distances that are 

approximately two or more times greater 

than all other plumb piles, in August 

and September. This requirement will 

both minimize the size of the ensonified 

area during the peak CIWB season in the 

project area and maximize the 

probability of CIBW detections by PSOs 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
50060 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 

and necessary shutdowns during pile 

driving activities. 

For these reasons stated above, we 

disagree that our current analysis 

undermines both the negligible impact 

conclusion and the least practicable 

impact. In consideration of the likely 

effects of the activity on marine 

mammals absent mitigation, potential 

unintended consequences of the 

measures as proposed by the 

commenters, and practicability of the 

recommended measures for the 

applicant, NMFS has determined that 

restricting construction as 

recommended is not warranted or 

practicable in this case and that the 

authorized takes will have a negligible 

impact on CIBWs and the other affected 

marine mammal species or stocks. 

Comment 2: The Defenders of 

Wildlife assert that our negligible 

impact determination is flawed because 

we incorrectly indicated that area of 

exposure would be limited to travel 

corridors and that no critical foraging 

grounds would be impacted by pile 

driving. 

Response: In accordance with our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

216.104(c), we use the best available 

scientific evidence to determine 

whether the taking by the specified 

activity within the specified geographic 

region will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of such species or stock for 

subsistence uses. Based on the scientific 

evidence available, NMFS determined 

that the impacts of the authorized take 

incidental to pile driving would result 

in a negligible impact on CIBWs and 

other marine mammals in the project 

area. We acknowledged that CIBWs 

have been occasionally documented to 

forage around Ship Creek in the Federal 

Notice of the proposed IHA (86 FR 

31870, June, 15, 2021) but that they may 

choose to move past the POA to other, 

potentially richer, feeding areas further 

into Knik Arm (e.g., Six Mile Creek, 

Eagle River, Eklutna River) which 

contain predictable salmon runs 

(ADF&G, 2010) during pile driving 

activities. 

During PCT Phase 1 construction 

monitoring (61 North Environmental, 

2021) observations of CIBWs near Ship 

Creek involved animals transiting past 

or milling near or in front of the creek. 

While CIBWs may forage in or near Ship 

Creek, there are other known foraging 

grounds in the project area that CIBWs 

can transit to during pile driving 

activities. In addition, prey for CIBWs 

are mobile and broadly distributed 

throughout the project area; therefore, 

CIBWs are expected to be able to resume 

foraging once they have moved away 

from any areas with disturbing levels of 

underwater noise. There is ample 

foraging habitat adjacent to the project 

area that will not be ensonified by pile 

driving. Further, impacts on primary 

prey species will be short-term and 

localized, and the project is not 

anticipated to substantially impede 

migration of adult or juvenile Pacific 

salmon or adversely affect the health 

and survival of the affected species at 

the population level. Affected fish 

would represent only a portion of food 

available to marine mammals in the 

area. While we agree with the 

commenters that noise pollution at the 

POA could impact both beluga and prey 

behavior near the POA, our initial 

negligible impact determination does 

not change due to possible CIBW 

foraging activities near Ship Creek. We 

have however, updated our negligible 

impact analysis to state that the area of 

exposure will be limited to habitat 

primarily used as a travel corridor to 

account for possible foraging activities 

within the area of exposure. 

Comment 3: The Defenders of 

Wildlife assert that NMFS must employ 

the precautionary principle and avoid 

sanctioning further impediments to the 

recovery of CIBWs even while striving 

to better understand those impediments. 

Response: The MMPA states that, 

upon request, NMFS shall authorize, for 

periods of not more than one year, the 

incidental taking by harassment of small 

numbers of marine mammals if NMFS 

finds that such harassment during each 

period concerned will have a negligible 

impact on such species or stocks and 

will not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of such 

species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence uses (where relevant). In 

making our determinations we consider 

factors such as those recommended by 

the commenters including the level of 

existing background noise, the additive 

noise, and the timing and importance of 

belugas’ use of the impacted areas when 

deciding whether or not an activity will 

have a negligible impact on affected 

marine mammal species or stocks. 

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). We discuss our analysis and 

findings in the Negligible Impact 

Analyses and Determinations sections of 

the Federal Notices of the proposed IHA 

(86 FR 31870, June, 15, 2021) and this 

IHA. The extensive monitoring and 

mitigation required in the IHA and 

described in the Mitigation and 

Monitoring and Reporting of this notice 

supports these determinations. Neither 

the MMPA nor NMFS’ implementing 

regulations include discussion or 

requirements related to a ‘‘precautionary 

principle,’’ and it would be 

inappropriate to deny the issuance of an 

IHA based on the precautionary 

principle if the MMPA issuance criteria 

have been satisfied. 

Comment 4: The Defenders of 

Wildlife expressed concern that NMFS 

set the Level B harassment threshold at 

122.2 decibel (dB) (root mean square; 

rms) despite our understanding that 

responses including avoidance and 

altered group behaviors can be triggered 

at 120 dB. They also expressed concern 

that the entire width of Knik Arm may 

be ensonified by levels exceeding the 

Level B threshold preventing safe 

passage for belugas. 

Response: NMFS typically uses 120 

dB (rms) as the exposure for estimating 

Level B harassment takes for continuous 

(e.g., vibratory pile driving) sources, but 

will adjust this threshold when 

background levels exceed this threshold 

such as in noisy environments like 

upper Cook Inlet. We acknowledge 

however that the use of a single 

threshold is a simplistic approach. This 

dB-based threshold is a step-function 

approach (i.e., animals exposed to 

received levels above the threshold are 

considered to be ‘‘taken’’ and those 

exposed to levels below the threshold 

are not); but it is intended as a sort of 

mid-point of likely behavioral responses 

(which are extremely complex 

depending on many factors including 

species, noise source, individual 

experience, and behavioral context). 

What this means is that, conceptually, 

the function recognizes that some 

animals exposed to levels below the 

threshold will in fact react in ways that 

are appropriately considered take, while 

others that are exposed to levels above 

the threshold will not. Use of a specific 

dB threshold allows for a simplistic 

quantitative estimate of take, while we 

can qualitatively address the variation 

in responses across different received 

levels in our discussion and analysis. 

Further, as is the case here, when the 

measured ambient noise is higher than 

the typical 120-dB continuous noise 

Level B harassment threshold 

(suggesting that marine mammals are 

regularly exposed to the higher level in 

the area), it is appropriate to raise the 

behavioral harassment threshold such 

that take by behavioral harassment is 

predicted only when marine mammals 

are predicted to receive sounds above 

the regularly occurring ambient noise in 

the area. 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 50061 

NMFS reviewed data recently 

collected at the POA to establish an 

appropriate Level B harassment 

threshold for the SFD project. During 

the 2016 Test Pile Program (TPP), the 

POA conducted ‘‘ambient’’ acoustic 

monitoring, in accordance with 

accepted methodology for characterizing 

ambient noise levels (NMFS, 2012). 

NMFS considers the median sound 

levels to be most appropriate when 

considering background noise levels for 

purposes of evaluating the potential 

impacts of the POA’s SFD project on 

marine mammals (NMFS, 2012). By 

using the median value, which is the 

50th percentile of the measurements, for 

ambient noise level, one will be able to 

eliminate the few transient loud 

identifiable events that do not represent 

the true ambient condition of the area. 

The median value thus provides a better 

representation of background noise 

levels that are applicable to when the 

SFD project would be occurring. During 

the 2016 TPP, median ambient noise 

levels (in the absence of pile driving) 

were 122.2 dB. More information of this 

analysis can be found in our notice of 

the proposed IHA. While background 

noise levels absent pile driving were 

collected by Reyff et al. (2021), these 

measurements were not collected in 

accordance to NMFS (2012) guidance 

for measuring ambient noise and thus 

cannot be used here for determining the 

Level B harassment threshold at the 

POA. 

The Defenders of Wildlife claim that 

noise from one component of the PCT 

project ensonified much, and at times 

all, of the mouth of Knik Arm to a level 

greater than the 122.5 dB Level B 

harassment standard used for that 

project making it difficult and at times 

impossible for belugas to transit the area 

without being harassed. We 

acknowledged in the Federal Register 

notice of the final IHAs for the PCT 

project (85 FR 19294, April 06, 2020) 

that Level B harassment isopleths would 

extend across the mouth of Knit Arm. 

However, strict mitigation and 

monitoring measures were required that 

minimized any harassment to marine 

mammals in the project area and will be 

subsequently required for the SFD 

project. For example, the POA was 

required to shut down all pile driving 

activities should a CIBW approach or 

enter the mouth of Knit Arm or a Level 

B harassment zone. In addition, the 

MMPA gives NMFS the authority to 

authorize, upon request, the incidental, 

but not intentional, taking of small 

numbers of marine mammals if NMFS 

finds that 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). These findings were met in 

the Federal Register notice of the final 

IHAs for the PCT project and are 

similarly met for the relocation and 

construction of the POA’s SFD, even 

though noise from some of the POA’s 

activities may ensonify much or all of 

the mouth of Knik Arm. 

Comment 5: The Defenders of 

Wildlife concur that the available 

evidence indicates behavioral reactions 

to noise do not result in habitat 

abandonment, but they argue that the 

absence of evidence of habitat 

abandonments does not prove that noise 

impact around the Port are negligible. 

Response: 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). As described in the 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination sections of the Federal 

Notices of the proposed IHA (86 FR 

31870, June, 15, 2021) and this final 

IHA, a negligible impact finding is 

based on the lack of likely adverse 

effects on annual rates of recruitment or 

survival (i.e., population-level effects). 

In our analysis, we discuss many 

factors, including the absence of habitat 

abandonments, to support our 

determination that the noise impacts 

from the POAs relocation and 

construction of the SFD are negligible. 

Our analysis also includes observations 

of large numbers of CIBWs entering and 

transiting through Knik Arm during pile 

driving activities (e.g., Kendall and 

Cornick, 2015, 61 North Environmental, 

2021), many of whom were more likely 

to display no reaction or to continue to 

move towards the POA during PCT 

Phase 1 construction monitoring (61 

North Environmental, 2021). Based on 

this analysis, and the required 

mitigation and monitoring, we have 

determined that the total marine 

mammal take from the POA’s relocation 

and construction of the SFD will not 

affect annual rates of recruitment or 

survival, and thus will have a negligible 

impact on all affected marine mammal 

species or stocks. 

Comment 6: The Defenders of 

Wildlife commented that dredging at the 

Port would likely expose any beluga 

that enters or exits Knik Arm to levels 

of noise exceeding the current 

behavioral harassment threshold and 

cited Castellote et al. (2019) in support 

of this concern. 

Response: Dredging is not a 

component of the Port’s specified 

activities; thus, this comment is not 

relevant to this IHA and is not discussed 

further. 

Comment 7: The Defenders of 

Wildlife support Castellote et al. (2019) 

who indicated that revision of the 

spatial extent of the current critical 

habitat exclusion zone (around the Port) 

is warranted as it coincides with the 

most acoustically disturbed area of Cook 

Inlet. Within their critical habitat 

discussion, they also support the 

recommendation by Castellote et al. 

(2019) that management implications for 

anthropogenic noise around the POA 

should include avoiding concurrent 

emission of noise at both the POA and 

Point McKenzie; evaluating the acoustic 

footprint of different modes and types of 

seasonal dredge operations; defining 

shut down protocols, if necessary, based 

on observed beluga behavioral reactions; 

and seasonal scheduling of activities to 

reduce overlap with beluga peak use of 

the port basin. 

Response: NMFS published the final 

rule designating critical habitat for 

CIBWs on April 11, 2011 (76 FR 20180). 

Designation or revision of critical 

habitat NMFS responsibility under the 

ESA and therefore is outside the scope 

of management actions taken under the 

MMPA and described in this notice and 

is not discussed further. More 

information on CIBW critical habitat can 

be found at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/criticalhabitat-cook-inlet-beluga-whale. 

Comment 8: The Defenders of 

Wildlife support the recommendation 

cited by Castellote et al. (2019) that a 

cumulative impact analysis approach 

should be implemented as part of the 

permitting process. 

Response: Neither the MMPA nor 

NMFS’ implementing regulations call 

for consideration of other unrelated 

activities and their impacts on 

populations. The preamble for NMFS’ 

implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; 

September 29, 1989) states in response 

to comments that the impacts from other 

past and ongoing anthropogenic 

activities are to be incorporated into the 

negligible impact analysis via their 

impacts on the baseline. Consistent with 

that direction, NMFS has factored into 

its negligible impact analysis the 

impacts of other past and ongoing 

anthropogenic activities via their 

impacts on the baseline, e.g., as 

reflected in the density/distribution and 

status of the species, population size 

and growth rate, and other relevant 

stressors. The 1989 implementing 

regulations also addressed public 

comments regarding cumulative effects 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
50062 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 

from future, unrelated activities. There 

NMFS stated that such effects are not 

considered in making findings under 

section 101(a)(5) concerning negligible 

impact. In this case, both this IHA, as 

well as other IHAs currently in effect or 

proposed within the specified 

geographic region, are appropriately 

considered an unrelated activity relative 

to the others. The IHAs are unrelated in 

the sense that they are discrete actions 

under section 101(a)(5)(D), issued to 

discrete applicants. 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

requires NMFS to make a determination 

that the take incidental to a ‘‘specified 

activity’’ will have a negligible impact 

on the affected species or stocks of 

marine mammals. NMFS’ implementing 

regulations require applicants to include 

in their request a detailed description of 

the specified activity or class of 

activities that can be expected to result 

in incidental taking of marine mammals. 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(1). Thus, the 

‘‘specified activity’’ for which incidental 

take coverage is being sought under 

section 101(a)(5)(D) is generally defined 

and described by the applicant. Here, 

the POA was the applicant for the IHA, 

and we are responding to the specified 

activity as described in that application 

(and making the necessary findings on 

that basis). Through the response to 

public comments in the 1989 

implementing regulations, we also 

indicated (1) that NMFS would consider 

cumulative effects that are reasonably 

foreseeable when preparing a National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

analysis, and (2) that reasonably 

foreseeable cumulative effects would 

also be considered under section 7 of 

the ESA for ESA-listed species. 

In this case, cumulative impacts have 

been adequately addressed under NEPA 

in the final environmental assessment 

(EA) supporting NMFS’ determination. 

In the final EA, we reviewed potential 

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

to protected species and their 

environment, associated with NMFS’ 

proposed action and alternatives. 

Separately, cumulative effects were 

analyzed as required through NMFS’ 

required intra-agency consultation 

under section 7 of the ESA. The 

Biological Opinion (BiOp) that NMFS 

Alaska Region issued on August 9, 2021 

determined that NMFS’ action of issuing 

the IHA is not likely to adversely affect 

listed marine mammals or their critical 

habitat. 

Comment 9: The Defenders of 

Wildlife raise a concern that while the 

Marine Mammal Commission has long 

advised NMFS to track all 

anthropogenic activities that may result 

in the taking of a beluga, and to place 

annual limits on the total number and 

types of take authorized based on the 

most recent population estimate, these 

suggestions, which are reflected in the 

Recovery Plan, have not yet been 

implemented. They recommend that in 

the absence of any limit on the total 

number of beluga takes authorized over 

a given time period, temporal 

restrictions that avoid additive noise 

impacts in already-ensonified areas 

where belugas are known to occur in 

significant numbers is a clear means of 

effecting the least practicable impact. 

Response: As stated in our response to 

Comment 3, the MMPA states that, upon 

request, NMFS shall authorize, for 

periods of not more than one year, the 

incidental taking by harassment of small 

numbers of marine mammals if NMFS 

finds that such harassment during each 

period concerned will have a negligible 

impact on such species or stocks and 

will not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of such 

species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence uses. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA addresses the analysis and 

authorization of take from a ‘‘specified 

activity;’’ and, therefore, setting limits 

on the number and types of CIBW takes 

across all activities in Cook Inlet would 

not be an appropriate requirement of an 

MMPA incidental take authorization. It 

is worth noting that while the Defenders 

of Wildlife’s provide estimates regarding 

the percentages of CIBWs authorized for 

take each year in IHAs to support their 

concern and reasoning for placing 

annual limits on take, they did not 

describe how they calculated these 

annual take estimates. We believe that 

the estimates they provide may be 

overestimated. The take estimates we 

authorize represent the upper limits for 

individuals, and some instances of take 

may represent multiple exposures to a 

single individual. Further, NMFS here 

has factored into its negligible impact 

analyses the impacts of other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities via 

their impacts on the baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the density/distribution and 

status of the species, population size 

and growth rate, and relevant stressors 

(such as incidental mortality in 

commercial fisheries, Unusual Mortality 

Events (UMEs), and subsistence 

hunting)). See the Negligible Impact 

Analyses and Determinations section of 

this notice of issuance. 

Separately, setting blanket take limits 

may not be meaningful, as the nature 

and intensity of impacts from a given 

activity can vary widely. For example, 

an animal exposed to noise levels just 

above our harassment threshold in a 

non-critical area may experience a small 

behavioral change with no biological 

consequence while an animal exposed 

to very loud noise levels (but lower than 

levels that would result in a permanent 

threshold shift (PTS)) in an area where 

active critical foraging occurs could 

result in behavioral changes that may be 

more likely to impact fitness. While 

both of these examples would be 

characterized as Level B harassment, the 

resulting impact on the population 

could be different. Context differences 

such as these are analyzed in our 

negligible impact analysis for each 

application under the MMPA. 

As described above, this does not 

mean the cumulative impacts of other 

actions are not considered, as we have 

captured past and current actions in our 

baseline under the MMPA and all past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions under NEPA. Finally, the 

reasonably foreseeable cumulative 

effects to ESA-listed species, including 

CIBWs, from other activities are 

considered in the analyses conducted in 

the BiOp per the ESA. The BiOp, issued 

August 9, 2021 found NMFS’ issuance 

of the IHA to POA would not jeopardize 

the continued existence of CIBWs or 

destroy or adversely modify their 

critical habitat. For these reasons, we 

have not implemented the Defender or 

Wildlife’s recommendation to cap the 

number of authorized takes of CIBWs 

across all activities for which take is 

requested. 

Comment 10: A private citizen 

submitted a comment via email 

expressing concern for NMFS’ 

regulatory process, our issuance of 

IHAs’ in general, and our definition of 

small numbers. 

Response: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concern regarding the 

impacts from a wide variety of activities 

on species of marine mammals 

throughout U.S. regions. As discussed 

in the Background section of this final 

notice and our Response to Comment 3, 

while the MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, there are certain 

exceptions. For example, upon request, 

NMFS shall authorize the incidental, 

but not intentional, taking by 

harassment of small numbers of marine 

mammals for periods of not more than 

one year to applicants for a specified 

activity if NMFS finds that such 

harassment during each period 

concerned will have a negligible impact 

on such species or stocks and will not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the availability of such species or stocks 

for taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). As described in the Negligible 

Impact Analyses and Determinations 

section, NMFS’ analysis supports the 

conclusion that the take anticipated to 

result from POA’s activity, which 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 50063 

consists of 21 hours or pile driving, will 

have a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks. As described in the 

Small Numbers section, NMFS 

considers take of up to one-third the 

number of a species’ or stock’s 

abundance to be small (for additional 

explanation see the Small Numbers 

section in the Incidental Take 

Regulations for Geophysical Activities 

in the Gulf of Mexico: 86 FR 5322, 5438; 

January 19, 2021), and authorized take 

is less than that for all affected species 

or stocks in this authorization. 

Accordingly, NMFS has issued the final 

authorization to POA. 

Changes From the Proposed IHA to 

Final IHA 

No substantive changes have been 

made from the proposed IHA to final 

IHA; however, some small typos and 

clarifications were addressed including 

a clarification regarding shutdown 

zones. In the Federal Register notice for 

the proposed IHA (86 FR 31870, June 

15, 2021) and this final notice we stated 

that if a marine mammal is entering or 

is observed within an established Level 

A harassment zone or shutdown zone, 

pile installation and removal will be 

halted or delayed. However, the table 

describing shutdown zones in the IHA 

(Table 2) only referenced a single 100- 

m shutdown zone. We have updated 

this table and language in this final 

notice to clarify that the shutdown zone 

is 100-m unless the respective Level A 

harassment zone is larger; in these 

instances, the distance to the Level A 

harassment shutdown zone is the 

respective shutdown zone. We have also 

clarified language to better express that 

the IHA requirements pertain to 

construction activities directly 

associated with pile driving installation 

and removal rather than associated 

construction activities that occur away 

from the project site. Lastly, we noticed 

some repetitive measures so 

consolidated these to help clarify the 

requirements of the IHA. 

In addition, per the Defenders of 

Wildlife’s concerns in Comment 2, we 

have updated the language in the 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination section to indicate that 

the area of exposure from the SFD 

activities will be limited to habitat 

primarily used as a travel corridor. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

There are six species of marine 

mammals that may be found in upper 

Cook Inlet during the pile driving 

activities. Sections 3 and 4 of the POA’s 

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 (SARs; 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments), 

and more general information about 

these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’s website (https://

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

Additional information on CIBWs may 

be found in NMFS’ 2016 Recovery Plan 

for the CIBW (Delphinapterus leucas), 

available online at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/ 

document/recovery-plan-cook-inletbeluga-whale-delphinapterus-leucas. 

Table 2 lists all species or stocks with 

expected potential for occurrence in the 

project area and summarizes 

information related to the population or 

stock, including regulatory status under 

the MMPA and Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 

follow Committee on Taxonomy (2019). 

PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’s 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ 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. 2019 SARs (e.g., Muto et al., 

2020) and 2020 draft SARs (Muto et al., 

2021). All values presented in Table 2 

are the most recent available at the time 

of publication and are available in the 

2019 and 2020 SARs (Muto et al., 2020; 

Muto et al., 2021) (available online at: 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

draft-marine-mammal-stockassessment-reports). 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN UPPER COOK INLET, ALASKA

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 Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Humpback whale ...... Megaptera novaeangliae Western North Pacific .... E/D; Y 1,107 (0.3, 865, 2006) ... 3 2.8 

Central North Pacific ...... -/-; Y 10,103 (0.3, 7,890, 2006) 83 26 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Beluga whale ............ Delphinapterus leucas .... Cook Inlet ....................... E/D; Y 279 (0.06, 267, 2018) .... 0.53 0 

Killer whale ............... Orcinus orca ................... Alaska Resident ............. -/-; N 2,347 (N/A, 2,347, 2012) 24 1 

Alaska Transient ............ -/-; N 587 (N/A, 587, 2012) ..... 5.87 0.8 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise ........ Phocoena ....................... Gulf of Alaska ................. -/-; Y 31,046 (0.21 N/A, 1998) Undet 72 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I 

I I I 
50064 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN UPPER COOK INLET, ALASKA—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

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared 

seals and sea lions): 

Steller sea lion .......... Eumetopias jubatus ........ Western .......................... E/D; Y 52,932 (N/A, 52,932 

2019).

318 254 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Harbor seal ............... Phoca vitulina ................. Cook Inlet/Shelikof ......... -/-; N 28,411 (N/A, 26,907, 

2018).

807 107 

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: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum 

estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable because it has not been calculated. 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 mortality and serious injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 

As indicated above, all six species 

(with six managed stocks) in Table 2 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur, and we have 

authorized it. Marine mammals 

occurring in Cook Inlet that are not 

expected to be observed in the project 

area and for which take is not 

authorized include gray whales 

(Eschrichtius robustus), minke whales 

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata), and Dall’s 

porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli). 

In addition, sea otters (Enhydra lutris) 

may be found in Cook Inlet. However, 

sea otters are managed by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are 

not considered further in this document. 

A detailed description of the of the 

species likely to be affected by the pile 

driving activities, including brief 

introductions to the species and 

relevant stocks as well as available 

information regarding population trends 

and threats, and information regarding 

local occurrence, were provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (86 FR 31870, June 15, 2021); since 

that time, we are not aware of any 

changes in the status of these species 

and stocks other than a change in the 

total annual mortality and serious injury 

for Steller sea lions which reflects 

corrections of errors found when 

finalizing Young et al. (2020) and the 

final SARs (Muto et al., 2021) (Note we 

also found typos in the minimum 

population estimate (Nmin) estimate for 

Alaska resident Killer whales and stock 

abundance for Steller sea lions in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (86 FR 31870, June 15, 2021) that 

have been corrected here). Therefore, 

detailed descriptions are not provided 

here. Please refer to that Federal 

Register notice for these descriptions. 

Please also refer to NMFS’ website 

(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/findspecies) for generalized species 

accounts. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The Federal Register notice of the 

proposed IHA (86 FR 31870, June 15, 

2021) included a discussion of the 

effects of anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and the potential effects of 

underwater noise from the POA’s 

specified activities on marine mammals 

and their habitat. That information and 

analysis is incorporated by reference 

into this final IHA determination and is 

not repeated here; please refer to the 

Federal Notice of the proposed IHA (86 

FR 31870, June 15, 2021). No new data 

is available that suggests the potential 

responses and impacts to marine 

mammals would differ from those 

discussed in the notice of the proposed 

IHA. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized 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 will primarily be by 

Level B harassment, as pile driving has 

the potential to result in disruption of 

behavioral patterns for individual 

marine mammals, either directly or as a 

result of TTS. There is also some 

potential for auditory injury (Level A 

harassment) to result, primarily for 

mysticetes, high frequency species, and 

phocids because predicted auditory 

injury zones are larger than for midfrequency species and otariids. Auditory 

injury is unlikely to occur for midfrequency species and otariids. The 

required mitigation and monitoring 

measures are expected to minimize the 

severity of the taking to the extent 

practicable. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or 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 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 50065 

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 

more detail and present the authorized 

take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

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

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

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

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 

micropascal (mPa) (rms) for continuous 

(e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and 

above 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., seismic 

airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. This take estimation 

includes disruption of behavioral 

patterns resulting directly in response to 

noise exposure (e.g., avoidance), as well 

as that resulting indirectly from 

associated impacts such as TTS or 

masking. However, ambient noise levels 

within Knik Arm are above the 120-dB 

threshold, and therefore, for purposes of 

this analysis, NMFS considers received 

levels above those of the measured 

ambient noise (122.2 dB) to constitute 

Level B harassment of marine mammals 

incidental to continuous noise, 

including vibratory pile driving. 

Results from recent acoustic 

monitoring conducted at the port are 

presented in Austin et al. (2016) 

wherein noise levels were measured in 

absence of pile driving from May 27 

through May 30, 2016 at two locations: 

Ambient-Dock and Ambient-Offshore. 

NMFS considers the median sound 

levels to be most appropriate when 

considering background noise levels for 

purposes of evaluating the potential 

impacts of the POA’s SFD Project on 

marine mammals (NMFS, 2012). By 

using the median value, which is the 

50th percentile of the measurements, for 

ambient noise level, one will be able to 

eliminate the few transient loud 

identifiable events that do not represent 

the true ambient condition of the area. 

This is relevant because during two of 

the four days (50 percent) when 

background measurement data were 

being collected, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers was dredging Terminal 3 

(located just north of the AmbientOffshore hydrophone) for 24 hours per 

day with two 1-hour breaks for crew 

change. On the last 2 days of data 

collection, no dredging was occurring. 

Therefore, the median provides a better 

representation of background noise 

levels when the SFD project will be 

occurring. With regard to spatial 

considerations of the measurements, the 

Ambient-Offshore location is most 

applicable to this discussion (NMFS, 

2012). The median ambient noise level 

collected over four days at the end of 

May at the Ambient-Offshore 

hydrophone was 122.2 dB. We note the 

Ambient-Dock location was quieter, 

with a median of 117 dB; however, that 

hydrophone was placed very close to 

the dock and not where we expect Level 

B harassment to occur given mitigation 

measures (e.g., shut downs). We also 

recognize that during Phase 1 PCT 

acoustic monitoring, noise levels in 

Knik Arm absent pile driving were 

collected (Reyff et al., 2021); however, 

the Phase 1 PCT IHA did not require 

ambient noise measurements to be 

collected. These measurements were not 

collected in accordance to NMFS (2012) 

guidance for measuring ambient noise 

and thus cannot be used here for that 

purpose. If additional data collected in 

the future warrant revisiting this issue, 

NMFS may adjust the 122.2 dB rms 

Level B harassment threshold. 

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). The POA’s activity includes 

the use of non-impulsive (vibratory pile 

driving) and impulsive (impact pile 

driving) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 3 below. 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/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................ Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................ Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ....................... Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should 

also be considered. 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
50066 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 

Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 

In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure 

is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being 

included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated 

with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF 

cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for 

action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

and transmission loss coefficient. 

The estimated sound source levels 

(SSL) proposed by the POA and used in 

this assessment for vibratory installation 

of attenuated piles are based on sound 

levels of 24-inch and 36-inch piles 

measured during a sound source 

verification (SSV) study conducted 

during Phase 1 of the POA’s 2020 PCT 

project (Reyff et al., 2021). For the 24- 

inch template piles, SSLs measured for 

24-inch PCT template piles by Reyff et 

al. (2021) were selected for use as a 

proxy for 24-inch SFD template piles 

based on anticipated pile function 

(Table 4). These piles were driven for 

19.2 to 25.6 minutes, using an APE 200– 

6 vibratory hammer and a confined 

bubble curtain (Reyff et al., 2021). For 

the 36-inch template piles, SSLs are 

assumed to be similar to the SSLs 

measured for 36-inch trestle piles 

installed during PCT construction (note 

no 36-inch template piles were 

measured in Reyff et al., 2021) (Table 4). 

These piles were installed with a 

confined bubble curtain using an APE 

300–6 vibratory hammer; driving times 

ranged from 22.1 to 36.4 minutes. It is 

assumed that SLLs during pile 

installation and removal for both pile 

sizes will be similar. 

No unattenuated 24-inch or 36-inch 

piles were installed during either the 

TPP (Austin et al., 2016) or PCT SSV 

projects (Reyff et al., 2021). Instead, SSL 

measurements collected during marine 

construction projects conducted by the 

U.S. Navy for the Naval Base Kitsap at 

Bangor EHW–2 Project (U.S. Navy, 

2015), which were installed at similar 

depths and in a similar marine 

environment, were used as proxies for 

vibratory and impact installation of 

unattenuated piles for the SFD project 

(Table 4). It is assumed that SSLs during 

vibratory pile installation and removal 

will be similar. 

SSLs measurements for attenuated 24- 

inch and 36-inch piles driven with an 

impact hammer also were not measured 

during either the TPP (Austin et al., 

2016) or PCT SSV projects (Reyff et al., 

2021). SSL measurements for impact 

installation made by Ryeff et al. (2021) 

were on piles using a confined bubble 

curtain system with 48-inch piles; 

whereas, an unconfined system will be 

used with smaller piles for the SFD. In 

a confined bubble curtain system, the 

bubbles are confined to the area around 

the pile with a flexible material or rigid 

pipe; however, in an unconfined bubble 

curtain system, there is no such system 

for restraining the bubbles (NAVFAC 

SW, 2020). Unconfined bubble curtain 

performance is highly variable and 

effectiveness depends on the system 

design and on-site conditions such as 

water depth, water current velocity, 

substrate and underlying geology. The 

unconfined systems typically consist of 

vertically stacked bubble rings, while 

the confined systems are a single ring at 

the bottom placed inside a casing that 

encompasses the pile. The U.S. Navy 

(2015) summarized several studies 

which demonstrated that unconfined 

bubble curtains performance can be 

effective in attenuating underwater 

noise from impact pile installation. 

They found bubble curtain performance 

to be highly variable, but based on 

information from the Bangor Naval Base 

Test Pile Program, found an average 

peak SPL reduction of 8 dB to 10 dB at 

10 m would be an achievable level of 

attenuation for steel pipe piles of 36- 

and 48-inches in diameter. The 

efficiency of bubble curtains with 24- 

inch piles was not examined by the U.S. 

Navy (2015). Based on these analyses, 

and the effect that local currents may 

have on the distribution of bubbles and 

thus effectiveness of an unconfined 

bubble curtain, NMFS conservatively 

applies a 7 dB reduction to the U.S. 

Navy (2015) unattenuated SSLs (Table 

4) for attenuated 24-inch and 36-inch 

piles during impact pile driving (Table 

4). These SSLs are consistent with SSLs 

previously proposed and authorized by 

NMFS for POA impact pile driving of 

24-inch and 36-inch piles (e.g., PCT 

final IHA [85 FR 19294; April 6, 2020]). 

This reduction is more conservative 

than the confined bubble curtain 

efficacy reported by Reyff et al. (2021), 

which ranged from 9 to 11 dB for peak, 

rms, and sound exposure level (SEL) 

single strike measurements. 

The transmission loss (TL) 

coefficients reported in the PCT SSV are 

highly variable and are generally lower 

than values previously reported and 

used in the region. For example, Reyff 

et al. (2021) reported unweighted 

transmission loss coefficients ranging 

from 8.9 to 16.3 dB SEL and 7.0 to 16.7 

dB rms for impact driving 48-inch 

attenuated piles. In the PCT final IHA 

(85 FR 19294; April 6, 2020), the POA 

proposed, and NMFS applied, a TL rate 

of 16.85 dB SEL for assessing potential 

for Level A harassment from impact pile 

driving and a TL rate of 18.35 dB rms 

when assessing potential for Level B 

harassment from impact pile driving for 

based on Austin et al. (2016) 

measurements recorded during the TPP 

on 48-in piles. Higher TL rates in Knik 

Arm are supported by additional 

studies, such as by Sˇirovic ́ and Kendall 

(2009), who reported a TL of 16.4 dB 

during impact hammer driving during 

passive acoustic monitoring of the POA 

Marine Terminal Redevelopment 

Project, and by Blackwell (2005) who 

reported TLs ranging from 16–18 dB 

SEL and 21.8 dB rms for impact and 

vibratory installation of 36-inch piles, 

respectively, during modifications made 

to the Port MacKenzie dock. After 

careful inspection of the data presented 

in the Reyff et al. (2021) study 

(including relevant spectrograms), 

NMFS is concerned that flow noise in 

the far field measurements is negatively 

biasing the regressions derived to infer 

TL rates. While Reyff et al. (2021) 

discuss attempts they made to remove 

flow noise from their calculations, 

NMFS could not conclude that these 

attempts adequately removed flow noise 

from their measurements. Relevant to 

the SFD, the TL calculations of 

individual vibratory installation of 24- 

inch template piles and 36-inch trestle 

piles reported by Reyff et al. (2021) were 

also highly variable ranging from 12.5 to 

16.6 dB rms and 14.4 to 17.2 dB rms, 

respectively. Given this variability and 

previous data suggesting higher TL 

rates, NMFS has determined that 

applying a practical spreading loss 

model (15logR) to ensonified area 

calculations is most likely the 

representative scenario in Knik Arm 

(Table 4). The 15 TL coefficient also 

falls within the range of TL coefficients 

reported in Reyff et al. (2021). 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 50067 

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED SOUND SOURCE LEVELS AND TRANSMISSION LOSS COEFFICIENTS WITH AND WITHOUT A BUBBLE

CURTAIN

Method and pile size Unattenuated Bubble curtain 

Vibratory ............................................... Sound level at 10 m (dB rms) TL coefficient Sound level at 10 m (dB rms) TL coefficient (dB rms) 

36-inch .................................................. a 166.0 c 15.0 b 161.4 c 15.0 

24-inch .................................................. a 161.0 c 15.0 b 158.5 c 15.0 

Impact Unattenuated Bubble curtain 

Sound level at 10 m TL coefficient Sound level at 10 m TL coefficient 

dB rms dB SEL dB Peak dB rms dB SEL dB rms dB SEL dB peak dB rms dB SEL 

36-inch .................................................. a 194.0 .... a 184.0 .... a 211.0 .... c 15.0 ...... c 15.0 ...... a 187.0 .... a 177.0 .... a 204.0 .... c 15.0 ...... c 15.0 

24-inch .................................................. a 193.0 .... a 181.0 .... a 210.0 .... c 15.0 ...... c 15.0 ...... a 186.0 .... a 174.0 .... a 203.0 .... c 15.0 ...... c 15.0 

a U.S. Navy 2015. 

b Reyff et al., 2021. c Practical spreading loss model. 

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), NMFS 

User Spreadsheet predicts the distance 

at which, if a marine mammal remained 

at that distance the whole duration of 

the activity, it would incur PTS. Inputs 

used in the User Spreadsheet, and the 

resulting isopleths are reported below in 

Table 5. 

TABLE 5—NMFS USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS

24-Inch 

(unattenuated) 

24-Inch 

(bubble curtain) 

36-Inch 

(unattenuated) 

36-Inch 

(bubble curtain) 

User Spreadsheet Input: Vibratory Pile Driving 

Spreadsheet Tab Used ............ A.1) Non-Impul, Stat, Cont ...... A.1) Non-Impul, Stat, Cont ...... A.1) Non-Impul, Stat, Cont ...... A.1) Non-Impul, Stat, Cont 

Source Level (SPL RMS) ........ 161 ........................................... 158.5 ........................................ 166 ........................................... 161.4. 

Transmission Loss Coefficient 15 ............................................. 15 ............................................. 15 ............................................. 15. 

Weighting Factor Adjustment 

(kHz).

2.5 ............................................ 2.5 ............................................ 2.5 ............................................ 2.5. 

Time to install/remove single 

pile (minutes).

45/75 ........................................ 45/75 ........................................ 45/75 ........................................ 45/75. 

Piles to install/remove per day 1/1 ............................................ 1–2/1–3 .................................... 1/1 ............................................ 1–3/1–3 

User Spreadsheet Input: Impact Pile Driving 

Spreadsheet Tab Used ............ E.1) Impact pile driving ............ E.1) Impact pile driving ............ E.1) Impact pile driving ............ E.1) Impact pile driving. 

Source Level (Single Strike/ 

shot SEL).

181 ........................................... 174 ........................................... 184 ........................................... 177. 

Transmission Loss Coefficient 15 ............................................. 15 ............................................. 15 ............................................. 15. 

Weighting Factor Adjustment 

(kHz).

2 ............................................... 2 ............................................... 2 ............................................... 2. 

Number of strikes pile .............. 1,000 ........................................ 1,000 ........................................ 1,000 ........................................ 1,000. 

Piles per day ............................ 1 ............................................... 1 ............................................... 1 ............................................... 1. 

To calculate the Level B harassment 

isopleths, NMFS considered SPLrms 

source levels and the corresponding TL 

coefficients (dB rms; Table 4) for impact 

and vibratory pile driving, respectively. 

The resulting Level A harassment and 

Level B harassment isopleths are 

presented in Table 6. 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
50068 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 6—DISTANCES TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT, BY HEARING GROUP, AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS PER

PILE TYPE AND INSTALLATION METHOD

Pile size Attenuation Hammer type 

(installation/removal) 

Piles 

per day 

Level A 

harassment 

(m) 

Level A 

harassment 

areas (km2) 

all hearing 

groups 

Level B 

harassment 

(m) 

LF MF HF PW OW 

24-inch .......... Bubble Curtain ..................... Vibratory (Installation) .......... 1 

2 

4 

7 

1 

1 

6 

9 

3 

4 

1 

1 

<0.01 2,631 

Vibratory (Removal) ............. 1 

3 

6 

12 

1 

1 

8 

17 

4 

7 

1 

1 

Impact (Installation) ............. 1 251 9 299 135 10 <0.19 542 

Unattenuated ....................... Vibratory (Installation) .......... 1 6 1 9 4 1 <0.01 3,861 

Vibratory (Removal) ............. 1 8 1 12 5 1 

Impact (Installation) ............. 1 735 27 876 394 29 <1.34 1,585 

36-inch .......... Bubble Curtain ..................... Vibratory (Installation) .......... 1 6 1 9 4 1 <0.01 4,106 

.............................................. 2 10 1 15 6 1 

.............................................. 3 13 2 19 8 1 

Vibratory (Removal) ............. 1 9 1 13 6 1 

3 18 2 26 11 1 

Impact (Installation) ............. 1 398 15 474 213 16 <0.76 631 

Unattenuated ....................... Vibratory (Installation) .......... 1 13 2 18 8 1 <0.01 8,318 

Vibratory (Removal) ............. 1 18 2 26 11 1 

Impact (Installation) ............. 1 1,165 42 1,387 624 46 <3.14 1,848 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Estimation 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

For all species of cetaceans other than 

CIBWs, density data is not available for 

upper Cook Inlet. Therefore, the POA 

relied on marine mammal monitoring 

data collected during past POA projects. 

These data cover the POA’s construction 

season (April through November) across 

multiple years. Calculations used to 

estimate exposure from pile installation 

for all marine mammals is described 

below. 

Humpback Whales 

Sightings of humpback whales in the 

project area are rare, and the potential 

risk of exposure of a humpback whale 

to sounds exceeding the Level B 

harassment threshold is low. Few, if 

any, humpback whales are expected to 

approach the project area. However, 

there were two sightings in 2017 of what 

was likely a single individual at the 

Ship Creek Boat Launch (ABR Inc., 

2017) which is located south of the 

project area. Based on these data, the 

POA conservatively estimates that up to 

two individuals could be behaviorally 

harassed during the 24 days of pile 

driving for the SFD. This could include 

sighting a cow-calf pair on multiple 

days or multiple sightings of single 

humpback whales. No Level A 

harassment take of humpback whales is 

anticipated or authorized because the 

likelihood that a humpback whale 

would be both present in the project 

area and within the relatively small 

Level A harassment zones before a 

shutdown could be called is low. 

Killer Whales 

Few, if any, killer whales are expected 

to approach the project area. No killer 

whales were sighted during previous 

monitoring programs for the Knik Arm 

Crossing and POA construction projects, 

including the 2016 TPP or during Phase 

1 of the PCT project in 2020. The 

infrequent sightings of killer whales that 

are reported in upper Cook Inlet tend to 

occur when their primary prey 

(anadromous fish for resident killer 

whales and CIBWs for transient killer 

whales) are also in the area (Shelden et 

al., 2003). Previous sightings of 

transient killer whales have 

documented pod sizes in upper Cook 

Inlet between one and six individuals 

(Shelden et al., 2003). The potential for 

exposure of killer whales within the 

Level B harassment isopleths is 

anticipated to be extremely low. Level B 

harassment take is conservatively 

estimated at no more than one small 

pod (6 individuals). No Level A 

harassment take for killer whales is 

anticipated or authorized due to the 

small Level A harassment zones (Table 

6) and implementation of a 100 m 

shutdown which is larger than Level A 

harassment isopleths, and described 

below in the Mitigation section. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Previous monitoring data at the POA 

were used to evaluate daily sighting 

rates for harbor porpoises in the project 

area. During most years of monitoring, 

no harbor porpoises were observed; 

however, during Phase 1 of the PCT 

project (2020), 18 individuals (15 

groups) were observed near the POA, 

with group sizes ranging from 1–2 

individuals. The highest daily sighting 

rate for any recorded year during pile 

installation and removal associated with 

the PCT was an average of 0.09 harbor 

porpoise per day during 2009 

construction monitoring, but this value 

may not account for increased sightings 

in Upper Cook Inlet or range extensions 

(Shelden et al., 2014). Therefore, the 

POA estimates that one harbor porpoise 

could be observed every 2 days of pile 

driving. Based on this assumption, the 

POA has requested, and NMFS is 

authorizing, twelve Level B harassment 

exposures during the 24 days of pile 

driving. 

Harbor porpoises are relatively small 

cetaceans that move at high velocities, 

which can make their detection and 

identification at great distances difficult. 

Despite this, PSOs during Phase 1 PCT 

construction monitoring (61 North 

Environmental, 2021) were able to 

detect harbor porpoises as far as 6,486 

m from the PCT, indicating that the 

monitoring methods detailed in the final 

IHAs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 PCT 

construction (85 FR 19294; April 6, 

2020), (and described below in the 

Mitigation section for the SFD) allowed 

for harbor porpoises to be detected at 

great distances. Therefore, no Level A 

harassment take for harbor porpoises is 

anticipated or authorized for the SFD. 

The POA anticipates that the majority of 

piles will be driven using vibratory 

methods. Using the NMFS User 

Spreadsheet, vibratory driving 24-inch 

and 36-inch piles results in Level A 

harassment isopleths that are smaller 

than the 100-m shutdown zone, 

described below in the Mitigation 

section (≤26 m; Table 6). The Level A 

harassment isopleths calculated using 

the NMFS User Spreadsheet for impact 

driving 24-inch and 36-inch piles are 

larger (≤1,387 m; Table 6); however, the 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 50069 

POA is required to shut down pile 

driving activities should a harbor 

porpoise be observed entering or within 

an established Level A harassment zone. 

In addition, Level A harassment 

isopleths consider long durations and 

harbor porpoise are likely moving 

through the area, if present, not 

lingering. Further few harbor porpoises 

are expected to approach the project 

area and are likely to be sighted prior to 

entering the Level A harassment zone. 

During Phase 1 PCT construction 

monitoring (61 North Environmental, 

2021) only five harbor porpoises were 

observed near the PCT and within the 

largest Level A harassment zone for SFD 

(1,387 m; Table 7). Given that the POA 

anticipates that only a small number of 

piles (up to five), may be driven with an 

impact hammer (requiring up to 20 

minutes of impact installation each at 1 

pile per day), the likelihood that harbor 

porpoises will be in these larger zones 

is minimized. Accounting for measures 

described below in the Mitigation 

section below and the low likelihood 

that individual harbor porpoises will 

appear undetected within the Level A 

harassment zones, we agree with the 

POA and do not authorize any Level A 

harassment takes of harbor porpoises 

during the construction of the SFD. 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions are anticipated to be 

encountered in low numbers, if at all, 

within the project area. Three sightings 

of what was likely a single individual 

occurred in the project area in 2009, two 

sightings occurred in 2016, one 

occurred in 2019, and up to six 

individuals were observed in 2020 (4 in 

May and 2 in June). Based on 

observations in 2016, the POA 

anticipates an exposure rate of two 

individuals every 19 days during SFD 

pile installation and removal. Based on 

this rate, The POA anticipates that there 

could be up to four harassment 

exposures of Steller sea lions during the 

24 days of SFD pile installation and 

removal. 

Sea lions are known to travel at high 

speeds, in rapidly changing directions, 

and have the potential to be counted 

multiple times. Because of this the POA 

anticipates that, despite all precautions, 

sea lions could enter the Level A 

harassment zone before a shutdown 

could be fully implemented. For 

example, in 2016 during the POA TPP, 

a Steller sea lion was first sighted next 

to a work boat and within the Level A 

harassment zone. Nine PSOs had been 

monitoring for the presence of marine 

mammals near the construction 

activities at this time, but they did not 

observe the approaching sea lion. Sea 

lions are known to be curious and 

willing to approach human activity 

closely, and they can swim with a low 

profile. The incident was recorded as a 

Level A harassment take and raises 

concern for the POA that a sighting of 

a Steller sea lion within the Level A 

harassment zones, while unlikely, could 

occur. While Level A harassment takes 

are unlikely given the low likelihood of 

sea lions in the project area, the small 

Level A harassment isopleths (<46 m; 

Table 6), and the required mitigation 

measures, including the implementation 

of shutdown zones and the use of PSOs, 

we authorize the POA’s request that a 

small number of Steller sea lions could 

be exposed to Level A harassment 

levels. Therefore, we authorize that two 

Steller sea lions could be exposed to 

Level A harassment levels and 2 Steller 

sea lions could be exposed to Level B 

harassment levels. 

Harbor Seals 

No known harbor seal haulout or 

pupping sites occur in the vicinity of 

the POA; therefore, exposure of harbor 

seals to in-air noise is not considered in 

this application, and no take for in-air 

exposure is requested. Harbor seals are 

not known to reside in the project area, 

but they are seen regularly near the 

mouth of Ship Creek when salmon are 

running, from July through September. 

With the exception of newborn pups, all 

ages and sexes of harbor seals could 

occur in the project area during 

construction of the SFD. Any 

harassment of harbor seals during pile 

installation will involve a limited 

number of individuals that may 

potentially swim through the project 

area or linger near Ship Creek. 

Marine mammal monitoring data were 

used to examine hourly sighting rates 

for harbor seals in the project area. 

Sighting rates of harbor seals were 

highly variable and appeared to have 

increased during monitoring between 

2005 and 2020 (See Table 4–1 in POA’s 

application). It is unknown whether any 

potential increase was due to local 

population increases or habituation to 

ongoing construction activities. The 

highest monthly hourly sighting rate 

(rounded) observed during previous 

monitoring at the POA was used to 

quantify take of harbor seals for pile 

installation associated with the SFD. 

This occurred in 2020 during Phase 1 

PCT construction monitoring, when 

harbor seals were observed from May 

through September. A total of 340 

harbor seals were observed over 1,237.7 

hours of monitoring, at a rate of 0.3 

harbor seals per hour. The maximum 

monthly hourly sighting rate occurred 

in September and was 0.51 harbor seals 

per hour. Based on these data, the POA 

estimates that approximately 1 harbor 

seal may be observed near the project 

per hour of hammer use. During the 21 

hours of anticipated pile installation 

and removal, the POA estimates that up 

21 harbor seals will be exposed to inwater noise levels exceeding harassment 

thresholds for pile installation and 

removal during SFD construction. 

All efforts will be taken to shut down 

prior to a harbor seal entering the 

appropriate shutdown zone and prior to 

a harbor seal entering the Level A 

harassment zones. However, harbor 

seals often are curious of onshore 

activities, and previous monitoring 

suggests that this species may mill at the 

mouth of Ship Creek. It is important to 

note that the mouth of Ship Creek is 

about 700 m from the southern end of 

the SFD and is outside the Level A 

harassment zones for harbor seals 

during both unattenuated and 

attenuated vibratory and impact pile 

installation and removal (Table 6). 

While exposure is anticipated to be 

minimized because pile installation and 

removal will occur intermittently over 

the short construction period, the POA 

is requesting Level A harassment take 

for a small number of harbor seals, given 

the potential difficulty of detecting 

harbor seals and their consistent use of 

the area. Given that 30 harbor seals (8.6 

percent) of all harbor seals and 

unidentified pinnipeds were detected 

within 624 m, the largest Level A 

harassment zone for SFD, during PCT 

Phase 1 construction monitoring (61 

North Environmental, 2021), POA 

requests and NMFS authorizes that two 

harbor seals (8.6 percent of 21 exposures 

rounded up) could be exposed to Level 

A harassment levels and 19 harbor seals 

could be exposed to Level B harassment 

levels. 

Beluga Whales 

For CIBWs, we looked at several 

sources of information on marine 

mammal occurrence in upper Cook Inlet 

to determine how best to estimate the 

potential for exposure to pile driving 

noise from the SFD Project. In their 

application, the POA estimated Level B 

harassment take following methods 

outlined in the PCT final IHA (85 FR 

19294; April 6, 2020), which relies on 

monitoring data of CIBWs published in 

Kendall and Cornick (2015). For the 

SFD application, POA also considered 

monitoring data of CIBWs collected 

during Phase 1 of the PCT project (61 

North Environmental, 2021). These data 

sets (Kendall and Cornick, 2015, and 61 

North Environmental, 2021) cover all 

months the POA could conduct pile 

driving for the SFD and they are based 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
50070 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 

on all animals observed during 

scientific monitoring within the 

proximity of the SFD regardless of 

distance. Hourly sighting rates for 

CIBWs for each calendar month were 

calculated using documented hours of 

observation and CIBW sightings from 

April through November for 2005, 2006, 

2008 and 2009 (Kendall and Cornick, 

2015) and 2020 (61 North 

Environmental, 2021) (Table 7). The 

highest calculated monthly hourly 

sighting rate of 0.94 whales per hour 

was used to calculate potential CIBW 

exposures (21 hours of pile installation 

and removal multiplied by 0.94 whales/ 

hour). Using this method, the POA 

estimated that 20 CIBWs (rounded from 

19.75) could be exposed to the Level B 

harassment level during pile installation 

and removal associated with the 

construction of the SFD. These 

calculations assume no mitigation and 

that all animals observed will enter a 

given Level B harassment zone during 

pile driving. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF CIBWS SIGHTING DATA FROM APRIL–NOVEMBER 2005–2009 AND APRIL–NOVEMBER 2020 

Month Total hours Total groups Total whales Whales/hour 

April .................................................................................................................. 52.50 13 35 0.67 

May .................................................................................................................. 457.40 53 208 0.45 

June ................................................................................................................. 597.77 37 122 0.20 

July ................................................................................................................... 552.67 14 27 0.05 

August .............................................................................................................. 577.30 120 543 0.94 

September ....................................................................................................... 533.03 124 445 0.83 

October ............................................................................................................ 450.70 9 22 0.05 

November ........................................................................................................ 346.63 52 272 0.78 

Data compiled from Kendall and Cornick (2015) and (61 North Environmental, 2021). 

To more accurately estimate potential 

exposures than simply using the 

monthly sighting rate data, which does 

not account for any mitigation, POA 

followed methods described by NMFS 

for the PCT final IHA (85 FR 19294; 

April 6, 2020), which looked at previous 

monitoring results at the POA in 

relation to authorized take numbers. 

Between 2008 and 2012, NMFS 

authorized 34 CIBW takes per year to 

POA, with mitigation measures similar 

to the measures required here. The 

percent of the authorized takes 

documented during this time period 

ranged from 12 to 59 percent with an 

average of 36 percent (Table 8). In 2020, 

NMFS authorized 55 CIBW takes in 

Phase 1 of the PCT project, with 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

that are consistent with those required 

for the SFD and described below in the 

Mitigation section. The percent of the 

authorized takes that were documented 

was 47 percent (26 out of 55 exposures; 

61 North Environmental, 2021; Table 8). 

Given that there was extensive 

monitoring occurring across all IHAs 

(with effort intensified in 2020), we 

believe there is little potential that 

animals were taken but not observed. 

TABLE 8—AUTHORIZED AND REPORTED CIBW TAKES DURING POA ACTIVITIES FROM 2009–2012 AND 2020 

ITA effective dates Reported 

takes 

Authorized 

takes 

Percent of 

authorized 

takes 

15 July 2008–14 July 2009 ......................................................................................................... 12 34 35 

15 July 2009–14 July 2010 ......................................................................................................... 20 34 59 

15 July 2010–14 July 2011 ......................................................................................................... 13 34 38 

15 July 2011–14 July 2012 ......................................................................................................... 4 34 12 

1 April 2020–31 March 2021 ....................................................................................................... 26 55 47 

As described in the POA’s application 

and in more detail in the Mitigation 

section, mitigation measures have been 

designed to reduce Level B harassment 

take as well avoid Level A harassment 

take. We recognize that in certain 

situations, pile driving may not be able 

to be shut down prior to whales entering 

the Level B harassment zone due to 

safety concerns. During previous 

monitoring, sometimes CIBWs were 

initially sighted outside of the 

harassment zone and shutdown was 

called, but the CIBWs swam into the 

harassment zone before activities could 

be halted, and exposure within the 

harassment zone occurred. For example, 

on September 14, 2009, a construction 

observer sighted a CIBW just outside the 

harassment zone, moving quickly 

towards the 1,300 m Level B harassment 

zone during vibratory pile driving. The 

animal entered the harassment zone 

before construction activity could be 

shut down (ICRC, 2010). On other 

occasions, CIBWs were initially 

observed when they surfaced within the 

harassment zone. For example, on 

November 4, 2009, 15 CIBWs were 

initially sighted approximately 950 m 

north of the project site near the shore, 

and then they surfaced in the Level B 

harassment zone during vibratory pile 

driving (ICRC, 2010). Construction 

activities were immediately shut down, 

but the 15 CIBWs were nevertheless 

exposed within the Level B harassment 

zone. During Phase 1 of the PCT project 

all 26 of the recorded takes were 

instances where the whales were first 

sighted within the Level B harassment 

zone, prompting shutdown procedures. 

Most of these exposures (21 of 26) 

occurred when the CIBWs first appeared 

near the northern station, just south of 

Cairn Point (61 North Environmental, 

2021). For example, on November 21, 

2020 one CIBW was sighted in front of 

the north PSO station, located just south 

of Cairn Point, traveling south during 

vibratory removal of an attenuated 36- 

inch pile and a shutdown was called 

immediately (61 North Environmental, 

2021). In 2020, the northern station did 

not have visibility of the near shoreline 

north of Cairn Point. As a result, CIBWs 

traveling south during ebb tides around 

Cairn Point were often inside of the 

Level B harassment zone upon first 

sighting (61 North Environmental, 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 50071 

2021). As described below in the 

Monitoring and Reporting section, 

mitigation and monitoring approaches 

for the SFD project are modeled after the 

stipulations outlined in the final IHAs 

for Phase 1 and Phase 2 PCT 

construction (85 FR 19294; April 6, 

2020), but one of the PSO stations will 

be moved to enhance visibility to the 

north, especially near Cairn point. 

Therefore, we believe the ability to 

detect whales and shut down prior to 

them entering the Level B harassment 

zones will be better or consistent with 

previous years. 

To account for these mitigation 

measures, the POA then applied the 

highest percentage of previous takes (59 

percent) to ensure potential impacts to 

CIBWs are adequately evaluated. After 

applying this adjustment to account for 

potential exposures of CIBWs that will 

be avoided by shutting down, the POA 

estimated that 12 CIBWs (20 whales * 

0.59 = 11.80 whales; 12 rounded up) 

may be exposed to Level B harassment 

during pile installation and removal. 

The POA and NMFS are concerned, 

however, that this approach does not 

accurately reflect the reality that CIBWs 

can travel in large groups. Large groups 

of CIBWs have been seen swimming 

through the POA vicinity during POA 

monitoring efforts. For example, during 

Phase 1 of the PCT, the mean group size 

was 4.34 whales; however, 52 percent of 

observations were of groups greater than 

the mean group size, with 5 percent of 

those 119 groups being larger than 12 

individuals, the number of exposures 

proposed by POA (61 North 

Environmental, 2021). 

To ensure that a large group of CIBWs 

will not result in the POA using the 

majority or all of their take in one or two 

sightings, POA buffered the exposure 

estimate detailed in the preceding 

paragraph by adding the estimated size 

of a notional large group of CIBWs. The 

95th percentile is commonly used in 

statistics to evaluate risk. Therefore, to 

determine the most appropriate size of 

a large group, the POA calculated the 95 

percentile group size of CIBWs observed 

during Kendall and Cornick (2015) and 

2020 Phase 1 PCT construction 

monitoring (61 North Environmental, 

2021); the same data used above to 

derive hourly sighting rates (Table 7 and 

Figure 3). In this case, the 95th 

percentile provides a conservative value 

that reduces the risk to the POA of 

taking a large group of CIBWs and 

exceeding authorized take levels. The 

95th percentile of group size for the 

Kendall and Cornick (2015) and the PCT 

Phase 1 monitoring data (61 North 

Environmental, 2021) is 12.0. This 

means that, of the 422 documented 

CIBW groups in these data sets, 95 

percent consisted of fewer than 12.0 

whales; 5 percent of the groups 

consisted of more than 12.0. 

Considering large group size, the POA 

requests and we authorize 24 takes 

(accounting for the 12 takes calculated 

following the methods outlined for the 

PCT project that accounts for mitigation 

plus a group size of 12) of CIBWs 

incidental to pile driving for the SFD. 

Incorporation of large groups into the 

CIBW exposure estimate is intended to 

reduce risk to the POA of the 

unintentional take of a larger number of 

belugas than would be authorized by 

using the required methods alone and 

thus improve our estimate of exposure. 

No Level A harassment is expected or 

authorized given the small Level A 

harassment zones for CIBWs (Table 6) 

and the additional mitigation measures 

described in the Mitigation section 

below specific to CIBWs, including the 

measure that pile driving activities must 

shut down when any CIBW enters the 

relevant Level B harassment zone. 

In summary, the total amount of Level 

A harassment and Level B harassment 

authorized for each marine mammal 

stock is presented in Table 9. 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICESEN07SE21.002</MATH>

0 

.... 

CD 

.0 

E 

90 

~ 30 

0 

0 20 40 

Group Size 

Figure 3. CIBW sighting data from Kendall and Cornick (2015) and Phase 1 of the 

PCT (61 North Environmental, 2021). The dashed vertical line represents the 95th 

percentile of group size (i.e., 12 CIBWs) 
50072 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 9—AUTHORIZED AMOUNT OF TAKE, BY STOCK AND HARASSMENT TYPE

Species Stock 

Authorized take Percent of 

stock Level A Level B 

Humpback whale ............................................ Western N. Pacific ......................................... 0 2 0.19 

Beluga whale .................................................. Cook Inlet ....................................................... 0 24 8.60 

Killer whale ...................................................... Transient/Alaska Resident ............................. 0 6 1.02/0.26 

Harbor porpoise .............................................. Gulf of Alaska ................................................. 0 12 0.04 

Steller sea lion ................................................ Western .......................................................... 2 2 <0.01 

Harbor seal ..................................................... Cook Inlet/Shelikof ......................................... 2 19 0.07 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, 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. 

The POA presented mitigation 

measures in Section 11 of their 

application that were modeled after the 

stipulations outlined in the final IHAs 

for Phase 1 and Phase 2 PCT 

construction (85 FR 19294; April 6, 

2020), which were successful in 

minimizing the total number and 

duration of Level B harassment 

exposures for endangered CIBWs during 

Phase 1 PCT Construction (61 North 

Environmental, 2021). These measures 

both reduce noise into the aquatic 

environment and reduce the potential 

for CIBWs to be adversely impacted 

from any unavoidable noise exposure. 

A key mitigation measure NMFS 

considered for this project is reducing 

noise levels propagating into the 

environment. The POA will deploy an 

unconfined bubble curtain system 

during installation and removal of 

plumb (vertical) 24- and 36-inch piles 

with a vibratory or impact hammer. An 

unconfined bubble curtain is composed 

of an air compressor(s), supply lines to 

deliver the air, distribution manifolds or 

headers, perforated aeration pipe, and a 

frame. The frame facilitates transport 

and placement of the system, keeps the 

aeration pipes stable, and provides 

ballast to counteract the buoyancy of the 

aeration pipes in operation. The air is 

released through a series of vertically 

distributed bubble rings that create a 

cloud of bubbles that act to impede and 

scatter sound, lowering the sound 

velocity. A compressor provides a 

continuous supply of compressed air, 

which is distributed among the layered 

bubble rings. Air is released from small 

holes in the bubble rings to create a 

curtain of air bubbles surrounding the 

pile. The curtain of air bubbles floating 

to the surface inhibits the transmission 

of pile installation sounds into the 

surrounding water column. The final 

design of the bubble curtain will be 

determined by the Construction 

Contractor based on factors such as 

water depth, current velocities, and pile 

sizes. However, the IHA requires the 

bubble curtain be operated in a manner 

consistent with the following 

performance standards: 

• The aeration pipe system will 

consist of multiple layers of perforated 

pipe rings, stacked vertically in 

accordance with the following depths: 

Two layers for water depths <5 m; four 

layers for water depths 5 m to <10 m; 

seven layers for water depths 10 m to 

<15 m; ten layers for water depths 15 m 

to <20 m; and thirteen layers for water 

depths 20 m to <25 m; 

• The pipes in all layers will be 

arranged in a geometric pattern that will 

allow for the pile being driven to be 

completely enclosed by bubbles for the 

full depth of the water column and with 

a radial dimension such that the rings 

are no more than 0.5 m from the outside 

surface of the pile; 

• The lowest layer of perforated 

aeration pipe will be designed to ensure 

contact with the substrate without 

burial and will accommodate sloped 

conditions; 

• Air holes will be 1.6 millimeters (1/ 

16 inch) in diameter and will be spaced 

approximately 20 millimeters (3⁄4 inch) 

apart. Air holes with this size and 

spacing will be placed in four adjacent 

rows along the pipe to provide uniform 

bubble flux; 

• The system will provide a bubble 

flux of 3 cubic meters (m3) per minute 

per linear meter of pipe in each layer 

(32.91 cubic feet (ft3) per minute per 

linear foot of pipe in each layer). The 

total volume (Vt) of air per layer is the 

product of the bubble flux and the 

circumference of the ring using the 

formula: Vt = 3.0 m3/min/m * 

Circumference of the aeration ring in 

meters or Vt = 32.91 ft3/min/ft * 

Circumference of the aeration ring in 

feet; and 

• Meters must be provided as follows: 

Æ Pressure meters must be installed at 

all inlets to aeration pipelines and at 

points of lowest pressure in each branch 

of the aeration pipeline; 

Æ Flow meters must be installed in 

the main line at each compressor and at 

each branch of the aeration pipelines at 

each inlet. In applications where the 

feed line from the compressor is 

continuous from the compressor to the 

aeration pipe inlet, the flow meter at the 

compressor can be eliminated; and 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 50073 

Æ Flow meters must be installed 

according to the manufacturer’s 

recommendation based on either 

laminar flow or non-laminar flow. 

The bubble curtain will be used 

during installation and removal of all 

plumb piles when water depth is great 

enough (approximately 3 m or 9.8 ft) to 

deploy the bubble curtain. A bubble 

curtain will not be used with the two 

battered piles due to the angle of 

installation. It is important to note that 

a small number of piles could be 

installed or removed when the pile 

location is de-watered (no water 

present) or when the water is too 

shallow (≤3 m or 9.8 ft) to deploy the 

bubble curtain. The tides at the POA 

have a mean range of about 8.0 m (26 

ft) (NOAA, 2015), and low water levels 

will prevent proper deployment and 

function of the bubble curtain system. 

Piles that are driven at a location that is 

de-watered will not use a bubble 

curtain, and marine mammal 

harassment zones will not be monitored. 

When piles are installed or removed in 

water without a bubble curtain because 

the pile orientation is battered, or if 

water is too shallow (≤3 m or 9.8 ft) to 

deploy the bubble curtain, the 

unattenuated Level A and Level B 

harassment zones for that hammer type 

and pile size will be implemented. 

In addition to noise attenuation 

devices, POA and NMFS considered 

practicable work restrictions. Given the 

extensive Level B harassment zone 

generated from the installation of the 

two unattenuated battered piles, 

vibratory driving these large piles 

during peak CIBW season poses an 

amount of risk and uncertainty to the 

degree that it should be minimized. This 

August and September peak is 

confirmed through acoustic monitoring 

(Castellote et al., 2020) and Phase 1 PCT 

construction monitoring (61 North 

Environmental, 2021). Castellote et al. 

(2020) for example indicate CIBWs 

appeared concentrated in the upper 

inlet year-round, but particularly 

feeding in river mouths from April– 

December, shifting their geographical 

foraging preferences from the Susitna 

River region towards Knik Arm in midAugust, and dispersing towards the mid 

inlet throughout the winter. Further, 

hourly sighting rates calculated from 

monitoring data from Kendall and 

Cornick (2015) and Phase 1 of the PCT 

(61 North Environmental, 2021) were 

highest in August and September (0.94 

and 0.83, respectively; Table 8). 

Therefore, vibratory driving 

unattenuated battered piles (which 

have, by far, the largest Level B 

harassment zones) will not occur during 

August or September. Further, to 

minimize the potential for overlapping 

sound fields from multiple stressors, the 

POA will not simultaneously operate 

two vibratory hammers for either pile 

installation or removal. This measure is 

designed to reduce simultaneous inwater noise exposure. Because impact 

hammers will not likely be dropping at 

the same time, and to expedite 

construction of the project to minimize 

pile driving during peak CIBW 

abundance periods, NMFS is not 

proposing to restrict the operation of 

two impact hammers at the same time. 

Given the small size of the project and 

the plan to primarily drive hammers 

with a vibratory hammer, the POA has 

indicated that it is highly unlikely that 

an impact hammer and vibratory 

hammer or two impact hammers will 

operate simultaneously during the SFD 

project. 

Additional mitigation measures 

include the following, modeled after the 

stipulations outlined in the final IHAs 

for Phase 1 and Phase 2 PCT 

construction (85 FR 19294; April 6, 

2020): 

For in-water construction involving 

heavy machinery activities other than 

pile driving (e.g., use of barge-mounted 

excavators), the POA will cease 

operations and reduce vessel speed to 

the minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions if 

a marine mammal approaches within 10 

m of the equipment or vessel. 

POA must use soft start techniques 

when impact pile driving. Soft start 

requires contractors to provide an initial 

set of three strikes at reduced energy, 

followed by a thirty-second waiting 

period, then two subsequent reduced 

energy strike sets. A soft start must be 

implemented at the start of each day’s 

impact pile driving and at any time 

following cessation of impact pile 

driving for a period of thirty minutes or 

longer. Soft starts will not be used for 

vibratory pile installation and removal. 

PSOs shall begin observing for marine 

mammals 30 minutes before ‘‘soft start’’ 

or in-water pile installation or removal 

begins. 

The POA will conduct briefings for 

construction supervisors and crews, the 

monitoring team, and POA staff prior to 

the start of all pile installation and 

removal, and when new personnel join 

the work in order to explain 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, the marine mammal 

monitoring protocol, and operational 

procedures. 

The POA will employ PSOs per the 

Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan (see 

Appendix A in the POA’s application). 

Marine mammal monitoring will take 

place from 30 minutes prior to initiation 

of pile installation and removal through 

30 minutes post-completion of pile 

installation and removal. The Level B 

harassment zone must be fully visible 

for 30 minutes before the zone can be 

considered clear. Pile driving will 

commence when observers have 

declared the shutdown zone clear of 

marine mammals or the mitigation 

measures developed specifically for 

CIBWs (below) are satisfied. In the event 

of a delay or shutdown of activity, 

marine mammal behavior will be 

monitored and documented until the 

marine mammals leave the shutdown 

zone of their own volition, at which 

point pile installation or removal will 

begin. Further, NMFS requires that if 

pile driving has ceased for more than 30 

minutes within a day and monitoring is 

not occurring during this break, another 

30-minute pre-pile driving observation 

period is required before pile driving 

may commence. 

If a marine mammal is entering or is 

observed within an established Level A 

harassment zone or shutdown zone, pile 

installation and removal will be halted 

or delayed. Pile driving will not 

commence or resume until either the 

animal has voluntarily left and been 

visually confirmed 100 m beyond the 

shutdown zone and on a path away 

from such zone, or 15 minutes (nonCIBWs) or 30 minutes (CIBWs) have 

passed without subsequent detections. 

If a species for which authorization 

has not been granted, or a species for 

which authorization has been granted 

but the authorized takes are met, is 

observed approaching or within the 

Level B harassment zone, pile 

installation and removal will shut down 

immediately. Pile driving will not 

resume until the animal has been 

confirmed to have left the area or the 30 

minute observation period has elapsed. 

In addition to these measures which 

greatly reduce the potential for 

harassment of all marine mammals and 

establish shutdown zones that 

realistically reflect non-CIBW whale 

detectability, the following additional 

mitigation measures will ensure 

valuable protection and conservation of 

CIBWs: 

Prior to the onset of pile driving, 

should a CIBW be observed approaching 

the mouth of Knik Arm, pile driving 

will be delayed. An in-bound preclearance line extends from Point 

Woronzof to approximately 2.5 km west 

of Point McKenzie. Pile driving may 

commence once the whale(s) moves at 

least 100 m past the Level B harassment 

zone or pre-clearance zone (whichever 

is larger) and on a path away from the 

zone. A similar pre-pile driving 

clearance zone will be established to the 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
50074 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 

north of the POA (from Cairn Point to 

the opposite bank), allowing whales to 

leave Knik Arm undisturbed. Similar to 

the in-bound whale clearance zone, pile 

driving may not commence until a 

whale(s) moves at least 100 m past the 

Level B harassment zone or preclearance zone (whichever is larger) and 

on a path away from the zone. If nonCIBW whale species are observed 

within or likely to enter the Level B 

harassment zone prior to pile driving, 

the POA may commence pile driving 

but only if those animals are outside the 

relevant shutdown zone and Level B 

harassment takes have not been 

exceeded. 

If pile installation or removal has 

commenced, and a CIBW(s) is observed 

within or likely to enter the Level B 

harassment zone, pile installation or 

removal will shut down and not recommence until the whale has traveled 

at least 100 m beyond the Level B 

harassment zone and is on a path away 

from such zone or until no CIBW has 

been observed in the Level B 

harassment zone for 30 minutes 

There may be situations where it is 

not possible to monitor the entire Level 

B harassment zone (e.g., during 

vibratory hammering of two 

unattenuated battered piles). In these 

cases, the pre-clearance zone remains 

applicable. 

If during installation and removal of 

piles, PSOs can no longer effectively 

monitor the entirety of the CIBW Level 

B harassment zone due to 

environmental conditions (e.g., fog, rain, 

wind), pile driving may continue only 

until the current segment of pile is 

driven; no additional sections of pile or 

additional piles may be driven until 

conditions improve such that the Level 

B harassment zone can be effectively 

monitored. If the Level B harassment 

zone cannot be monitored for more than 

15 minutes, the entire Level B 

harassment zone will be cleared again 

for 30 minutes prior to pile driving. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has determined that the required 

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. 

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 action area. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as ensuring that the most value 

is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• 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. 

The POA will implement a marine 

mammal monitoring and mitigation 

strategy intended to avoid and minimize 

impacts to marine mammals (see 

Appendix A in the POA’s application). 

The marine mammal monitoring and 

mitigation program that is planned for 

SFD construction will be modeled after 

the stipulations outlined in the final 

IHAs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 PCT 

construction (85 FR 19294; April 6, 

2020). The POA will collect electronic 

data on marine mammal sightings and 

any behavioral responses to in-water 

pile installation or removal for species 

observed during pile installation and 

removal associated with the SFD 

Project. Four PSO teams will work 

concurrently to provide full coverage for 

marine mammal monitoring in rotating 

shifts during in-water pile installation 

and removal. All PSOs will be trained 

in marine mammal identification and 

behaviors. NMFS will review submitted 

PSO resumes and indicate approval as 

warranted. 

All PSOs will also undergo projectspecific training, which will include 

training in monitoring, data collection, 

theodolite operation, and mitigation 

procedures specific to the SFD Project. 

This training will also include sitespecific health and safety procedures, 

communication protocols, and 

supplemental training in marine 

mammal identification and data 

collection specific to the SFD Project. 

Training will include hands-on use of 

required field equipment to ensure that 

all equipment is working and PSOs 

know how to use the equipment. 

Eleven PSOs will be distributed at 

four stations: Anchorage Downtown 

Viewpoint near Point Woronzof, the 

Anchorage Public Boat Dock at Ship 

Creek, the SFD Project site, and the 

north end of POA property. These 

locations were chosen to maximize 

CIBW detection outside of Knik Arm 

and the mouth of Knik Arm. 

Specifically, PSOs at Port Woronzof will 

have unencumbered views of the 

entrance to Knik Arm and can provide 

information on CIBW group dynamics 

(e.g., group size, demographics, etc.) and 

behavior of animals approaching Knik 

Arm in the absence of and during pile 

driving. During the time since the POA 

submitted their final application, 

observers for the 2020 PCT Phase 1 

project have recommended, and NMFS 

has included in the IHA, that the Ship 

Creek station be moved about 40 m to 

the end of the promontory to enhance 

visibility to the north, especially near 

Cairn point. The POA also considered 

moving a station from the POA property 

to Port MacKenzie for an improved view 

of CIBWs moving from north to south 

within Knik Arm. However, Port 

MacKenzie is not an available option 

due to logistical reasons; therefore, the 

northern station will remain located on 

POA property. 

Each of the PSO stations will be 

outfitted with a cargo container with an 

observation platform constructed on 

top. This additional elevation provides 

better viewing conditions for seeing 

distant marine mammals than from 

ground level and provides the PSOs 

with protection from weather. At least 

two PSOs will be on watch at any given 

time at each station; one PSO will be 

observing, one PSO will be recording 

data (and observing when there are no 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 50075 

data to record). The station at the SFD 

site will have at least two PSOs. The 

northern and southern observations 

stations will have PSOs who will work 

in three- to four-person teams. Teams of 

three will include one PSO who will be 

observing, one PSO who will be 

recording data (and observing when 

there are no data to record), and one 

PSO who will be resting. When 

available, a fourth PSO will assist with 

scanning, increasing scan intensity and 

the likelihood of detecting marine 

mammals. PSOs will work on a 30 to 60 

minute rotation cycle and may observe 

for no more than 4 hours at time and no 

more than 12 hours per day. In addition, 

if POA is conducting non-PCT-related 

in-water work that includes PSOs, the 

PCT PSOs must be in real-time contact 

with those PSOs, and both sets of PSOs 

must share all information regarding 

marine mammal sightings with each 

other. 

Trained PSOs will have no other 

construction-related tasks or 

responsibilities while conducting 

monitoring for marine mammals. 

Observations will be carried out using 

combinations of equipment that include 

7 by 50 binoculars, 20x/40x tripod 

mounted binoculars, 25 by 150 ‘‘big 

eye’’ tripod mounted binoculars (North 

End, Ship Creek, and Woronzof), and 

theodolites. PSOs will be responsible for 

monitoring the shutdown zones, the 

Level A harassment zones, the Level B 

harassment zones, and the pre-clearance 

zones, as well as effectively 

documenting Level A and Level B 

harassment take. They will also (1) 

report on the frequency at which marine 

mammals are present in the project area, 

(2) report on behavior and group 

composition near the POA, (3) record all 

construction activities, and (4) report on 

observed reactions (changes in behavior 

or movement) of marine mammals 

during each sighting. Observers will 

monitor for marine mammals during all 

in-water pile installation and removal 

associated with the SFD Project. Once 

pile installation and removal are 

completed for the day, marine mammal 

observations will continue for 30 

minutes. Observers will work in 

collaboration with the POA to 

immediately communicate the presence 

of marine mammals prior to or during 

pile installation or removal. 

A draft report, including all electronic 

data collected and summarized from all 

monitoring locations, must be submitted 

to NMFS’ MMPA program within 90 

days of the completion of monitoring 

efforts. The report must include: Dates 

and times (begin and end) of all marine 

mammal monitoring; a description of 

daily construction activities, weather 

parameters and water conditions during 

each monitoring period; number of 

marine mammals observed, by species, 

distances and bearings of each marine 

mammal observed to the pile being 

driven or removed, age and sex class, if 

possible; number of individuals of each 

species (differentiated by month as 

appropriate) detected within the Level 

A harassment zones, the Level B 

harassment zones, and the shutdown 

zones, and estimates of number of 

marine mammals taken, by species (a 

correction factor may be applied); 

description of mitigation implemented, 

and description of attempts to 

distinguish between the number of 

individual animals taken and the 

number of incidences of take. A final 

marine mammal monitoring report will 

be prepared and submitted to NMFS 

within 30 days following receipt of 

comments on the draft report from 

NMFS. 

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). 

To avoid repetition, the discussion of 

our analyses applies to all the species 

listed in Table 9 for which we 

authorized take, other than CIBWs, as 

the anticipated effects the POAs 

activities on marine mammals are 

expected to be relatively similar in 

nature. For CIBWs, there are meaningful 

differences in anticipated individual 

responses to activities, impact of 

expected take on CIBWs, or impacts on 

habitat; therefore, we provide a 

supplemental analysis for CIBWs, 

independent of the other species for 

which we authorize take. 

NMFS has identified key factors 

which may be employed to assess the 

level of analysis necessary to conclude 

whether potential impacts associated 

with a specified activity should be 

considered negligible. These include 

(but are not limited to) the type and 

magnitude of taking, the amount and 

importance of the available habitat for 

the species or stock that is affected, the 

duration of the anticipated effect to the 

species or stock, and the status of the 

species or stock. The following factors 

support negligible impact 

determinations for the affected stocks of 

humpback whales, killer whales, harbor 

porpoise, harbor seals, and Steller sea 

lions. The potential effects of the 

specified actions on these species are 

discussed above. Some of these factors 

also apply to CIBWs; however, a more 

detailed analysis for CIBWs is provided 

below. 

• No takes by mortality or serious 

injury are anticipated or authorized; 

• The number of total takes (by Level 

A and Level B harassment) are less than 

2 percent of the best available 

abundance estimates for all stocks; 

• Take will not occur in places and/ 

or times where take would be more 

likely to accrue to impacts on 

reproduction or survival, such as within 

ESA-designated or proposed critical 

habitat, biologically important areas 

(BIA), or other habitats critical to 

recruitment or survival (e.g., rookery); 

• Take will occur over a short 

timeframe (i.e., up to 21 total hours 

spread over nine to 24 non-consecutive 

days), and will be limited to the short 

duration a marine mammal would likely 

be present within a Level B harassment 

zone during pile driving. This short 

timeframe minimizes the probability of 

multiple exposures on individuals, and 

any repeated exposures that do occur 

are not expected to occur on sequential 

days, decreasing the likelihood of 

physiological impacts caused by chronic 

stress or sustained energetic impacts 

that might affect survival or 

reproductive success; 

• Any impacts to marine mammal 

habitat from pile driving (including to 

prey sources as well as acoustic habitat, 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
50076 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 

e.g., from masking) are expected to be 

temporary and minimal; and 

• Take will only occur within upper 

Cook Inlet—a limited, confined area of 

any given stock’s home range. 

For CIBWs, we further discuss our 

negligible impact findings in the context 

of potential impacts to this endangered 

stock. As described in the Recovery Plan 

for the CIBW (NMFS, 2016a), NMFS 

determined the following physical or 

biological features are essential to the 

conservation of this species: (1) 

Intertidal and subtidal waters of Cook 

Inlet with depths less than 30 feet mean 

lower low water (9.1 m) and within 5 mi 

(8 km) of high and medium flow 

anadromous fish streams; (2) Primary 

prey species consisting of four species 

of Pacific salmon (Chinook, sockeye, 

chum, and coho), Pacific eulachon, 

Pacific cod, walleye pollock, saffron 

cod, and yellowfin sole, (3) Waters free 

of toxins or other agents of a type and 

amount harmful to CIBWs, (4) 

Unrestricted passage within or between 

the critical habitat areas, and (5) Waters 

with in-water noise below levels 

resulting in the abandonment of critical 

habitat areas by CIBWs. The SFD will 

not impact essential features 1–3 listed 

above. All construction will be done in 

a manner implementing best 

management practices to preserve water 

quality, and no work will occur around 

creek mouths or river systems leading to 

prey abundance reductions. In addition, 

no physical structures will restrict 

passage; however, impacts to the 

acoustic habitat are of concern. Previous 

marine mammal monitoring data at the 

POA demonstrate CIBWs indeed pass by 

the POA during pile driving (e.g., 61 

North Environmental, 2021). As 

described above, there was no 

significant difference in CIBW sighting 

rate with and in the absence of pile 

driving (Kendall and Cornick, 2015). 

However, CIBWs do swim faster and in 

tighter formation in the presence of pile 

driving (Kendall and Cornick, 2015). 

Previously there has been concern 

that exposure to pile driving at the POA 

could result in CIBWs avoiding Knik 

Arm and thereby not accessing the 

productive foraging grounds north of 

POA such as Eagle River flats based on 

the specified project and mitigation 

measures—thus, impacting essential 

feature number five above (85 FR 19294; 

April 6, 2020). Although the data 

previously presented demonstrate 

whales are not abandoning the area (i.e., 

no significant difference in sighting rate 

with and without pile driving), results 

of a recent expert elicitation (EE) at a 

2016 workshop, which predicted the 

impacts of noise on CIBW survival and 

reproduction given lost foraging 

opportunities, helped to inform our 

assessment of impacts on this stock. The 

2016 EE workshop used conceptual 

models of an interim population 

consequences of disturbance (PCoD) for 

marine mammals (NRC, 2005; New et 

al., 2014, Tollit et al., 2016) to help in 

understanding how noise-related 

stressors might affect vital rates 

(survival, birth rate and growth) for 

CIBW (King et al., 2015). NMFS (2015, 

section IX.D—CI Beluga Hearing, 

Vocalization, and Noise Supplement) 

suggests that the main direct effects of 

noise on CIBW are likely to be through 

masking of vocalizations used for 

communication and prey location and 

habitat degradation. The 2016 workshop 

on CIBWs was specifically designed to 

provide regulators with a tool to help 

understand whether chronic and acute 

anthropogenic noise from various 

sources and projects are likely to be 

limiting recovery of the CIBW 

population. The full report can be found 

at http://www.smruconsulting.com/ 

publications/ with a summary of the 

expert elicitation portion of the 

workshop below. 

For each of the noise effect 

mechanisms chosen for expert 

elicitation, the experts provided a set of 

parameters and values that determined 

the forms of a relationship between the 

number of days of disturbance a female 

CIBW experiences in a particular period 

and the effect of that disturbance on her 

energy reserves. Examples included the 

number of days of disturbance during 

the period April, May, and June that 

would be predicted to reduce the energy 

reserves of a pregnant CIBW to such a 

level that she is certain to terminate the 

pregnancy or abandon the calf soon after 

birth, the number of days of disturbance 

in the period April–September required 

to reduce the energy reserves of a 

lactating CIBW to a level where she is 

certain to abandon her calf, and the 

number of days of disturbance where a 

female fails to gain sufficient energy by 

the end of summer to maintain 

themselves and their calves during the 

subsequent winter. Overall, median 

values ranged from 16 to 69 days of 

disturbance depending on the question. 

However, for this elicitation, a ‘‘day of 

disturbance’’ was defined as any day on 

which an animal loses the ability to 

forage for at least one tidal cycle (i.e., it 

forgoes 50–100 percent of its energy 

intake on that day). The day of 

disturbance considered in the context of 

the report is notably more severe than 

the Level B harassment expected to 

result from these activities, which as 

described is expected be comprised 

predominantly of temporary 

modifications in the behavior of 

individual CIBWs (e.g., faster swim 

speeds, more cohesive group structure, 

avoidance, and increased foraging). 

Also, NMFS anticipates and has 

authorized 24 instances of takes, with 

the instances representing disturbance 

events within a day—this means that 

either 24 different individual beluga 

whales are disturbed on no more than 

one day each, or some lesser number of 

individuals may be disturbed on more 

than one day, but with the product of 

individuals and days not exceeding 24. 

Given the overall anticipated take, it is 

very unlikely that any one beluga will 

be disturbed on more than a few days. 

Further, the mitigation measures NMFS 

has prescribed for the SFD project are 

designed to avoid the potential that any 

animal will lose the ability to forage for 

one or more tidal cycles. While Level B 

harassment (behavioral disturbance) is 

authorized, our mitigation measures 

will limit the severity of the effects of 

that Level B harassment to behavioral 

changes such as increased swim speeds, 

tighter group formations, and cessation 

of vocalizations, not the loss of foraging 

capabilities. Regardless, this elicitation 

recognized that pregnant or lactating 

females and calves are inherently more 

at risk than other animals, such as 

males. NMFS first considered proposing 

the POA shutdown based on more 

vulnerable life stages (e.g., calf 

presence) but ultimately determined all 

CIBWs warranted pile driving shutdown 

to be protective of potential vulnerable 

life stages, such as pregnancy, that 

could not be determined from 

observations, and to avoid more severe 

behavioral reaction. 

Monitoring data from the POA suggest 

pile driving does not discourage CIBWs 

from entering Knik Arm and travelling 

to critical foraging grounds such as 

those around Eagle Bay. As previously 

described, sighting rates were not 

different in the presence or absence of 

pile driving (Kendall and Cornick, 

2015). In addition, large numbers of 

CIBWs continued to use Knik Arm in 

2020 during the duration of the PCT 

Phase 1 construction project (61 North 

Environmental, 2021). These findings 

are not surprising as food is a strong 

motivation for marine mammals. As 

described in Forney et al. (2017), 

animals typically favor particular areas 

because of their importance for survival 

(e.g., feeding or breeding), and leaving 

may have significant costs to fitness 

(reduced foraging success, increased 

predation risk, increased exposure to 

other anthropogenic threats). 

Consequently, animals may be highly 

motivated to maintain foraging behavior 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 50077 

in historical foraging areas despite 

negative impacts (e.g., Rolland et al., 

2012). Previous monitoring data 

indicates CIBWs are responding to pile 

driving noise, but not through 

abandonment of critical habitat, 

including primary foraging areas north 

of the port. Instead, they travel faster 

past the POA, more quietly, and in 

tighter groups (which may be linked to 

the decreased communication patterns). 

During PCT Phase 1 construction 

monitoring, no definitive behavioral 

reactions to the in-water activity or 

avoidance behaviors were documented 

in CIBW. Little variability was evident 

in CIBW behaviors recorded by PSOs 

from month to month, or between 

sightings that coincided with in-water 

pile installation or removal and those 

that did not (61 North Environmental, 

2021). Of the 245 CIBWs groups sighted 

during PCT Phase 1 construction 

monitoring, seven groups were observed 

during or within minutes of in-water 

impact pile installation and 37 groups 

were observed during or within minutes 

of vibratory pile installation or removal 

(61 North Environmental, 2021). During 

impact installation, three of these 

groups of CIBWs showed no reaction, 

three showed a potential reaction, and 

one group continued moving towards 

impact pile installation. Of the 37 

vibratory events monitored, nine groups 

of CIBWs displayed a potential reaction, 

16 displayed no reaction, and 12 

continued a trajectory towards the PCT 

(61 North Environmental, 2021). In 

general, CIBWs were more likely to 

display no reaction or to continue to 

move towards the PCT during pile 

installation and removal. In the 

situations during which CIBWs showed 

a possible reaction (three groups during 

impact driving and nine groups during 

vibratory driving), CIBWs were observed 

either moving away immediately after 

the pile driving activities started or 

observed increasing their rate of travel. 

This traveling behavior past the POA 

has also been verified by acoustic 

monitoring. Castellote et al. (2020) 

found low echolocation detection rates 

in lower Knik Arm indicating CIBWs 

moved through that area relatively 

quickly when entering or exiting the 

Arm. We anticipate that disturbance to 

CIBWs will manifest in the same 

manner when they are exposed to noise 

during the SFD project: Whales move 

quickly and silently through the area in 

more cohesive groups. We do not 

believe exposure to elevated noise levels 

during transit past the POA has adverse 

effects on reproduction or survival as 

the whales continue to access critical 

foraging grounds north of the POA, and 

tight associations help to mitigate the 

potential for any contraction of 

communication space for a group. We 

also do not anticipate that CIBWs will 

abandon entering or exiting Knik Arm, 

as this is not evident based on previous 

years of monitoring data (e.g., Kendall 

and Cornick, 2015; 61 North 

Environmental, 2021), and the pre-pile 

driving clearance mitigation measure is 

designed to further avoid any potential 

abandonment. Finally, as described 

previously, both telemetry (tagging) and 

acoustic data suggest CIBWs likely stay 

in upper Knik Arm for several days or 

weeks before exiting Knik Arm. 

Specifically, a CIBW instrumented with 

a satellite link time/depth recorder 

entered Knik Arm on August 18th and 

remained in Eagle Bay until September 

12th (Ferrero et al., 2000). Further, a 

recent detailed re-analysis of the 

satellite telemetry data confirms how 

several tagged whales exhibited this 

same movement pattern: Whales entered 

Knik Arm and remained there for 

several days before exiting through 

lower Knik Arm (Shelden et al., 2018). 

This longer-term use of upper Knik Arm 

will avoid repetitive exposures from 

pile driving noise. 

POA proposed and NMFS has 

prescribed mitigation measures to 

minimize exposure to CIBWs, 

specifically, shutting down pile driving 

if CIBWs are observed approaching the 

mouth of Knik Arm, shutting down pile 

driving should a CIBW approach or 

enter the Level B harassment zone, 

stationing PSOs at Point Woronzof and 

Ship Creek, and not vibratory pile 

driving unattenuated battered piles 

during August or September (peak 

CIBW season). These measures are 

designed to ensure CIBWs will not 

abandon critical habitat and exposure to 

pile driving noise will not result in 

adverse impacts on the reproduction or 

survival of any individuals. The 

location of PSOs at Point Woronzof 

allows for detection of CIBWs and 

behavioral observations prior to CIBWs 

entering Knik Arm. Although NMFS 

does not anticipate CIBWs will abandon 

entering Knik Arm in the presence of 

pile driving with the required mitigation 

measures, these PSOs will be integral to 

identifying if CIBWs are potentially 

altering pathways they would otherwise 

take in the absence of pile driving. 

Finally, take by mortality, serious 

injury, or Level A harassment of CIBWs 

is not anticipated or authorized. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the CIBWs 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• Area of exposure will be limited to 

habitat primarily used as a travel 

corridor. Data demonstrates Level B 

harassment manifests as increased swim 

speeds past the POA and tight group 

formations and not through habitat 

abandonment; 

• No critical foraging grounds (e.g., 

Eagle Bay, Eagle River, Susitna Delta) 

will be impacted by pile driving; and 

• While animals could be harassed 

more than once, exposures are not likely 

to exceed more than a few per year for 

any given individual and are not 

expected to occur on sequential days; 

thereby, decreasing the likelihood of 

physiological impacts caused by chronic 

stress or masking. 

We also considered our negligible 

impact analysis with respect to NMFS’ 

technical report released in January 

2020 regarding the abundance and 

status of CIBWs (Shelden and Wade, 

2019). As described in the marine 

mammal section, new analysis indicates 

the CIBW stock is smaller and declining 

faster than previously recognized. While 

this is concerning, NMFS continues to 

believe the taking authorized (allowed 

for the cases where shutdowns cannot 

occur in time to avoid Level B 

harassment take) will not impact the 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals, much less the stock, and 

will thereby have a negligible impact. 

The monitoring measures (four stations 

each equipped with two PSOs 

simultaneously on watch at each 

station) are extensive, such that we find 

it unlikely whales will undetected. The 

mitigation measures reduce noise 

entering the water column (a benefit for 

all marine mammals) through the use of 

an unconfined bubble curtain. Further, 

the exposure risk to CIBWs is greatly 

minimized through the incorporation of 

in-bound and out-bound whale pre-pile 

driving clearance zones. Finally, should 

pile driving be occurring at the same 

time a whale is detected, pile driving 

will shut down prior to its entering the 

Level B harassment zone. All these 

measures, as well as other required 

measures such as soft-starts, greatly 

reduce the risk of animals not accessing 

important foraging areas north of the 

POA, which could result in impacts to 

individual fitness or annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. For these 

reasons, the new status of CIBWs does 

not ultimately change our findings with 

respect to the specified activities. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
50078 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS finds that the total 

marine mammal take from the specified 

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. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. For all stocks, the amount of 

taking is less than one-third of the best 

available population abundance 

estimate (in fact it is less than 9 percent 

for all stocks considered here; Table 9). 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the specified 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 

In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must 

find that the specified activity will not 

have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ 

on the subsistence uses of the affected 

marine mammal species or stocks by 

Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as an impact resulting from a 

specified activity that is likely to reduce 

the availability of the species to a level 

insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by either causing the 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 

hunting areas, directly displacing 

subsistence users, or placing physical 

barriers between the marine mammals 

and the subsistence hunters. An 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ can also 

result from a specified activity that 

cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other 

measures to increase the availability of 

marine mammals to allow subsistence 

needs to be met. 

No subsistence use of CIBWs occurs 

and subsistence harvest of other marine 

mammals in upper Cook Inlet is limited 

to harbor seals. Steller sea lions are rare 

in upper Cook Inlet; therefore, 

subsistence use of this species is not 

common. However, Steller sea lions are 

taken for subsistence use in lower Cook 

Inlet. In 2013 and 2014, the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game 

conducted studies to document the 

harvest and use of wild resources by 

residents of four tribal communities in 

Cook Inlet: Tyonek, Nanwalek, Port 

Graham, and Seldovia (Jones and 

Kostick, 2016). Tyonek is the 

community in closest proximity to Knik 

Arm while the other communities are 

located lower in Cook Inlet. The only 

marine mammal species taken by the 

Tyonek community was harbor seals 

(from the McArthur River Flats north to 

the Beluga River (Jones et al., 2015) 

south of Knik Arm) while communities 

lower in the inlet relied on harbor seals, 

Steller sea lions and sea otters (we note 

the sea otter is under the jurisdiction of 

the USFWS; therefore, it is not a part of 

our analysis). 

The potential impacts from 

harassment on stocks that are harvested 

in Cook Inlet will be limited to minor 

behavioral changes (e.g., increased swim 

speeds, changes in dive time, temporary 

avoidance near the POA, etc.) within the 

vicinity of the POA. Some PTS may 

occur; however, the shift is likely to be 

slight due to the implementation of 

mitigation measures (e.g., shutdown 

zones) and the shift will be limited to 

lower pile driving frequencies which are 

on the lower end of phocid and otariid 

hearing ranges. In summary, any 

impacts to harbor seals will be limited 

to those seals within Knik Arm (outside 

of any hunting area) and the very few 

takes of Steller sea lions in Knik Arm 

will be far removed in time and space 

from any hunting in lower Cook Inlet. 

Finally, we have not received any 

communication from Alaska Natives 

that this project raises concern regarding 

their subsistence use. The POA alerted 

14 tribal organizations and communities 

to the notice of the proposed IHA. No 

tribes commented on or expressed 

concern over subsistence use during the 

public comment period for the proposed 

IHA. 

Based on the description of the 

specified activity, the measures 

described to minimize adverse effects 

on the availability of marine mammals 

for subsistence purposes, and the 

required mitigation and monitoring 

measures, NMFS has determined that 

there will not be an unmitigable adverse 

impact on subsistence uses from the 

POA’s specified activities. 

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 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with the Alaska Region 

Protected Resources Division Office. 

There are two marine mammal 

species (CIBWs and western DPS Steller 

sea lions) with confirmed occurrence in 

the project area that are listed as 

endangered under the ESA. The NMFS 

Alaska Regional Office Protected 

Resources Division issued a BiOp on 

August 9, 2021, under section 7 of the 

ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to the 

POA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA by the NMFS Permits and 

Conservation Division. The BiOp 

concluded that the specified action is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of CIBWs or western DPS 

Steller sea lions, and is not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify CIBW 

critical habitat. There is no critical 

habitat designated for humpback whales 

or Steller sea lions in the action area. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NMFS prepared an EA and analyzed 

the potential impacts to marine 

mammals that will result from the POA 

SFD construction project. This EA was 

made available to the public for review 

during the public comment period of 

the proposed IHA; we did not receive 

any comments from the public relevant 

to the EA. A Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) was signed on August 

10, 2021. A copy of the EA and FONSI 

is available upon online at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to the POA 

or the potential harassment of small 

numbers of six marine mammal species 

incidental to the SFD project in Knit 

Arm, Alaska, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring and 

reporting requirements are followed. 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 50079 

Dated: August 31, 2021. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19187 Filed 9–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

Review and Approval; Discontinuation; 

NOAA Community-Based Restoration 

Program Progress Reports 

AGENCY: National Oceanic & 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice, discontinuation of OMB 

Control Number. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), invites the general public and 

other Federal agencies to comment on 

proposed, and continuing information 

collections, which helps us assess the 

impact of our information collection 

requirements and minimize the public’s 

reporting burden. The purpose of this 

notice is to notify the public that NOAA 

intends to request discontinuation of 

OMB Control Number 0648–0472. The 

information collections under this 

control number are being merged into 

NOAA information collection 0648– 

0718 to improve efficiency and 

consolidate like collections. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

specific questions related to this 

discontinuation should be directed to 

Adrienne Thomas, Adrienne.thomas@

noaa.gov, 240–477–2372. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 8, 

2021, a notice was published in the 

Federal Register (86 FR 30444) seeking 

public comments on NOAA’s request to 

extend information collection 0648– 

0472, NOAA Community-based 

Restoration Program Progress Reports, 

which currently expires December 31, 

2021. 

In the interest of efficiency and 

consolidating similar collections, NOAA 

determined it was appropriate to merge 

the reporting requirements of 0648– 

0472 to OMB Control Number 0648– 

0718, NOAA Financial Assistance 

Performance Progress Reports. NOAA 

will publish a 30-day notice of 

submission for information collection 

0648–0718 that identifies this merge 

request. Once approved by OMB, 

control number 0648–0472 will be 

discontinued. 

Sheleen Dumas, 

Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of 

the Chief Information Officer, Commerce 

Department. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19267 Filed 9–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB155] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Transit 

Protection Program Pier and Support 

Facilities Project at Naval Base Kitsap 

Bangor, Washington 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed modification 

of two incidental harassment 

authorizations; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is proposing to modify 

the incidental harassment 

authorizations (IHAs) that were issued 

to the United States Navy (Navy) on 

September 25, 2020 for the Transit 

Protection Program (TPP) construction, 

due to an elevated harbor seal take rate 

at the nearby Naval Base Kitsap Bangor 

Service Pier Project that was 

unanticipated during the initial analysis 

for these TPP IHAs. NMFS is proposing 

to modify the TPP project IHAs to 

increase authorized take by Level A 

harassment of harbor seal in the Year 1 

IHA, and add Level A harassment take 

of harbor seal to the Year 2 IHA. NMFS 

is also proposing to revise the shutdown 

mitigation provisions for harbor seals in 

the modified IHAs, and adjust the 

effective dates of both IHAs to 

accommodate the Navy’s plans to delay 

the project. The monitoring and 

reporting measures remain the same as 

prescribed in the initial IHAs, and no 

additional take was requested for other 

species. NMFS will consider public 

comments on the requested 

modifications prior to making any final 

decision and agency responses will be 

summarized in the final notice of our 

decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than October 7, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Written 

comments should be submitted via 

email to ITP.Davis@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, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

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/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities 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: 

Leah Davis, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the original 

application and supporting documents 

(including NMFS Federal Register 

notices of the original proposed and 

final authorizations, and the previous 

IHAs), 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 

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 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES