Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Notices 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 AprilSeptember 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 50100 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 proposed to authorized 24 instances of takes, with the instances representing disturbance events within a daythis 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 would 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 would lose the ability to forage for one or more tidal cycles. While Level B harassment behavioral disturbance is authorized, our mitigation measures would 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:40 Jun 14, 2021

Jkt 253001

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, 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 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,
PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

31899

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
61N 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 would 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; 61N 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 would avoid repetitive exposures from pile driving noise.

E:FRFM15JNN2.SGM

15JNN2