12630 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

1See 19 CFR 351.225(o). 

2See Notice of Scope Rulings, 85 FR 77494 

(December 2, 2020). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marcia E. Short, AD/CVD Operations, 

Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

202–482–1560. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Commerce regulations provide that it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

list of scope rulings on a quarterly 

basis.1 Our most recent notification of 

scope rulings was published on 

December 2, 2020.2 This current notice 

covers all scope rulings and anticircumvention determinations made by 

Enforcement and Compliance from 

October 1, 2020 through December 31, 

2020. 

Scope Rulings Made October 1, 2020 

Through December 31, 2020 

People’s Republic of China (China) 

A–570–092: Mattresses From China 

Requestor: Excelligence Learning 

Corporation. The compact crib mattress 

is not covered by the scope of the 

antidumping duty (AD) order on 

mattresses from China because it does 

not meet the scope’s dimensional 

requirements for length or width to be 

considered a youth mattress; October 1, 

2020. 

A–570–112 and C–570–113: Certain 

Collated Steel Staples From China 

Requestor: Sailrite Enterprises, Inc. 

Sailrite’s 80-Series collated stainless 

steel and galvanized steel staples are 

outside of the scope of the AD and 

countervailing duty (CVD) orders 

because they have a nominal diameter 

of 0.028 inches, which falls outside the 

0.0355 and 0.0830 inch scope specified 

in the scope of the orders; October 14, 

2020. 

A–570–899: Certain Artist Canvas From 

China 

Requestor: Permalite, Inc. (Permalite). 

Permalite’s inkjet printable canvas is 

outside the scope of the AD order on 

certain artist canvas from China because 

the priming/coating of the raw woven 

polyester cloth occurs in Thailand; 

October 21, 2020. 

A–570–979 and C–570–980: Crystalline 

Silicon Photovoltaic Cells From China 

Requestor: SunSpark Technology Inc. 

Solar cells and panels/modules 

produced in Vietnam from raw wafers 

imported from China (i.e., wafers that do 

not yet have a p/n junction) are not 

within the scope of the AD and CVD 

orders on solar cells from China; 

October 23, 2020. 

A–570–042 and C–570–043: Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip From China 

Requestor: Concept2, Inc. Flywheel 

Housing Perforated Screens (FHPS), 

imported by Concept2 Inc., are not 

covered by the scope of the AD and CVD 

orders on stainless steel sheet and strip 

from China based on the totality of our 

analysis of the plain language of the 

scope and the criteria set forth under 19 

CFR 351.225(k)(1) and (2); November 

24, 2020. 

A–570–952 and C–570–953: Narrow 

Woven Ribbons From China 

Requestor: Spin Master, Inc. The 

woven polyester ribbons contained 

within ‘‘Cool Maker Hollywood Hair 

Studio’’ role play kit and the ‘‘Cool 

Maker Hollywood Hair Studio Refill 

Pack’’ imported by Spin Master, Inc. are 

within the scope of the AD and CVD 

orders on narrow woven ribbons with 

woven selvedge from China; December 

8, 2020. 

A–570–916 and C–570–917: Laminated 

Woven Sacks From China 

Requestor: HL Packaging Group Inc. 

Two models of reusable shopping bags 

imported by HL Packaging Group Inc. 

are covered by the scope of the AD and 

CVD orders on laminated woven sacks 

from China because they meet the 

physical description identified in the 

scope; December 23, 2020. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the completeness of this 

list of completed scope inquiries and 

anti-circumvention determinations 

made during the period October 1, 2020, 

through December 31, 2020. Contact 

information for the submission of such 

comment is provided above. This notice 

is published in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.225(o). 

Dated: February 26, 2021. 

James Maeder, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04478 Filed 3–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RIN 0648–XA858] 

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental 

to Specific Activities; Taking of Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Pile Driving and 

Removal Activities During 

Construction of the Hoonah Marine 

Industrial Center Cargo Dock Project, 

Hoonah, Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the City of Hoonah (City) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to pile driving and removal 

activities during construction upgrades 

of a cargo dock at the city-owned 

Hoonah Marine Industrial Center 

(HMIC) in Port Frederick Inlet on 

Chichagof Island in Hoonah, Alaska. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to incidentally take 

marine mammals during the specified 

activities. NMFS is also requesting 

comments on a possible one-year 

renewal that could be issued under 

certain circumstances and if all 

requirements are met, as described in 

Request for Public Comments at the end 

of this notice. NMFS will consider 

public comments prior to making any 

final decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorizations and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than April 5, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service and should be 

sent by electronic mail to ITP.Egger@

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 must not exceed a 

25-megabyte file size, including all 

attachments. All comments received are 

a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted online at https:// 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 12631 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

Stephanie Egger, 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, 

or for anyone who is unable to comment 

via electronic mail, please call the 

contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

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

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

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. This action 

is consistent with categories of activities 

identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 

(IHAs with no anticipated serious injury 

or mortality) of the Companion Manual 

for NOAA Administrative Order 216– 

6A, which do not individually or 

cumulatively have the potential for 

significant impacts on the quality of the 

human environment and for which we 

have not identified any extraordinary 

circumstances that would preclude this 

categorical exclusion. Accordingly, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the issuance of the proposed IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On October 28, 2020 NMFS received 

a request from the City for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to pile 

driving and removal during 

construction upgrades of a cargo dock at 

the HMIC in Port Frederick Inlet on 

Chichagof Island in Hoonah, Alaska. 

The application was deemed adequate 

and complete on February 2, 2021. The 

applicant’s request is for take of nine 

species of marine mammals by Level B 

harassment and five species by Level A 

harassment. Neither the City nor NMFS 

expects serious injury or mortality to 

result from this activity and, therefore, 

an IHA is appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The purpose of this project is to make 

upgrades to the HMIC. Upgrades to the 

site include the installation of three 

breasting dolphins, a sheet pile bulk 

cargo dock, fender piles, and a catwalk. 

The proposed upgrades are needed to 

continue safely accommodating barges 

and other vessels delivering essential 

goods to the City. 

The City is only accessible by air and 

water. Small amounts of cargo are 

transported into the community by 

plane; however, the majority is 

delivered weekly by barges from April 

through September (AML 2020). When 

weather permits, front load barges 

utilize a gravel landing located next to 

the existing City dock. The gravel 

landing provides a makeshift location to 

unload heavy cargo using a ramp and 

forklifts. During winter months, 

inclement weather events, and for more 

frequent deliveries, locals utilizes the 

Alaska Marine Highway System 

(AMHS) ferries and the local ferry 

terminal. 

The existing gravel landing at HMIC 

was not originally designed for barges 

and requires an additional ramp and 

favorable weather conditions to safely 

unload cargo. Even during favorable 

weather, the space and depth places the 

barges and crew at risk, and the landing 

cannot safely accommodate the fleet of 

barges delivering to Hoonah. With the 

decrease in AMHS ferry service (due to 

State funding cuts) it is imperative that 

a reliable way to receive goods in the 

City is available. 

The HMIC cargo dock is one 

component of the HMIC, which is a 

phased approach to enhance the 

Hoonah waterfront and to provide 

infrastructure to support the cruise ship 

industry and various other maritime 

industries (see Figure 4 of the 

application). The purpose of HMIC 

cargo dock project is to make 

improvements to the existing gravel 

landing to enable barges to land during 

all conditions. The project is needed 

because the existing facility cannot 

provide consistent and safe berthing for 

barges. Once the project is completed, 

the City will be able to reliably receive 

goods year-round and in all weather 

conditions. Currently, Alaska Marine 

Line barges offers seasonal ramp barge 

service into the City; however, this 

project will allow for year-round, 

weekly deliveries by ocean going barges. 

Dates and Duration 

The applicant is requesting an IHA to 

conduct pile driving and removal over 

110 working days (not necessarily 

consecutive) beginning in spring and 

extending through the summer of 2021 

as needed. Approximately 50 days of 

vibratory and 28 days of impact 

hammering will occur. An additional 35 

days of drilling/down-the-hole (DTH) 

will occur to stabilize the piles. These 

are discussed in further detail below. 

The total construction duration 

accounts for the time required to 

mobilize materials and resources and 

construct the project. The duration also 

accounts for potential delays in material 

deliveries, equipment maintenance, 

inclement weather, and shutdowns that 

may occur to prevent impacts to marine 

mammals. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12632 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

Specific Geographic Region 

The proposed project at the HMIC is 

located in Port Frederick Inlet, 

approximately 0.8 kilometers (km) (0.5 

miles) northwest of downtown Hoonah 

0.24 km (0.15 miles) east of the State of 

Alaska Ferry Terminal in Southeast 

Alaska; T43S, R61E, S20, Copper River 

Meridian, USGS Quadrangle Juneau A5 

NE; latitude 58.11549 and longitude 

¥135.4547 (see Figure 1 below and see 

also Figure 1, 2, 3, and Appendix A, 

Sheet 1 of the application). 

Port Frederick is a 24-km inlet that 

dips into northeast Chichagof Island 

from Icy Strait, leading to Neka Bay and 

Salt Lake Bay. The inlet varies between 

4 and almost 6 km wide with a depth 

of up to 150 meters (m) (see Figure 6 of 

the application). Near the proposed 

project, the inlet is 12 to 28 m deep 

(NOAA 2018). NMFS’s ShoreZone 

Mapper details the proposed project site 

as a semi-protected/partially mobile/ 

sediment or rock and sediment habitat 

class with gravel beaches environmental 

sensitivity index (NMFS 2020). 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

The project would involve installing 

breasting dolphins, a solid fill sheet pile 

dock, and fender. 

Construction of the three breasting 

dolphins would include: 

D Installation of 10 temporary 30-inch 

(in) diameter steel piles as templates 

to guide proper installation of 

permanent piles (these piles would be 

removed prior to project completion); 

and 

D Installation of 9 permanent 36-in 

diameter steel piles 

Æ Breasting Dolphin 1—(1) vertical 

36-in steel pile and (2) 36-in batter 

steel piles 

Æ Breasting Dolphin 2—(1) vertical 

36-in steel pile and (2) 36-in batter 

steel pile 

Æ Breasting Dolphin 3—(1) vertical 

36-in steel pile and (2) 36-in batter 

steel pile 

Construction of the bulk cargo dock 

would include (see Figure 4; Appendix 

A: Sheets 3–4 of the application): 

D Installation of 20 temporary 30-in 

steel piles as templates to guide 

proper installation of permanent Hpiles (these piles would be removed 

prior to project completion); 

D Installation of 12 permanent H-piles 

to guide proper installation of sheets; 

D Installation of 500 permanent sheet 

piles (130 linear feet); and 

D Filling the area within sheet piles 

with 9,600 cubic yards of fill 

Installation of the fender piles would 

include (see Figure 4; Appendix A: 

Sheet 3 of the application): 

D Installation of 20 temporary 30-in 

steel piles as templates to guide 

proper installation of permanent 

fender piles (these piles would be 

removed prior to project completion); 

and 

D Installation of 6 permanent 20-in 

fender piles in front of sheet pile 

cargo dock 

Construction Sequence 

In-water construction of the HMIC 

cargo dock components is expected to 

occur via the following sequence: 

(1) Vibrate twenty 30-in temporary 

piles to use as a guide to install H-piles 

for the cargo dock. 

(2) Vibrate and impact 12 H-piles to 

depth to hold the sheets into place. 

(3) Remove the temporary piles. 

(4) Using the H-piles as a guide, 

vibrate and impact 500 sheets into place 

to create a barrier prior to placing fill. 

(5) Using an excavator place 9,600 

cubic yards of fill within the newly 

constructed cargo dock frame. 

After the completion of the cargo 

dock, the barge will move over to install 

the six fender piles at the existing city 

dock face using the following sequence: 

(1) Vibrate 20 temporary 30-in piles a 

minimum of ten feet into bedrock to 

create a template to guide installation of 

the permanent piles. 

(2) Weld a frame around the 

temporary piles. 

(3) Within the frame: Vibrate, impact, 

and socket six permanent 20-in fender 

piles into place. 

(4) Remove the frame and temporary 

piles. 

(5) Perform this sequence at the other 

six fender pile locations. 

The three breasting dolphins will be 

constructed as the barge moves off shore 

and will install temporary and 

permanent piles as follows: 

(1) Vibrate 10 temporary 30-in piles a 

minimum of ten feet into bedrock to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICESEN04MR21.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 12633 

create a template to guide installation of 

the permanent piles. 

(2) Weld a frame around the 

temporary piles. 

(3) Within the frame: Vibrate, impact, 

and socket one vertical and two batter 

36-in pile into place. 

(4) Remove the frame and temporary 

piles. 

(5) Perform this sequence at the 

second and third location working 

farther from the shoreline. 

Please see Table 1 below for the 

specific amount of time required to 

install and remove piles. 

Installation and Removal of Temporary 

(Template) Piles 

Temporary 30-in steel piles would be 

installed and removed using a vibratory 

hammer (Table 1). 

Installation of Permanent Piles 

The permanent H-piles, 20-in, and 36- 

in piles would be installed through sand 

and gravel with a vibratory hammer 

until advancement stops. Then, the pile 

will be driven to depth with an impact 

hammer. If design tip elevation is still 

not achieved, the contractor will utilize 

a drill to secure the pile. (Note: This 

DTH method can also be referred to as 

DTH drilling. It is referred to as DTH 

throughout this document.) Pile depths 

are expected to be approximately 40 to 

70 feet (ft) below the mudline and 

estimated to take approximately 1.25– 

10.5 hours (hrs) per pile to complete. 

The permanent sheets would be 

installed using a vibratory hammer and 

impact hammer following the same 

criteria as above to achieve design tip 

elevation (Table 1). It is expected that it 

will take around 20 minutes to install 

each sheet. 

TABLE 1—PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL ACTIVITIES

Project component 

Temporary pile 

installation 

Temporary pile 

removal 

Permanent pile installation 

Vibratory Hammer 

Diameter of Steel Pile (inches) ........ 30 ......................... 30 ......................... 36 ......................... H-piles .................. Sheets .................. 20. 

# of Piles .......................................... 50 ......................... 50 ......................... 9 ........................... 12 ......................... 500 (130lf) ............ 6. 

Max # Piles Vibrated per Day .......... 4 ........................... 4 ........................... 4 ........................... 4 ........................... 30 sheets .............. 3. 

Vibratory Time per Pile (min) ........... 15 ......................... 15 ......................... 15 ......................... 15 ......................... 15 ......................... 15. 

Vibratory Time per Day (min) .......... 60 ......................... 60 ......................... 60 ......................... 60 ......................... 450 (7.5 hr) .......... 45. 

Number of Days ............................... 12.5 ...................... 12.5 ...................... 2.25 ...................... 3 ........................... 17 ......................... 2. 

Vibratory Time Total ......................... 12 hrs 30 mins ..... 12 hrs 30 mins ..... 2 hr 15 mins ......... 3 hrs ..................... 292 hrs ................. 1 hr 30 min. 

Impact Hammer 

Diameter of Steel Pile (inches) ........ ............................... ............................... 36 ......................... H-piles .................. Sheets .................. 20. 

# of Piles .......................................... ............................... ............................... 9 ........................... 12 ......................... 500 (130lf) ............ 6. 

Max # Piles Impacted per Day ........ ............................... ............................... 2 ........................... 5 ........................... 5 sheets ................ 2. 

Impact Time per Pile (min) .............. ............................... ............................... 15 ......................... 5 ........................... 5 ........................... 5. 

Impact Time per Day (min) .............. ............................... ............................... 30 ......................... 20 ......................... 25 ......................... 10. 

Number of Days ............................... ............................... ............................... 4.5 day ................. 3 ........................... 17 days ................. 3. 

Impact Time Total ............................ ............................... ............................... 2 hr 15 mins ......... 1 hr ....................... 1 hr 30 mins ......... 30 min. 

Drilling/DTH 

Diameter of Steel Pile (inches) ........ ............................... ............................... 36 ......................... H-Piles .................. ............................... 20. 

Total Quantity ................................... ............................... ............................... 9 ........................... 12 ......................... ............................... 6. 

Anchor Diameter .............................. ............................... ............................... 33 ......................... 20 ......................... ............................... 20. 

Max # Piles Anchored per Day ........ ............................... ............................... 2 ........................... 2 ........................... ............................... 2. 

Time per Pile .................................... ............................... ............................... 5–10 hrs ............... 3–4 hrs ................. ............................... 1 hr. 

Actual Time Spent Driving per Pile .. ............................... ............................... 60 min .................. 60 min .................. ............................... 60 min. 

Time per Day ................................... ............................... ............................... 12 hrs (max) ......... 12 hrs (max) ......... ............................... 12 hrs (max). 

Actual Time Spent Driving per Day ............................... ............................... 72 mins (1 hr 12 

mins; max).

2 hrs (max) ........... ............................... 1 hr (max). 

Blows per Pile .................................. ............................... ............................... 27,000–54,000 ..... 20,000 .................. ............................... 15,000. 

Number of Days ............................... ............................... ............................... 15 days ................. 17 days ................. ............................... 3 days. 

Drilling Total Time ............................ ............................... ............................... 45–90 hours ......... 20 hours ............... ............................... 4 hours. 

In addition to the activities described 

above, the proposed action will involve 

other in-water construction and heavy 

machinery activities. Other types of inwater work including with heavy 

machinery will occur using standard 

barges, tug boats, and positioning piles 

on the substrate via a crane (i.e., 

‘‘stabbing the pile’’). Workers will be 

transported from shore to the barge 

work platform by a 7.62 m (25 ft) skiff 

with a 125–250 horsepower motor. The 

travel distance will be less than 30.5 m 

(100 ft). There could be multiple shoreto-barge trips during the day; however, 

the area of travel will be relatively small 

and close to shore. We do not expect 

any of these other in-water construction 

and heavy machinery activities to take 

marine mammals. Therefore, these other 

in-water construction and heavy 

machinery activities will not be 

discussed further. 

For further details on the proposed 

action and project components, please 

refer to Section 1.2 of the application. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessment-reports) and 

more general information about these 

species (e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12634 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

website (https://

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

Table 2 lists all species 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 ESA and potential 

biological removal (PBR), where known. 

Tagged sperm whales have been tracked 

within the Gulf of Alaska, and multiple 

whales have been tracked in Chatham 

Strait, in Icy Strait, and in the action 

area in 2014 and 2015 (http://

seaswap.info/whaletrackerAccessed4/ 

15/19). However, the known sperm 

whale habitat (these shelf-edge/slope 

waters of the Gulf of Alaska) are far 

outside of the action area. It is unlikely 

that sperm whales will occur in the 

action area where pile driving activities 

will occur because they are generally 

found in far deeper waters. Therefore, 

sperm whales are not being proposed for 

take authorization and not discussed 

further. For taxonomy, we follow 

Committee on Taxonomy (2020). PBR is 

defined by the MMPA as the maximum 

number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that may be removed 

from a marine mammal stock while 

allowing that stock to reach or maintain 

its optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’ SARs). While no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are included here as gross indicators of 

the status of the species and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’s 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’s U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs 

(Carretta et al., 2020; Muto et al., 2020). 

All MMPA stock information presented 

in Table 2 is the most recent available 

at the time of publication and is 

available in the 2019 SARs (Caretta et 

al., 2020; Muto et al., 2020) and draft 

2020 SARs (available online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/draftmarine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports). 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL OCCURRENCE IN THE PROJECT AREA

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

Gray Whale ...................... Eschrichtius robustus ............. Eastern N Pacific ................... -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 2016) .. 801 131 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Minke Whale .................... Balaenoptera acutorostrata .... Alaska ..................................... -, -, N N/A (see SAR, N/A, see SAR) UND 0 

Humpback Whale ............. Megaptera novaeangliae ........ Central N Pacific (Hawaii and 

Mexico DPS).

-, -, Y 10,103 (0.3, 7,891, 2006) ...... 83 26 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Killer Whale ...................... Orcinus orca ........................... Alaska Resident ..................... -, -, N 2,347 (N/A, 2347, 2012) ........ 24 1 

Northern Resident .................. -, -, N 302 (N/A, 302, 2018) ............. 2.2 0.2 

West Coast Transient ............ -, -, N 349 (na/349; 2018) ................. 3.5 0.4 

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

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Dall’s Porpoise ................. Phocoenoides dalli ................. AK ........................................... -, -, N 83,400 (0.097, N/A, 1991) ..... UND 38 

Harbor Porpoise ............... Phocoena phocoena .............. Southeast Alaska ................... -, -, Y see SAR (see SAR, see SAR, 

2012).

see SAR 34 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (Eared Seals 

and Sea Lions): 

Steller Sea Lion ................ Eumetopias jubatus ................ Western DPS ......................... E, D, Y 52,932 (see SAR, 52,932, 

2019).

318 255 

Eastern DPS .......................... T, D, Y 43,201 a (see SAR, 43,201, 

2017).

2592 112 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Harbor Seal ...................... Phoca vitulina ......................... Glacier Bay/Icy Strait ............. -, -, N 7,455 (see SAR, 6,680, 2017) 120 104 

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 [explain if this is the case]. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated 

mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the proposed survey areas are 

included in Table 2. In addition, the 

Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris 

kenyoni) may be found in the project 

area. However, sea otters are managed 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and are not considered further in this 

document. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 12635 

Minke Whale 

In the North Pacific Ocean, minke 

whales occur from the Bering and 

Chukchi seas south to near the Equator 

(Leatherwood et al., 1982). In the 

northern part of their range, minke 

whales are believed to be migratory, 

whereas, they appear to establish home 

ranges in the inland waters of 

Washington and along central California 

(Dorsey et al. 1990). Minke whales are 

observed in Alaska’s nearshore waters 

during the summer months (National 

Park Service (NPS) 2018). Minke whales 

are usually sighted individually or in 

small groups of 2–3, but there are 

reports of loose aggregations of 

hundreds of animals (NMFS 2018d). 

Minke whales are rare in the action area, 

but they could be encountered. During 

the construction of the first Icy Strait 

cruise ship berth, a single minke was 

observed during the 135-day monitoring 

period (June 2015 through January 2016) 

(BergerABAM 2016). During Berth II 

construction there was also only one 

reported sighting of a minke whale 

throughout the duration of monitoring 

(June 2019–October 2019; SolsticeAK 

2020). 

No abundance estimates have been 

made for the number of minke whales 

in the entire North Pacific. However, 

some information is available on the 

numbers of minke whales in some areas 

of Alaska. Line-transect surveys were 

conducted in shelf and nearshore waters 

(within 30–45 nautical miles of land) in 

2001–2003 from the Kenai Fjords in the 

Gulf of Alaska to the central Aleutian 

Islands. Minke whale abundance was 

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

this area (Zerbini et al., 2006). This 

estimate has also not been corrected for 

animals missed on the trackline. The 

majority of the sightings were in the 

Aleutian Islands, rather than in the Gulf 

of Alaska, and in water shallower than 

200 m. So few minke whales were seen 

during three offshore Gulf of Alaska 

surveys for cetaceans in 2009, 2013, and 

2015 that a population estimate for this 

species in this area could not be 

determined (Rone et al., 2017). 

Humpback Whale 

The humpback whale is distributed 

worldwide in all ocean basins and a 

broad geographical range from tropical 

to temperate waters in the Northern 

Hemisphere and from tropical to nearice-edge waters in the Southern 

Hemisphere. The humpback whales that 

forage throughout British Colombia and 

Southeast Alaska undertake seasonal 

migrations from their tropical calving 

and breeding grounds in winter to their 

high-latitude feeding grounds in 

summer. They may be seen at any time 

of year in Alaska, but most animals 

winter in temperate or tropical waters 

near Hawaii. In the spring, the animals 

migrate back to Alaska where food is 

abundant. The Central North Pacific 

stock of humpback whales are found in 

the waters of Southeast Alaska and 

consist of two distinct population 

segments (DPSs) listed under the ESA, 

the Hawaii DPS and the Mexico DPS. 

Within Southeast Alaska, humpback 

whales are found throughout all major 

waterways and in a variety of habitats, 

including open-ocean entrances, openstrait environments, near-shore waters, 

area with strong tidal currents, and 

secluded bays and inlets. They tend to 

concentrate in several areas, including 

northern Southeast Alaska. Patterns of 

occurrence likely follow the spatial and 

temporal changes in prey abundance 

and distribution with humpback whales 

adjusting their foraging locations to 

areas of high prey density (Clapham 

2000). 

Humpback whales may be found in 

and around Chichagof Island, Icy Strait, 

and Port Frederick Inlet at any given 

time. While many humpback whales 

migrate to tropical calving and breeding 

grounds in winter, they have been 

observed in Southeast Alaska in all 

months of the year (Bettridge et al., 

2015). Diet for humpback whales in the 

Glacier Bay/Icy Strait area mainly 

consists of small schooling fish (capelin, 

juvenile walleye pollock, sand lance, 

and Pacific herring) rather than 

euphausiids (krill). They migrate to the 

northern reaches of Southeast Alaska 

(Glacier Bay) during spring and early 

summer following these fish and then 

move south towards Stephens Passage 

in early fall to feed on krill, passing the 

project area on the way (Krieger and 

Wing 1986). Over 32 years of humpback 

whale monitoring in the Glacier Bay/Icy 

Strait area reveals a substantial decline 

in population since 2014; a total of 164 

individual whales were documented in 

2016 during surveys conducted from 

June-August, making it the lowest count 

since 2008 (Neilson et al., 2017). 

During construction of the first Icy 

Strait cruise ship berth from June 2015 

through January 2016, humpback 

whales were observed in the action area 

on 84 of the 135 days of monitoring; 

most often in September and October. 

Up to 18 humpback sightings were 

reported on a single day (October 2, 

2015), and a total of 226 Level B 

harassments were recorded during 

project construction (June 2015 through 

January 2016) (BergerABAM 2016). 

Additionally, during construction of Icy 

Strait cruise ship Berth II in 2019, 

humpback whales were observed in the 

action area on 45 of the 51 days of 

monitoring; most often in July and 

September. Up to 24 humpback 

sightings were reported on a single day 

(July 30, 2019) during project 

construction (SolsticeAK 2020). In the 

project vicinity, humpback whales 

typically occur in groups of 1–2 

animals, with an estimated maximum 

group size of 8 animals. 

On October 9, 2019, a proposed rule 

to designate critical habitat for 

humpback whales was published in the 

Federal Register (84 FR 54354). 

Proposed critical habitat for Mexico DPS 

humpback whales was divided into ten 

units and assigned a conservation rating 

based upon available data for the unit. 

Unit 10 encompasses Southeast Alaska, 

including Port Frederick and Icy Strait. 

The area is of medium conservation 

importance on a scale from very low to 

very high. 

Gray Whale 

Gray whales are found exclusively in 

the North Pacific Ocean. The Eastern 

North Pacific stock of gray whales 

inhabit the Chukchi, Beaufort, and 

Bering Seas in northern Alaska in the 

summer and fall and California and 

Mexico in the winter months, with a 

migration route along the coastal waters 

of Southeast Alaska. Gray whales have 

also been observed feeding in waters off 

Southeast Alaska during the summer 

(NMFS 2018e). 

The migration pattern of gray whales 

appears to follow a route along the 

western coast of Southeast Alaska, 

traveling northward from British 

Columbia through Hecate Strait and 

Dixon Entrance, passing the west coast 

of Chichagof Island from late March to 

May (Jones et al. 1984, Ford et al. 2013). 

Since the project area is on the east 

coast of Chichagof Island it is less likely 

there will be gray whales sighted during 

project construction; however, the 

possibility exists. 

During the 2016 construction of the 

first cruise ship terminal at Icy Strait 

Point and 2019 construction of cruise 

ship Berth II, no gray whales were seen 

monitoring periods (BergerABAM 2016; 

SolsticeAK 2020). 

Killer Whale 

Killer whales have been observed in 

all oceans and seas of the world, but the 

highest densities occur in colder and 

more productive waters found at high 

latitudes. Killer whales are found 

throughout the North Pacific and occur 

along the entire Alaska coast, in British 

Columbia and Washington inland 

waterways, and along the outer coasts of 

Washington, Oregon, and California 

(NMFS 2018f). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12636 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

The Alaska Resident stock occurs 

from Southeast Alaska to the Aleutian 

Islands and Bering Sea. The Northern 

Resident stock occurs from Washington 

State through part of Southeast Alaska; 

and the West Coast Transient stock 

occurs from California through 

Southeast Alaska (Muto et al., 2018) and 

are thought to occur frequently in 

Southeast Alaska (Straley 2017). 

Transient killer whales can pass 

through the waters surrounding 

Chichagof Island, in Icy Strait and 

Glacier Bay, feeding on marine 

mammals. Because of their transient 

nature, it is difficult to predict when 

they will be present in the area. Whales 

from the Alaska Resident stock and the 

Northern Resident stock are thought to 

primarily feed on fish. Like the transient 

killer whales, they can pass through Icy 

Strait at any given time (North Gulf 

Oceanic Society 2018). 

Killer whales were observed on 11 

days during construction of the first Icy 

Strait cruise ship berth during the135- 

day monitoring period (June 2015 

through January 2016). Killer whales 

were observed a few times a month. 

Usually a singular animal was observed, 

but a group containing 8 individuals 

was seen in the action area on one 

occasion, for a total of 24 animals 

observed during in-water work 

(BergerABAM 2016). During 

construction of the second Icy Strait 

cruise ship Berth II in 2019 (51 days), 

killer whales were observed on 8 days. 

Usually a single animal or pairs were 

observed, but a group containing 5 

individuals was seen in the action area 

on one occasion. A total of 20 animals 

observed during in-water work on Berth 

II (SolsticeAK 2020). 

Pacific White-Sided Dolphin 

Pacific white-sided dolphins are a 

pelagic species. They are found 

throughout the temperate North Pacific 

Ocean, north of the coasts of Japan and 

Baja California, Mexico (Muto et al., 

2018). They are most common between 

the latitudes of 38° North and 47° North 

(from California to Washington). The 

distribution and abundance of Pacific 

white-sided dolphins may be affected by 

large-scale oceanographic occurrences, 

such as El Nin ̃ o, and by underwater 

acoustic deterrent devices (NPS 2018a). 

No Pacific white-sided dolphins were 

observed during construction of the first 

cruise ship berth during the135-day 

monitoring period (June 2015 through 

January 2016) (BergerABAM 2016). 

However, a pod of two Pacific whitesided dolphins were observed during 

construction of the second cruise ship 

Berth II (June 2019 through October 

2019) (SolsticeAK 2020). They are rare 

in the action area, likely because they 

are pelagic and prefer more open water 

habitats than are found in Icy Strait and 

Port Frederick Inlet. Pacific white-sided 

dolphins have been observed in Alaska 

waters in groups ranging from 20 to 164 

animals, with the sighting of 164 

animals occurring in Southeast Alaska 

near Dixon Entrance (Muto et al., 2018). 

Dall’s Porpoise 

Dall’s porpoises are widely 

distributed across the entire North 

Pacific Ocean. They show some 

migration patterns, inshore and offshore 

and north and south, based on 

morphology and type, geography, and 

seasonality (Muto et al., 2018). They are 

common in most of the larger, deeper 

channels in Southeast Alaska and are 

rare in most narrow waterways, 

especially those that are relatively 

shallow and/or with no outlets 

(Jefferson et al., 2019). In Southeast 

Alaska, abundance varies with season. 

Jefferson et al. (2019) recently 

published a report with survey data 

spanning from 1991 to 2012 that studied 

Dall’s porpoise density and abundance 

in Southeast Alaska. They found Dall’s 

porpoise were most abundant in spring, 

observed with lower numbers in 

summer, and lowest in fall. Surveys 

found Dall’s porpoise to be common in 

Icy Strait and sporadic with very low 

densities in Port Frederick (Jefferson et 

al., 2019). During a 16-year survey of 

cetaceans in Southeast Alaska, Dall’s 

porpoises were commonly observed 

during spring, summer, and fall in the 

nearshore waters of Icy Strait (Dahlheim 

et al., 2009). Dall’s porpoises were 

observed on 2 days during the 135-day 

monitoring period (June 2015 through 

January 2016) of the construction of the 

first cruise ship berth (BergerABAM 

2016). Both were single individuals 

transiting within the waters of Port 

Frederick in the vicinity of Halibut 

Island. During the second cruise ship 

Berth II construction a total of 21 Dall’s 

porpoises were observed on 8 days 

(SolsticeAK 2020). Dall’s porpoises 

generally occur in groups from 2–12 

individuals (NMFS 2018g). 

Harbor Porpoise 

In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, 

the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska 

harbor porpoise stocks range from Point 

Barrow, along the Alaska coast, and the 

west coast of North America to Point 

Conception, California. The Southeast 

Alaska stock ranges from Cape Suckling, 

Alaska to the northern border of British 

Columbia. Within the inland waters of 

Southeast Alaska, harbor porpoises’ 

distribution is clustered with greatest 

densities observed in the Glacier Bay/ 

Icy Strait region and near Zarembo and 

Wrangell Islands and the adjacent 

waters of Sumner Strait (Dahlheim et 

al., 2015). Harbor porpoises also were 

observed primarily between June and 

September during construction of the 

Hoonah Berth I cruise ship terminal 

project. Harbor porpoises were observed 

on 19 days during the 135-day 

monitoring period (June 2015 through 

January 2016) (BergerABAM 2016) and 

seen either singularly or in groups from 

two to four animals. During the test pile 

program conducted at the Berth II 

project site in May 2018, eight harbor 

porpoises where observed over a 7-hour 

period (SolsticeAK 2018). 

There is no official stock abundance 

associated with the SARs for harbor 

porpoise. Both aerial and vessel based 

surveys have been conducted for this 

species. Aerial surveys of this stock 

were conducted in June and July 1997 

and resulted in an observed abundance 

estimate of 3,766 harbor porpoise 

(Hobbs and Waite 2010) and the surveys 

included a subset of smaller bays and 

inlets. Correction factors for observer 

perception bias and porpoise 

availability at the surface were used to 

develop an estimated corrected 

abundance of 11,146 harbor porpoise in 

the coastal and inside waters of 

Southeast Alaska (Hobbs and Waite 

2010). Vessel based spanning the 22- 

year study (1991–2012) found the 

relative abundance of harbor porpoise 

varied in the inland waters of Southeast 

Alaska. Abundance estimated in 1991– 

1993 (N = 1,076; percent CI = 910– 

1,272) was higher than the estimate 

obtained for 2006–2007 (N = 604; 95 

percent CI = 468–780) but comparable to 

the estimate for 2010–2012 (N = 975; 95 

percent CI = 857–1,109; Dahlheim et al., 

2015). These estimates assume the 

probability of detection directly on the 

trackline to be unity (g(0) = 1) because 

estimates of g(0) could not be computed 

for these surveys. Therefore, these 

abundance estimates may be biased low 

to an unknown degree. A range of 

possible g(0) values for harbor porpoise 

vessel surveys in other regions is 0.5– 

0.8 (Barlow 1988, Palka 1995), 

suggesting that as much as 50 percent of 

the porpoise can be missed, even by 

experienced observers. 

Further, other vessel based survey 

data (2010–2012) for the inland waters 

of Southeast Alaska, calculated 

abundance estimates for the 

concentrations of harbor porpoise in the 

northern and southern regions of the 

inland waters (Dahlheim et al. 2015). 

The resulting abundance estimates are 

398 harbor porpoise (CV = 0.12) in the 

northern inland waters (including Cross 

Sound, Icy Strait, Glacier Bay, Lynn 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 12637 

Canal, Stephens Passage, and Chatham 

Strait) and 577 harbor porpoise (CV = 

0.14) in the southern inland waters 

(including Frederick Sound, Sumner 

Strait, Wrangell and Zarembo Islands, 

and Clarence Strait as far south as 

Ketchikan). Because these abundance 

estimates have not been corrected for 

g(0), these estimates are likely 

underestimates. 

The vessel based surveys are not 

complete coverage of harbor porpoise 

habitat and not corrected for bias and 

likely underestimate the abundance. 

Whereas, the aerial survey in 1997, 

although outdated, had better coverage 

of the range and is likely to be more of 

an accurate representation of the stock 

abundance (11,146 harbor porpoise) in 

the coastal and inside waters of 

Southeast Alaska. 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals range from Baja 

California north along the west coasts of 

Washington, Oregon, California, British 

Columbia, and Southeast Alaska; west 

through the Gulf of Alaska, Prince 

William Sound, and the Aleutian 

Islands; and north in the Bering Sea to 

Cape Newenham and the Pribilof 

Islands. They haul out on rocks, reefs, 

beaches, and drifting glacial ice and 

feed in marine, estuarine, and 

occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals 

are generally non-migratory and, with 

local movements associated with such 

factors as tide, weather, season, food 

availability and reproduction. 

Distribution of the Glacier Bay/Icy 

Strait stock, the only stock considered 

in this application, ranges along the 

coast from Cape Fairweather and Glacier 

Bay south through Icy Strait to Tenakee 

Inlet on Chichagof Island (Muto et al., 

2018). 

The Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock of 

harbor seals are common residents of 

the action area and can occur on any 

given day in the area, although they 

tend to be more abundant during the fall 

months (Womble and Gende 2013). A 

total of 63 harbor seals were seen during 

19 days of the 135-day monitoring 

period (June 2015 through January 2016) 

(BergerABAM 2016), while none were 

seen during the 2018 test pile program 

(SolsticeAK 2018). Harbor seals were 

primarily observed in summer and early 

fall (June to September). Harbor seals 

were seen singulary and in groups of 

two or more, but on one occasion, 22 

individuals were observed hauled out 

on Halibut Rock, across Port Frederick 

approximately 2,414 m (1.5 miles) from 

the location of pile installation activity 

(BergerABAM 2016). In 2019, a total of 

33 harbor seals were seen during the 

Berth II project (SolsticeAK 2020). 

There are two known harbor seal 

haulouts within the project area. 

According to the AFSC list of harbor 

seal haulout locations, the closest listed 

haulout (id 1,349: Name CF39A) is 

located in Port Frederick, approximately 

3,400 m west of the project area (AFSC 

2018). The second haulout (id: 8; name: 

CE79A) is approximately 10,200 meters 

south of the project area (AFSC 2020). 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions range along the North 

Pacific Rim from northern Japan to 

California, with centers of abundance in 

the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands 

(Loughlin et al., 1984). 

Of the two Steller sea lion 

populations in Alaska, the Eastern DPS 

includes sea lions born on rookeries 

from California north through Southeast 

Alaska and the Western DPS includes 

those animals born on rookeries from 

Prince William Sound westward, with 

an eastern boundary set at 144° W 

(NMFS 2018h). Both WDPS and EDPS 

Steller sea lions are considered in this 

application because the WDPS are 

common within the geographic area 

under consideration (north of Summer 

Strait) (Fritz et al., 2013, NMFS 2013). 

Steller sea lions are not known to 

migrate annually, but individuals may 

widely disperse outside of the breeding 

season (late-May to early-July), leading 

to intermixing of stocks (Jemison et al. 

2013; Allen and Angliss 2015). 

Steller sea lions are common in the 

inside waters of Southeast Alaska. They 

are residents of the project vicinity and 

are common year-round in the action 

area, moving their haulouts based on 

seasonal concentrations of prey from 

exposed rookeries nearer the open 

Pacific Ocean during the summer to 

more protected sites in the winter 

(Alaska Department of Fish & Game 

(ADF&G) 2018). During the construction 

of the existing Icy Strait cruise ship 

berth a total of 180 Steller sea lions were 

observed on 47 days of the 135 

monitoring days, amounting to an 

average of 1.3 sightings per day 

(BergerABAM 2016). Steller sea lions 

were frequently observed in groups of 

two or more individuals, but lone 

individuals were also observed regularly 

(BergerABAM 2016). During a test pile 

program performed at the project 

location by the Hoonah Cruise Ship 

Dock Company in May 2018, a total of 

15 Steller sea lions were seen over the 

course of 7 hours in one day 

(SolsticeAK 2018). During construction 

of Berth II, a total of 197 Steller sea lion 

sightings over 42 days in 2019 were 

reported, amounting to an average of 4.6 

sightings per day (SolsticeAK2020). 

They can occur in groups of 1–10 

animals, but may congregate in larger 

groups near rookeries and haulouts 

(NMFS 2018h). No documented 

rookeries or haulouts are near the 

project area. 

Critical habitat has been defined in 

Southeast Alaska at major haulouts and 

major rookeries (50 CFR 226.202). The 

nearest rookery is on the White Sisters 

Islands near Sitka and the nearest major 

haulouts are at Benjamin Island, Cape 

Cross, and Graves Rocks. The White 

Sisters rookery is located on the west 

side of Chichagof Island, about 72 km 

southwest of the project area. Benjamin 

Island is about 60 km northeast of 

Hoonah. Cape Cross and Graves Rocks 

are both about 70 km west of Hoonah. 

Steller sea lions are known to haul out 

on land, docks, buoys, and navigational 

markers. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in Table 3. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12638 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ....................................................................................................................... 7 Hz to 35 kHz. 

Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) ............................................. 150 Hz to 160 kHz. 

High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L. 

australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) ..................................................................................................................... 50 Hz to 86 kHz. 

Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) ................................................................................................ 60 Hz to 39 kHz. 

* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’ 

hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, 

with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation). 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Nine marine 

mammal species (seven cetacean and 

two pinniped (one otariid and one 

phocid) species) have the reasonable 

potential to occur during the proposed 

activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the 

cetacean species that may be present, 

three are classified as low-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 

two are classified as mid-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid species), 

and two are classified as high-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise and 

Dall’s porpoise). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take section later in this 

document includes a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis 

and Determination section considers the 

content of this section, the Estimated 

Take section, and the Proposed 

Mitigation section, to draw conclusions 

regarding the likely impacts of these 

activities on the reproductive success or 

survivorship of individuals and how 

those impacts on individuals are likely 

to impact marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Acoustic effects on marine mammals 

during the specified activity can occur 

from vibratory and impact pile driving 

as well as during DTH of the piles. The 

effects of underwater noise from the 

City’s proposed activities have the 

potential to result in Level B behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the action area. 

Description of Sound Sources 

This section contains a brief technical 

background on sound, on the 

characteristics of certain sound types, 

and on metrics used in this proposal 

inasmuch as the information is relevant 

to the specified activity and to a 

discussion of the potential effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

found later in this document. For 

general information on sound and its 

interaction with the marine 

environment, please see, e.g., Au and 

Hastings (2008); Richardson et al. 

(1995); Urick (1983). 

Sound travels in waves, the basic 

components of which are frequency, 

wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. 

Frequency is the number of pressure 

waves that pass by a reference point per 

unit of time and is measured in hertz 

(Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is 

the distance between two peaks or 

corresponding points of a sound wave 

(length of one cycle). Higher frequency 

sounds have shorter wavelengths than 

lower frequency sounds, and typically 

attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, 

except in certain cases in shallower 

water. Amplitude is the height of the 

sound pressure wave or the ‘‘loudness’’ 

of a sound and is typically described 

using the relative unit of the decibel 

(dB). A sound pressure level (SPL) in dB 

is described as the ratio between a 

measured pressure and a reference 

pressure (for underwater sound, this is 

1 microPascal (mPa)), and is a 

logarithmic unit that accounts for large 

variations in amplitude; therefore, a 

relatively small change in dB 

corresponds to large changes in sound 

pressure. The source level (SL) 

represents the SPL referenced at a 

distance of 1 m from the source 

(referenced to 1 mPa), while the received 

level is the SPL at the listener’s position 

(referenced to 1 mPa). 

Root mean square (rms) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. Root mean 

square is calculated by squaring all of 

the sound amplitudes, averaging the 

squares, and then taking the square root 

of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean 

square accounts for both positive and 

negative values; squaring the pressures 

makes all values positive so that they 

may be accounted for in the summation 

of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). This measurement is often used 

in the context of discussing behavioral 

effects, in part because behavioral 

effects, which often result from auditory 

cues, may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak pressures. 

Sound exposure level (SEL; 

represented as dB re 1 mPa2-s) represents 

the total energy in a stated frequency 

band over a stated time interval or 

event, and considers both intensity and 

duration of exposure. The per-pulse SEL 

is calculated over the time window 

containing the entire pulse (i.e., 100 

percent of the acoustic energy). SEL is 

a cumulative metric; it can be 

accumulated over a single pulse, or 

calculated over periods containing 

multiple pulses. Cumulative SEL 

represents the total energy accumulated 

by a receiver over a defined time 

window or during an event. Peak sound 

pressure (also referred to as zero-to-peak 

sound pressure or 0-pk) is the maximum 

instantaneous sound pressure 

measurable in the water at a specified 

distance from the source, and is 

represented in the same units as the rms 

sound pressure. 

When underwater objects vibrate or 

activity occurs, sound-pressure waves 

are created. These waves alternately 

compress and decompress the water as 

the sound wave travels. Underwater 

sound waves radiate in a manner similar 

to ripples on the surface of a pond and 

may be either directed in a beam or 

beams or may radiate in all directions 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 12639 

(omnidirectional sources), as is the case 

for sound produced by the pile driving 

activity considered here. The 

compressions and decompressions 

associated with sound waves are 

detected as changes in pressure by 

aquatic life and man-made sound 

receptors such as hydrophones. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is typically loud due to 

ambient sound, which is defined as 

environmental background sound levels 

lacking a single source or point 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The sound 

level of a region is defined by the total 

acoustical energy being generated by 

known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

wind and waves, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic (e.g., vessels, dredging, 

construction) sound. A number of 

sources contribute to ambient sound, 

including wind and waves, which are a 

main source of naturally occurring 

ambient sound for frequencies between 

200 Hz and 50 kilohertz (kHz) (Mitson, 

1995). In general, ambient sound levels 

tend to increase with increasing wind 

speed and wave height. Precipitation 

can become an important component of 

total sound at frequencies above 500 Hz, 

and possibly down to 100 Hz during 

quiet times. Marine mammals can 

contribute significantly to ambient 

sound levels, as can some fish and 

snapping shrimp. The frequency band 

for biological contributions is from 

approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz. 

Sources of ambient sound related to 

human activity include transportation 

(surface vessels), dredging and 

construction, oil and gas drilling and 

production, geophysical surveys, sonar, 

and explosions. Vessel noise typically 

dominates the total ambient sound for 

frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In 

general, the frequencies of 

anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz 

and, if higher frequency sound levels 

are created, they attenuate rapidly. 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources that 

comprise ambient sound at any given 

location and time depends not only on 

the source levels (as determined by 

current weather conditions and levels of 

biological and human activity) but also 

on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 decibels (dB) from day to day 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is 

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

Sounds are often considered to fall 

into one of two general types: Pulsed 

and non-pulsed (defined in the 

following). The distinction between 

these two sound types is important 

because they have differing potential to 

cause physical effects, particularly with 

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

Southall et al., 2007). Please see 

Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth 

discussion of these concepts. The 

distinction between these two sound 

types is not always obvious, as certain 

signals share properties of both pulsed 

and non-pulsed sounds. A signal near a 

source could be categorized as a pulse, 

but due to propagation effects as it 

moves farther from the source, the 

signal duration becomes longer (e.g., 

Greene and Richardson, 1988). 

Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) produce signals 

that are brief (typically considered to be 

less than one second), broadband, atonal 

transients (ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 

1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and 

occur either as isolated events or 

repeated in some succession. Pulsed 

sounds are all characterized by a 

relatively rapid rise from ambient 

pressure to a maximal pressure value 

followed by a rapid decay period that 

may include a period of diminishing, 

oscillating maximal and minimal 

pressures, and generally have an 

increased capacity to induce physical 

injury as compared with sounds that 

lack these features. 

Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, 

narrowband, or broadband, brief or 

prolonged, and may be either 

continuous or intermittent (ANSI, 1995; 

NIOSH, 1998). Some of these nonpulsed sounds can be transient signals 

of short duration but without the 

essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid 

rise time). Examples of non-pulsed 

sounds include those produced by 

vessels, aircraft, machinery operations 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems. 

The duration of such sounds, as 

received at a distance, can be greatly 

extended in a highly reverberant 

environment. 

The impulsive sound generated by 

impact hammers is characterized by 

rapid rise times and high peak levels. 

Vibratory hammers produce nonimpulsive, continuous noise at levels 

significantly lower than those produced 

by impact hammers. Rise time is slower, 

reducing the probability and severity of 

injury, and sound energy is distributed 

over a greater amount of time (e.g., 

Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Carlson et 

al., 2005). DTH is believed to produce 

sound with both impulsive and 

continuous characteristics (e.g., Denes et 

al., 2016). 

Acoustic Effects on Marine Mammals 

We previously provided general 

background information on marine 

mammal hearing (see Description of 

Marine Mammals in the Area of 

Specified Activities). Here, we discuss 

the potential effects of sound on marine 

mammals. 

Note that, in the following discussion, 

we refer in many cases to a review 

article concerning studies of noiseinduced hearing loss conducted from 

1996–2015 (i.e., Finneran, 2015). For 

study-specific citations, please see that 

work. Anthropogenic sounds cover a 

broad range of frequencies and sound 

levels and can have a range of highly 

variable impacts on marine life, from 

none or minor to potentially severe 

responses, depending on received 

levels, duration of exposure, behavioral 

context, and various other factors. The 

potential effects of underwater sound 

from active acoustic sources can 

potentially result in one or more of the 

following: Temporary or permanent 

hearing impairment, non-auditory 

physical or physiological effects, 

behavioral disturbance, stress, and 

masking (Richardson et al., 1995; 

Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 

2007; Southall et al., 2007; Go ̈tz et al., 

2009). The degree of effect is 

intrinsically related to the signal 

characteristics, received level, distance 

from the source, and duration of the 

sound exposure. In general, sudden, 

high level sounds can cause hearing 

loss, as can longer exposures to lower 

level sounds. Temporary or permanent 

loss of hearing will occur almost 

exclusively for noise within an animal’s 

hearing range. We first describe specific 

manifestations of acoustic effects before 

providing discussion specific to pile 

driving and removal activities. 

Richardson et al. (1995) described 

zones of increasing intensity of effect 

that might be expected to occur, in 

relation to distance from a source and 

assuming that the signal is within an 

animal’s hearing range. First is the area 

within which the acoustic signal would 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12640 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

be audible (potentially perceived) to the 

animal but not strong enough to elicit 

any overt behavioral or physiological 

response. The next zone corresponds 

with the area where the signal is audible 

to the animal and of sufficient intensity 

to elicit behavioral or physiological 

responsiveness. Third is a zone within 

which, for signals of high intensity, the 

received level is sufficient to potentially 

cause discomfort or tissue damage to 

auditory or other systems. Overlaying 

these zones to a certain extent is the 

area within which masking (i.e., when a 

sound interferes with or masks the 

ability of an animal to detect a signal of 

interest that is above the absolute 

hearing threshold) may occur; the 

masking zone may be highly variable in 

size. 

We describe the more severe effects 

(i.e., certain non-auditory physical or 

physiological effects) only briefly as we 

do not expect that there is a reasonable 

likelihood that pile driving may result 

in such effects (see below for further 

discussion). Potential effects from 

explosive impulsive sound sources can 

range in severity from effects such as 

behavioral disturbance or tactile 

perception to physical discomfort, slight 

injury of the internal organs and the 

auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton 

et al., 1973). Non-auditory physiological 

effects or injuries that theoretically 

might occur in marine mammals 

exposed to high level underwater sound 

or as a secondary effect of extreme 

behavioral reactions (e.g., change in 

dive profile as a result of an avoidance 

reaction) caused by exposure to sound 

include neurological effects, bubble 

formation, resonance effects, and other 

types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et 

al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007; Zimmer 

and Tyack, 2007; Tal et al., 2015). The 

construction activities considered here 

do not involve the use of devices such 

as explosives or mid-frequency tactical 

sonar that are associated with these 

types of effects. 

Threshold Shift—Marine mammals 

exposed to high-intensity sound, or to 

lower-intensity sound for prolonged 

periods, can experience hearing 

threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of 

hearing sensitivity at certain frequency 

ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS can be 

permanent (permanent threshold shift 

(PTS)), in which case the loss of hearing 

sensitivity is not fully recoverable, or 

temporary (TTS), in which case the 

animal’s hearing threshold would 

recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). 

Repeated sound exposure that leads to 

TTS could cause PTS. In severe cases of 

PTS, there can be total or partial 

deafness, while in most cases the animal 

has an impaired ability to hear sounds 

in specific frequency ranges (Kryter, 

1985). 

When PTS occurs, there is physical 

damage to the sound receptors in the ear 

(i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS 

represents primarily tissue fatigue and 

is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In 

addition, other investigators have 

suggested that TTS is within the normal 

bounds of physiological variability and 

tolerance and does not represent 

physical injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). 

Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS 

to constitute auditory injury. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals, and there is no PTS 

data for cetaceans, but such 

relationships are assumed to be similar 

to those in humans and other terrestrial 

mammals. PTS typically occurs at 

exposure levels at least several decibels 

above (a 40-dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et 

al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing 

mild TTS (a 6-dB threshold shift 

approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall 

et al. 2007). Based on data from 

terrestrial mammals, a precautionary 

assumption is that the PTS thresholds 

for impulse sounds (such as impact pile 

driving pulses as received close to the 

source) are at least 6 dB higher than the 

TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis 

and PTS cumulative sound exposure 

level thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher 

than TTS cumulative sound exposure 

level thresholds (Southall et al., 2007). 

Given the higher level of sound or 

longer exposure duration necessary to 

cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is 

considerably less likely that PTS could 

occur. 

TTS is the mildest form of hearing 

impairment that can occur during 

exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985). While 

experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold 

rises, and a sound must be at a higher 

level in order to be heard. In terrestrial 

and marine mammals, TTS can last from 

minutes or hours to days (in cases of 

strong TTS). In many cases, hearing 

sensitivity recovers rapidly after 

exposure to the sound ends. Few data 

on sound levels and durations necessary 

to elicit mild TTS have been obtained 

for marine mammals. 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics, and interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious. For example, a marine mammal 

may be able to readily compensate for 

a brief, relatively small amount of TTS 

in a non-critical frequency range that 

occurs during a time where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas), harbor 

porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise 

(Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) and 

three species of pinnipeds (northern 

elephant seal, harbor seal, and 

California sea lion) exposed to a limited 

number of sound sources (i.e., mostly 

tones and octave-band noise) in 

laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). 

TTS was not observed in trained spotted 

(Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa 

hispida) seals exposed to impulsive 

noise at levels matching previous 

predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et 

al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and 

harbor porpoises have a lower TTS 

onset than other measured pinniped or 

cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). 

Additionally, the existing marine 

mammal TTS data come from a limited 

number of individuals within these 

species. There are no data available on 

noise-induced hearing loss for 

mysticetes. For summaries of data on 

TTS in marine mammals or for further 

discussion of TTS onset thresholds, 

please see Southall et al. (2007), 

Finneran and Jenkins (2012), Finneran 

(2015), and NMFS (2018). 

Behavioral Effects—Behavioral 

disturbance may include a variety of 

effects, including subtle changes in 

behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance 

of an area or changes in vocalizations), 

more conspicuous changes in similar 

behavioral activities, and more 

sustained and/or potentially severe 

reactions, such as displacement from or 

abandonment of high-quality habitat. 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific and 

any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

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

al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 12641 

(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary 

depending on characteristics associated 

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

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). 

Please see Appendices B–C of Southall 

et al. (2007) for a review of studies 

involving marine mammal behavioral 

responses to sound. 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most 

likely to habituate to sounds that are 

predictable and unvarying. It is 

important to note that habituation is 

appropriately considered as a 

‘‘progressive reduction in response to 

stimuli that are perceived as neither 

aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as, 

more generally, moderation in response 

to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 

2009). The opposite process is 

sensitization, when an unpleasant 

experience leads to subsequent 

responses, often in the form of 

avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. 

As noted, behavioral state may affect the 

type of response. For example, animals 

that are resting may show greater 

behavioral change in response to 

disturbing sound levels than animals 

that are highly motivated to remain in 

an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 

1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). 

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals have showed 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud sound 

sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran 

et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild 

marine mammals to loud pulsed sound 

sources (typically airguns or acoustic 

harassment devices) have been varied 

but often consist of avoidance behavior 

or other behavioral changes suggesting 

discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; 

see also Richardson et al., 1995; 

Nowacek et al., 2007). However, many 

delphinids approach low-frequency 

airgun source vessels with no apparent 

discomfort or obvious behavioral change 

(e.g., Barkaszi et al., 2012), indicating 

the importance of frequency output in 

relation to the species’ hearing 

sensitivity. 

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 

2005). However, there are broad 

categories of potential response, which 

we describe in greater detail here, that 

include alteration of dive behavior, 

alteration of foraging behavior, effects to 

breathing, interference with or alteration 

of vocalization, avoidance, and flight. 

Changes in dive behavior can vary 

widely and may consist of increased or 

decreased dive times and surface 

intervals as well as changes in the rates 

of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., 

Frankel and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 

2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et 

al.; 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a, 

2013b). Variations in dive behavior may 

reflect interruptions in biologically 

significant activities (e.g., foraging) or 

they may be of little biological 

significance. The impact of an alteration 

to dive behavior resulting from an 

acoustic exposure depends on what the 

animal is doing at the time of the 

exposure and the type and magnitude of 

the response. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

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

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Variations in respiration naturally 

vary with different behaviors and 

alterations to breathing rate as a 

function of acoustic exposure can be 

expected to co-occur with other 

behavioral reactions, such as a flight 

response or an alteration in diving. 

However, respiration rates in and of 

themselves may be representative of 

annoyance or an acute stress response. 

Various studies have shown that 

respiration rates may either be 

unaffected or could increase, depending 

on the species and signal characteristics, 

again highlighting the importance in 

understanding species differences in the 

tolerance of underwater noise when 

determining the potential for impacts 

resulting from anthropogenic sound 

exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 

2005, 2006; Gailey et al., 2007; Gailey et 

al., 2016). 

Marine mammals vocalize for 

different purposes and across multiple 

modes, such as whistling, echolocation 

click production, calling, and singing. 

Changes in vocalization behavior in 

response to anthropogenic noise can 

occur for any of these modes and may 

result from a need to compete with an 

increase in background noise or may 

reflect increased vigilance or a startle 

response. For example, in the presence 

of potentially masking signals, 

humpback whales and killer whales 

have been observed to increase the 

length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000; 

Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), 

while right whales have been observed 

to shift the frequency content of their 

calls upward while reducing the rate of 

calling in areas of increased 

anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007). 

In some cases, animals may cease sound 

production during production of 

aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994). 

Avoidance is the displacement of an 

individual from an area or migration 

path as a result of the presence of a 

sound or other stressors, and is one of 

the most obvious manifestations of 

disturbance in marine mammals 

(Richardson et al., 1995). For example, 

gray whales are known to change 

direction—deflecting from customary 

migratory paths—in order to avoid noise 

from airgun surveys (Malme et al., 

1984). Avoidance may be short-term, 

with animals returning to the area once 

the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 

1994; Goold, 1996; Stone et al., 2000; 

Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et 

al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is 

possible, however, which may lead to 

changes in abundance or distribution 

patterns of the affected species in the 

affected region if habituation to the 

presence of the sound does not occur 

(e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 

2006; Teilmann et al., 2006). 

A flight response is a dramatic change 

in normal movement to a directed and 

rapid movement away from the 

perceived location of a sound source. 

The flight response differs from other 

avoidance responses in the intensity of 

the response (e.g., directed movement, 

rate of travel). Relatively little 

information on flight responses of 

marine mammals to anthropogenic 

signals exist, although observations of 

flight responses to the presence of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12642 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

predators have occurred (Connor and 

Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight 

response could range from brief, 

temporary exertion and displacement 

from the area where the signal provokes 

flight to, in extreme cases, marine 

mammal strandings (Evans and 

England, 2001). However, it should be 

noted that response to a perceived 

predator does not necessarily invoke 

flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), and 

whether individuals are solitary or in 

groups may influence the response. 

Behavioral disturbance can also 

impact marine mammals in more subtle 

ways. Increased vigilance may result in 

costs related to diversion of focus and 

attention (i.e., when a response consists 

of increased vigilance, it may come at 

the cost of decreased attention to other 

critical behaviors such as foraging or 

resting). These effects have generally not 

been demonstrated for marine 

mammals, but studies involving fish 

and terrestrial animals have shown that 

increased vigilance may substantially 

reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp 

and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; 

Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition, 

chronic disturbance can cause 

population declines through reduction 

of fitness (e.g., decline in body 

condition) and subsequent reduction in 

reproductive success, survival, or both 

(e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan 

et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). 

However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported 

that increased vigilance in bottlenose 

dolphins exposed to sound over a fiveday period did not cause any sleep 

deprivation or stress effects. 

Many animals perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour 

cycle). Disruption of such functions 

resulting from reactions to stressors 

such as sound exposure are more likely 

to be significant if they last more than 

one diel cycle or recur on subsequent 

days (Southall et al., 2007). 

Consequently, a behavioral response 

lasting less than one day and not 

recurring on subsequent days is not 

considered particularly severe unless it 

could directly affect reproduction or 

survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that 

there is a difference between multi-day 

substantive behavioral reactions and 

multi-day anthropogenic activities. For 

example, just because an activity lasts 

for multiple days does not necessarily 

mean that individual animals are either 

exposed to activity-related stressors for 

multiple days or, further, exposed in a 

manner resulting in sustained multi-day 

substantive behavioral responses. 

Stress Responses—An animal’s 

perception of a threat may be sufficient 

to trigger stress responses consisting of 

some combination of behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950; 

Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of energetic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor. Autonomic nervous 

system responses to stress typically 

involve changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 

These responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

(e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000). 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response. 

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well-studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress 

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) 

and, more rarely, studied in wild 

populations (e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). 

For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. These and 

other studies lead to a reasonable 

expectation that some marine mammals 

will experience physiological stress 

responses upon exposure to acoustic 

stressors and that it is possible that 

some of these would be classified as 

‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal 

experiencing TTS would likely also 

experience stress responses (NRC, 

2003). 

Auditory Masking—Sound can 

disrupt behavior through masking, or 

interfering with, an animal’s ability to 

detect, recognize, or discriminate 

between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., 

those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; 

Erbe et al., 2016). Masking occurs when 

the receipt of a sound is interfered with 

by another coincident sound at similar 

frequencies and at similar or higher 

intensity, and may occur whether the 

sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, 

wind, waves, precipitation) or 

anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar, 

seismic exploration) in origin. The 

ability of a noise source to mask 

biologically important sounds depends 

on the characteristics of both the noise 

source and the signal of interest (e.g., 

signal-to-noise ratio, temporal 

variability, direction), in relation to each 

other and to an animal’s hearing 

abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency 

range, critical ratios, frequency 

discrimination, directional 

discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), 

and existing ambient noise and 

propagation conditions. 

Under certain circumstances, marine 

mammals experiencing significant 

masking could also be impaired from 

maximizing their performance fitness in 

survival and reproduction. Therefore, 

when the coincident (masking) sound is 

man-made, it may be considered 

harassment when disrupting or altering 

critical behaviors. It is important to 

distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist 

after the sound exposure, from masking, 

which occurs during the sound 

exposure. Because masking (without 

resulting in TS) is not associated with 

abnormal physiological function, it is 

not considered a physiological effect, 

but rather a potential behavioral effect. 

The frequency range of the potentially 

masking sound is important in 

determining any potential behavioral 

impacts. For example, low-frequency 

signals may have less effect on highfrequency echolocation sounds 

produced by odontocetes but are more 

likely to affect detection of mysticete 

communication calls and other 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 12643 

potentially important natural sounds 

such as those produced by surf and 

some prey species. The masking of 

communication signals by 

anthropogenic noise may be considered 

as a reduction in the communication 

space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) 

and may result in energetic or other 

costs as animals change their 

vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 

2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 

2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et 

al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in 

situations where the signal and noise 

come from different directions 

(Richardson et al., 1995), through 

amplitude modulation of the signal, or 

through other compensatory behaviors 

(Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can 

be tested directly in captive species 

(e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild 

populations it must be either modeled 

or inferred from evidence of masking 

compensation. There are few studies 

addressing real-world masking sounds 

likely to be experienced by marine 

mammals in the wild (e.g., Branstetter et 

al., 2013). 

Masking affects both senders and 

receivers of acoustic signals and can 

potentially have long-term chronic 

effects on marine mammals at the 

population level as well as at the 

individual level. Low-frequency 

ambient sound levels have increased by 

as much as 20 dB (more than three times 

in terms of SPL) in the world’s ocean 

from pre-industrial periods, with most 

of the increase from distant commercial 

shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All 

anthropogenic sound sources, but 

especially chronic and lower-frequency 

signals (e.g., from vessel traffic), 

contribute to elevated ambient sound 

levels, thus intensifying masking. 

Potential Effects of the City’s 

Activity—As described previously, the 

City proposes to conduct pile driving, 

including impact and vibratory driving 

(inclusive of DTH). The effects of pile 

driving on marine mammals are 

dependent on several factors, including 

the size, type, and depth of the animal; 

the depth, intensity, and duration of the 

pile driving sound; the depth of the 

water column; the substrate of the 

habitat; the standoff distance between 

the pile and the animal; and the sound 

propagation properties of the 

environment. With both types, it is 

likely that the pile driving could result 

in temporary, short term changes in an 

animal’s typical behavioral patterns 

and/or avoidance of the affected area. 

These behavioral changes may include 

(Richardson et al., 1995): Changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where sound sources are located; 

and/or flight responses. 

The biological significance of many of 

these behavioral disturbances is difficult 

to predict, especially if the detected 

disturbances appear minor. However, 

the consequences of behavioral 

modification could be expected to be 

biologically significant if the change 

affects growth, survival, or 

reproduction. Significant behavioral 

modifications that could lead to effects 

on growth, survival, or reproduction, 

such as drastic changes in diving/ 

surfacing patterns or significant habitat 

abandonment are extremely unlikely in 

this area (i.e., shallow waters in 

modified industrial areas). 

Whether impact or vibratory driving, 

sound sources would be active for 

relatively short durations, with relation 

to potential for masking. The 

frequencies output by pile driving 

activity are lower than those used by 

most species expected to be regularly 

present for communication or foraging. 

We expect insignificant impacts from 

masking, and any masking event that 

could possibly rise to Level B 

harassment under the MMPA would 

occur concurrently within the zones of 

behavioral harassment already 

estimated for vibratory and impact pile 

driving, and which have already been 

taken into account in the exposure 

analysis. 

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

The proposed activities would not 

result in permanent impacts to habitats 

used directly by marine mammals. The 

project location is within an area that is 

currently used by large shipping vessels 

and in between two existing, heavilytraveled docks, and within an active 

marine commercial and tourist area. 

The proposed activities may have 

potential short-term impacts to food 

sources such as forage fish. The 

proposed activities could also affect 

acoustic habitat (see masking discussion 

above), but meaningful impacts are 

unlikely. There are no known foraging 

hotspots, or other ocean bottom 

structures of significant biological 

importance to marine mammals present 

in the marine waters in the vicinity of 

the project area. Therefore, the main 

impact issue associated with the 

proposed activity would be temporarily 

elevated sound levels and the associated 

direct effects on marine mammals, as 

discussed previously. The most likely 

impact to marine mammal habitat 

occurs from pile driving effects on likely 

marine mammal prey (i.e., fish) near 

where the piles are installed. Impacts to 

the immediate substrate during 

installation and removal of piles are 

anticipated, but these would be limited 

to minor, temporary suspension of 

sediments, which could impact water 

quality and visibility for a short amount 

of time, but which would not be 

expected to have any effects on 

individual marine mammals. Impacts to 

substrate are therefore not discussed 

further. 

Effects to Prey—Sound may affect 

marine mammals through impacts on 

the abundance, behavior, or distribution 

of prey species (e.g., crustaceans, 

cephalopods, fish, zooplankton). Marine 

mammal prey varies by species, season, 

and location and, for some, is not well 

documented. Here, we describe studies 

regarding the effects of noise on known 

marine mammal prey. 

Fish utilize the soundscape and 

components of sound in their 

environment to perform important 

functions such as foraging, predator 

avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., 

Zelick et al., 1999; Fay, 2009). 

Depending on their hearing anatomy 

and peripheral sensory structures, 

which vary among species, fishes hear 

sounds using pressure and particle 

motion sensitivity capabilities and 

detect the motion of surrounding water 

(Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects 

of noise on fishes depends on the 

overlapping frequency range, distance 

from the sound source, water depth of 

exposure, and species-specific hearing 

sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. 

Key impacts to fishes may include 

behavioral responses, hearing damage, 

barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), 

and mortality. 

Fish react to sounds which are 

especially strong and/or intermittent 

low-frequency sounds, and behavioral 

responses such as flight or avoidance 

are the most likely effects. Short 

duration, sharp sounds can cause overt 

or subtle changes in fish behavior and 

local distribution. The reaction of fish to 

noise depends on the physiological state 

of the fish, past exposures, motivation 

(e.g., feeding, spawning, migration), and 

other environmental factors. Hastings 

and Popper (2005) identified several 

studies that suggest fish may relocate to 

avoid certain areas of sound energy. 

Additional studies have documented 

effects of pile driving on fish, although 

several are based on studies in support 

of large, multiyear bridge construction 

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

2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12644 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

Several studies have demonstrated that 

impulse sounds might affect the 

distribution and behavior of some 

fishes, potentially impacting foraging 

opportunities or increasing energetic 

costs (e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley, 

2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 

1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 

2017). However, some studies have 

shown no or slight reaction to impulse 

sounds (e.g., Pena et al., 2013; Wardle 

et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 

2009; Cott et al., 2012). More 

commonly, though, the impacts of noise 

on fish are temporary. 

SPLs of sufficient strength have been 

known to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality. However, in most fish 

species, hair cells in the ear 

continuously regenerate and loss of 

auditory function likely is restored 

when damaged cells are replaced with 

new cells. Halvorsen et al. (2012a) 

showed that a TTS of 4–6 dB was 

recoverable within 24 hours for one 

species. Impacts would be most severe 

when the individual fish is close to the 

source and when the duration of 

exposure is long. Injury caused by 

barotrauma can range from slight to 

severe and can cause death, and is most 

likely for fish with swim bladders. 

Barotrauma injuries have been 

documented during controlled exposure 

to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 

2012b; Casper et al., 2013). 

The action area supports marine 

habitat for prey species including large 

populations of anadromous fish 

including Pacific salmon (five species), 

Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkia) and 

Steelhead Trout (O. mykiss irideus), and 

Dolly Varden and other species of 

marine fish such as halibut, Northern 

Rock Sole (Lepidopsetta polyxystra), 

sculpins, Pacific Cod (Gadus 

macrocephalus), herring, and Eulachon 

(Thaleichthys pacificus) (NMFS 2020i). 

The most likely impact to fish from pile 

driving activities at the project areas 

would be temporary behavioral 

avoidance of the area. The duration of 

fish avoidance of an area after pile 

driving stops is unknown, but a rapid 

return to normal recruitment, 

distribution and behavior is anticipated. 

In general, impacts to marine mammal 

prey species are expected to be minor 

and temporary due to the expected short 

daily duration of individual pile driving 

events and the relatively small areas 

being affected. 

The following essential fish habitat 

(EFH) species may occur in the project 

area during at least one phase of their 

lifestage: Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus 

keta), Pink Salmon (O. gorbuscha), Coho 

Salmon (O. kisutch), Sockeye Salmon 

(O. nerka), and Chinook Salmon (O. 

tshawytscha). No habitat areas of 

particular concern or EFH areas 

protected from fishing are identified 

near the project area (NMFS 2020h). The 

closest documented anadromous fish 

steams to the project area are Halibut 

Creek (AWC: 114–34–10200) 

approximately 5,100 m north west of the 

proposed project site and Humpback 

Creek (AWC: 114–34–10100) is 

approximately 7,600 m southwest of the 

proposed project site (ADF&G 2020a). 

The area impacted by the project is 

relatively small compared to the 

available habitat in Port Frederick Inlet 

and does not include habitat of 

particular importance relative to 

available habitat overall. Any behavioral 

avoidance by fish of the disturbed area 

would still leave significantly large 

areas of fish and marine mammal 

foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. 

As described in the preceding, the 

potential for the City’s construction to 

affect the availability of prey to marine 

mammals or to meaningfully impact the 

quality of physical or acoustic habitat is 

considered to be insignificant. Effects to 

habitat will not be discussed further in 

this document. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

the negligible impact determination. 

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). 

Take of marine mammals incidental 

to the City’s pile driving and removal 

activities (as well as during DTH) could 

occur as a result of Level A and Level 

B harassment. Below we describe how 

the potential take is estimated. As 

described previously, no mortality is 

anticipated or proposed to be authorized 

for this activity. Below we describe how 

the take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) and the number of days of 

activities. We note that while these 

basic factors can contribute to a basic 

calculation to provide an initial 

prediction of takes, additional 

information that can qualitatively 

inform take estimates is also sometimes 

available (e.g., previous monitoring 

results or average group size). Below, we 

describe the factors considered here in 

more detail and present the proposed 

take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

factors related to the source (e.g., 

frequency, predictability, duty cycle), 

the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and 

the receiving animals (hearing, 

motivation, experience, demography, 

behavioral context) and can be difficult 

to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison 

et al., 2012). Based on what the 

available science indicates and the 

practical need to use a threshold based 

on a factor that is both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

uses a generalized acoustic threshold 

based on received level to estimate the 

onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS 

predicts that marine mammals are likely 

to be behaviorally harassed in a manner 

we consider Level B harassment when 

exposed to underwater anthropogenic 

noise above received levels of 120 dB re 

1 mPa (rms) for continuous (e.g., 

vibratory pile driving and DTH) and 

above 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for 

impulsive sources (e.g., impact pile 

driving). The City’s proposed activity 

includes the use of continuous 

(vibratory pile driving, DTH) and 

impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, 

and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) are applicable. 

Level A harassment—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 12645 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise. The technical 

guidance identifies the received levels, 

or thresholds, above which individual 

marine mammals are predicted to 

experience changes in their hearing 

sensitivity for all underwater 

anthropogenic sound sources, and 

reflects the best available science on the 

potential for noise to affect auditory 

sensitivity by: 

D Dividing sound sources into two 

groups (i.e., impulsive and nonimpulsive) based on their potential to 

affect hearing sensitivity; 

D Choosing metrics that best address 

the impacts of noise on hearing 

sensitivity, i.e., sound pressure level 

(peak SPL) and sound exposure level 

(SEL) (also accounts for duration of 

exposure); and 

D Dividing marine mammals into 

hearing groups and developing auditory 

weighting functions based on the 

science supporting that not all marine 

mammals hear and use sound in the 

same manner. 

These thresholds were developed by 

compiling and synthesizing the best 

available science, and are provided in 

Table 4 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. 

The City’s proposed activities 

includes the use of continuous nonimpulsive (vibratory pile driving, DTH) 

and impulsive (impact pile driving, 

DTH) sources, and therefore the 120 and 

160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) criteria are 

applicable. DTH pile installation 

includes drilling (non-impulsive sound) 

and hammering (impulsive sound) to 

penetrate rocky substrates (Denes et al. 

2016; Denes et al. 2019; Reyff and 

Heyvaert 2019). DTH pile installation 

was initially thought be a primarily nonimpulsive noise source. However, Denes 

et al. (2019) concluded from a study 

conducted in Virginia, nearby the 

location for this project, that DTH 

should be characterized as impulsive 

based on Southall et al. (2007), who 

stated that signals with a >3 dB 

difference in sound pressure level in a 

0.035-second window compared to a 1- 

second window can be considered 

impulsive. Therefore, DTH pile 

installation is treated as both an 

impulsive and non-impulsive noise 

source. In order to evaluate Level A 

harassment, DTH pile installation 

activities are evaluated according to the 

impulsive criteria and using 160 dB 

rms. Level B harassment isopleths are 

determined by applying non-impulsive 

criteria and using the 120 dB rms 

threshold which is also used for 

vibratory driving. This approach 

ensures that the largest ranges to effect 

for both Level A and Level B harassment 

are accounted for in the take estimation 

process. 

TABLE 4—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

[Auditory injury] 

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. 

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. 

Sound Propagation 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * log10(R1/R2), 

where: 

B = transmission loss coefficient (assumed to 

be 15) 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement. 

This formula neglects loss due to 

scattering and absorption, which is 

assumed to be zero here. The degree to 

which underwater sound propagates 

away from a sound source is dependent 

on a variety of factors, most notably the 

water bathymetry and presence or 

absence of reflective or absorptive 

conditions including in-water structures 

and sediments. Spherical spreading 

occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (freefield) environment not limited by depth 

or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB 

reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance from the source 

(20*log(range)). Cylindrical spreading 

occurs in an environment in which 

sound propagation is bounded by the 

water surface and sea bottom, resulting 

in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for 

each doubling of distance from the 

source (10*log(range)). As is common 

practice in coastal waters, here we 

assume practical spreading loss (4.5 dB 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12646 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance). Practical 

spreading is a compromise that is often 

used under conditions where water 

depth increases as the receiver moves 

away from the shoreline, resulting in an 

expected propagation environment that 

would lie between spherical and 

cylindrical spreading loss conditions. 

Sound Source Levels 

The intensity of pile driving sounds is 

greatly influenced by factors such as the 

type of piles, hammers, and the physical 

environment in which the activity takes 

place. There are source level 

measurements available for certain pile 

types and sizes from the similar 

environments recorded from underwater 

pile driving projects in Alaska (e.g., 

JASCO Reports—Denes et al., 2016 and 

Austin et al., 2016) that were evaluated 

and used as proxy sound source levels 

to determine reasonable sound source 

levels likely result from the City’s pile 

driving and removal activities (Table 5). 

Many source levels used were more 

conservation as the values were from 

larger pile sizes. 

TABLE 5—PROPOSED SOUND SOURCE LEVELS

Activity Sound source level at 10 meters Sound source 

Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal 

20-in fender pile permanent ..............................

30-in steel pile temporary installation ................

30-in steel pile removal .....................................

161.9 SPL .........................................................

161.9 SPL .........................................................

161.9 SPL .........................................................

The 20-in fender and 30-inch-diameter source 

level for vibratory driving are proxy from median measured source levels from pile driving of 30-inch-diameter piles to construct 

the Ketchikan Ferry Terminal (Denes et al. 

2016, Table 72). 

36-in steel pile permanent ................................. 168.2 SPL ......................................................... The 36-in-diameter pile source level is proxy 

from median measured source levels from 

pile driving of 48-in diameter piles for the 

Port of Anchorage test pile project (Austin et 

al. 2016, Table 16). 

H-pile installation permanent ............................. 168 SPL ............................................................ The H-pile source level is proxy from median 

measured source levels from vibratory pile 

driving of H piles for the Port of Anchorage 

test pile project (Yurk et al. 2015 as cited in 

Denes et al. 2016, Appendix H Table 2). 

Sheet pile installation ........................................ 160 SPL ............................................................ The sheet source level is proxy from median 

measured source levels from vibratory pile 

driving of 24-in sheets for Berth 30 at the 

Port of Oakland, CA (Buehler et al. 2015; 

Table I.6–2). 

Impact Pile Driving 

36-in steel pile permanent ................................. 186.7 SEL/198.6 SPL ....................................... The 36-in diameter pile source level is a proxy 

from median measured source level from 

impact hammering of 48-in piles for the Port 

of Anchorage test pile project (Austin et al., 

2016, Tables 9 and 16). 

20-in fender pile installation permeant .............. 161 SEL/174.8 SPL .......................................... The 20-in diameter pile source levels are 

proxy from median measured source levels 

from vibratory driving of 24-in piles for the 

Kodiak Ferry Terminal project (Denes et al. 

2016). 

H-pile installation permanent and Sheet pile installation.163 SEL/177 SPL ............................................. H-Pile and Sheets Impacting source levels are 

proxy from median measured source levels 

from pile driving H-piles and sheets for the 

Port of Anchorage test pile project (Yurk et 

al. 2015 as cited in Denes et al. 2016, Appendix H Table 1). 

DTH Pile Installation 

36-in steel pile permanent .................................

20-in fender pile installation temporary .............

H-pile installation permanent (20-in hole) .........

164 SEL/166 SPL .............................................

154 SEL/166 SPL .............................................

154 SEL/166 SPL .............................................

The DTH sound source proxy of 164 dB SEL 

is from 42-in piles, Reyff 2020 and Denes et 

al. 2019; while the 154 dB SEL is based on 

24-in piles, Denes et al. 2016. 

Level A Harassment 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 12647 

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 from impact and 

vibratory pile driving and DTH), NMFS 

User Spreadsheet (2020) predicts the 

closest distance at which, if a marine 

mammal remained at that distance the 

whole duration of the activity, it would 

not incur PTS. Inputs used in the User 

Spreadsheet (Tables 6 and 7), and the 

resulting isopleths are reported below 

(Table 8). 

TABLE 6—NMFS TECHNICAL GUIDANCE (2020) USER SPREADSHEET INPUT TO CALCULATE PTS ISOPLETHS FOR

VIBRATORY PILE DRIVING

User spreadsheet input—vibratory pile driving spreadsheet tab A.1 vibratory pile driving used 

30-in piles 

(temporary 

install) 

30-in piles 

(temporary 

removal) 

20-in fender 

piles 

(permanent) 

36-in piles 

(permanent) 

H-piles 

(permanent) 

Sheet piles 

(permanent) 

Source Level (RMS SPL) ........................ 161.9 161.9 161.9 168.2 168 160 

Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz) ......... 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 

Number of piles within 24-hr period ........ 4 4 4 4 4 30 

Duration to drive a single pile (min) ........ 15 15 15 15 15 15 

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

Distance of source level measurement 

(meters) ∂ ............................................. 10 10 10 10 11 10 

TABLE 7—NMFS TECHNICAL GUIDANCE (2020) USER SPREADSHEET INPUT TO CALCULATE PTS ISOPLETHS FOR IMPACT

PILE DRIVING

User spreadsheet input—impact pile driving spreadsheet tab E.1 impact pile driving used 

36-in piles 

(permanent) 

36-in pile 

(DTH) 

20-in fender 

piles 

(permanent) 

20-in fender 

pile 

(DTH) 

H-pile 

(permanent) 

H-pile 

(DTH) 

Sheet piles 

(permanent) 

Source Level (Single Strike/shot SEL) ......... 186.7 164 161 154 163 154 163 

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

Number of strikes per pile ............................. 100 ........................ 35 ........................ 35 ........................ 35 

Strike rate (avg. strikes per second) ............. ........................ 15 ........................ 15 ........................ 15 ........................

Number of piles per day ............................... 2 2 2 2 5 2 5 

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

Distance of source level measurement (meters) ∂ ........................................................ 10 10 10 10 15 10 15 

TABLE 8—NMFS TECHNICAL GUIDANCE (2020) USER SPREADSHEET OUTPUTS TO CALCULATE LEVEL A HARASSMENT

PTS ISOPLETHS

User spreadsheet output PTS isopleths 

(meters) 

Activity Sound source level 

at 10 m 

Level A harassment 

Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

Highfrequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid Otariid 

Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal 

20-in steel fender pile installation ............................ 161.9 SPL ....................... 7.8 0.7 11.6 4.8 0.3 

30-in steel pile temporary installation ...................... 161.9 SPL ....................... 7.8 0.7 11.6 4.8 0.3 

30-in steel pile removal ............................................ 161.9 SPL ....................... 7.8 0.7 11.6 4.8 0.3 

36-in steel permanent installation ............................ 168.2 SPL ....................... 20.6 1.8 30.5 12.5 0.9 

H-pile installation ...................................................... 168 SPL .......................... 22.0 2.0 32.5 13.4 0.9 

Sheet pile installation ............................................... 160 SPL .......................... 22.4 2.0 33.2 13.6 1.0 

Impact Pile Driving 

36-in steel permanent installation ............................ 186.7 SEL/198.6 SPL ..... 602.7 21.4 717.9 322.5 23.5 

20-in fender pile installation ..................................... 161 SEL/174.8 SPL ........ 5.8 0.2 6.9 3.1 0.21 

H-pile installation ...................................................... 163 SEL/177 SPL ........... 21.8 0.8 25.9 11.6 0.8 

Sheet pile installation ............................................... 163 SEL/177 SPL ........... 21.8 0.8 25.9 11.6 0.8 

DTH 

36-in steel permanent installation ............................ 164 SEL/166 SPL ........... 1,225.6 43.6 1,459.9 655.9 47.8 

20-in steel fender pile installation ............................ 154 SEL/166 SPL ........... 264.1 9.4 314.5 141.3 10.3 

H-pile installation ...................................................... 154 SEL/166 SPL ........... 264.1 9.4 314.5 141.3 10.3 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12648 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

Level B Harassment 

Utilizing the practical spreading loss 

model, the City determined underwater 

noise will fall below the behavioral 

effects threshold of 120 dB rms for 

marine mammals at the distances shown 

in Table 9 for vibratory pile driving/ 

removal, and DTH. With these radial 

distances, and due to the occurrence of 

landforms (See Figure 5 and 8 of the 

IHA Application), the largest Level B 

harassment zone calculated for vibratory 

pile driving for 36-in steel piles and Hpiles were larger than the 15,700 m from 

the source where land masses block 

sound transmission. For DTH, the 

largest radial distance was 11,659 m. 

For calculating the Level B harassment 

zone for impact driving, the practical 

spreading loss model was used with a 

behavioral threshold of 160 dB rms. The 

maximum radial distance of the Level B 

harassment zone for impact piling 

equaled 3,744 m for 36-in piles m. Table 

9 below provides all Level B harassment 

radial distances (m) during the City’s 

proposed activities. 

TABLE 9—RADIAL DISTANCES (METERS) TO RELEVANT BEHAVIORAL ISOPLETHS

Activity Received level at 10 meters 

Level B harassment zone 

(m) * 

Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal 

20-in steel fender pile installation .................... 161.9 SPL ...................... 6,215 (calculated 6,213). 

30-in steel temporary installation ..................... 161.9 SPL ...................... 6,215 (calculated 6,213). 

30-in steel removal .......................................... 161.9 SPL ...................... 6,215 (calculated 6,213). 

36-in steel permanent installation .................... 168.2 SPL ...................... 15,700a (calculated 16,343). 

H-pile installation .............................................. 168 SPL ......................... 15,700a (calculated 17,434). 

Sheet pile installation ....................................... 160 SPL ......................... 4,645 (calculated 4,642). 

Impact Pile Driving 

20-in fender pile installation ............................. 161 SEL/ 174.8 SPL ...... 100 (calculated 97). 

36-in steel permanent installation .................... 186.7 SEL/198.6 SPL .... 3,745 (calculated 3,744). 

H-pile and Sheet pile installation ..................... 163 SEL/ 177 SPL ......... 205 (calculated 204). 

DTH 

20-in steel fender pile installation .................... 166 SPL ......................... 11,660 (calculated 11,659). 

36-in steel temporary installation ..................... 166 SPL ......................... 11,660 (calculated 11,659). 

H-pile installation .............................................. 166 SPL ......................... 11,660 (calculated 11,659). 

* Numbers rounded up to nearest 5 meters. These specific rounded distances are for monitoring purposes rather than take estimation. aAlthough the calculated distance to Level B harassment thresholds extends these distances, all Level B harassment zones are truncated at 

15,700m from the source where land masses block sound transmission. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Calculation and Estimation 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

Potential exposures to impact pile 

driving, vibratory pile driving/removal 

and DTH noises for each acoustic 

threshold were estimated using group 

size estimates and local observational 

data. As previously stated, take by Level 

B harassment as well as small numbers 

of take by Level A harassment will be 

considered for this action. Take by Level 

B and Level A harassment are calculated 

differently for some species based on 

monthly or daily sightings data and 

average group sizes within the action 

area using the best available data. Take 

by Level A harassment is being 

proposed for three species (Dall’s and 

harbor porpoise and harbor seal) where 

the Level A harassment isopleths are 

larger for pile driving of 36-in steel piles 

and DTH of 36-in piles, and is based on 

average group size multiplied by the 

number of days of impact pile driving 

for 36-in piles and DTH of 36-in piles. 

Distances to Level A harassment 

thresholds for other project activities 

(vibratory pile driving/removal, DTH 

and impact driving of smaller pile sizes) 

are considerably smaller compared to 

impact pile driving of 36-in piles and 

DTH for 36-in piles, and mitigation is 

expected to avoid Level A harassment 

from these other activities. 

Minke Whales 

There are no density estimates of 

minke whales available in the project 

area. These whales are usually sighted 

individually or in small groups of two 

or three, but there are reports of loose 

aggregations of hundreds of animals 

(NMFS 2018). One minke whale was 

sighted each year during the Hoonah 

cruise ship Berth I project (June 2015– 

January 2016; BergerABAM 2016) and 

during the Hoonah Berth II project (June 

2019–October 2019; SolsticeAK 

2020).To be conservative based on 

group size, we predict that three minke 

whales in a group could be sighted each 

month over the 4-month project period 

for a total of 12 minke whale takes 

proposed for authorization by Level B 

harassment. No take by Level A 

harassment is proposed for 

authorization or anticipated to occur 

due to their rarer occurrence in the 

project area. 

Humpback Whales 

There are no density estimates of 

humpback whales available in the 

project area. During the previous 

Hoonah Berth I project, humpback 

whales were observed on 84 of the 135 

days of monitoring; most often in 

September and October (BergerABAM 

2016). Additionally, during construction 

of the Hoonah Berth II project in 2019, 

humpback whales were observed in the 

action area on 45 of the 51 days of 

monitoring; most often in July and 

September. Up to 24 humpback 

sightings were reported on a single day 

(July 30, 2019), and a total of 108 

observations were recorded in 

harassment zones during project 

construction (SolsticeAK 2020). 

Based on a group size of eight 

animals, the general maximum group 

size observed in Southeast Alaska in all 

months of the year, NMFS estimates that 

8 humpback whales could occur for 

each day of the project (110 days) for a 

total of 880 takes by Level B harassment. 

Under the MMPA, humpback whales 

are considered a single stock (Central 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 12649 

North Pacific); however, we have 

divided them here to account for DPSs 

listed under the ESA. Using the stock 

assessment from Muto et al. 2020 for the 

Central North Pacific stock (10,103 

whales) and calculations in Wade et al. 

2016; 9,487 whales are expected to be 

from the Hawaii DPS and 606 from the 

Mexico DPS. Therefore, for purposes of 

consultation under the ESA, we 

anticipate that 53 of those takes would 

be of individuals from the Mexico DPS 

(0.0601 proportion of the total takes). No 

take by Level A harassment is proposed 

for authorization or anticipated to occur 

due to their large size and ability to be 

visibly detected in the project area if an 

animal should approach the Level A 

harassment zone. 

Gray Whales 

There are no density estimates of gray 

whales available in the project area. 

Gray whales travel alone or in small, 

unstable groups, although large 

aggregations may be seen in feeding and 

breeding grounds (NMFS 2018e). 

Observations in Glacier Bay and nearby 

waters recorded two gray whales 

documented over a 10-year period 

(Keller et al., 2017). None were observed 

during Hoonah Berth I or II project 

monitoring (BergerABAM 2016, 

SolsticeAK 2020). We estimate a one 

gray whale x onesighting per month 

over the 4-month work period for a total 

of four gray whale takes proposed for 

authorization by Level B harassment. No 

take by Level A harassment is proposed 

for authorization or anticipated to occur 

due to their rarer occurrence in the 

project area, but also their large size and 

ability to be visibly detected in the 

project area if an animal should 

approach the Level A harassment zone. 

Killer Whales 

There are no density estimates of 

killer whales available in the project 

area. Killer whales occur commonly in 

the waters of the project area, and could 

include members of several designated 

stocks that may occur in the vicinity of 

the proposed project area. Whales are 

known to use the Icy Strait corridor to 

enter and exit inland waters and are 

observed in every month of the year, 

with certain pods being observed inside 

Port Frederick passing directly in front 

of Hoonah. Group size of resident killer 

whale pods in the Icy Strait area ranges 

from 42 to 79 and occur in every month 

of the year (Dahlheim pers. comm. to 

NMFS 2015). As determined during a 

line-transect survey by Dalheim et al. 

(2008), the greatest number of transient 

killer whale observed occurred in 1993 

with 32 animals seen over 2 months for 

an average of 16 sightings per month. 

Killer whales were observed 

infrequently during construction of 

Hoonah Berth I project. Usually a 

singular animal was observed, but a 

group containing eight individuals was 

seen in the project area on one occasion. 

A total of 24 animals were observed 

during in-water work for the Hoonah 

Bert I project (BergerABAM 2016). 

During construction of the Hoonah 

Berth II project, killer whales were 

observed on 8 days. Usually a single 

animal or pairs were observed, but a 

group containing five individuals was 

seen in the project area on one occasion. 

A total of 20 animals were observed 

during in-water work on Hoonah Berth 

II project (SolsticeAK 2020). Using the 

largest group size for resident killer 

whales as discussed above, NMFS 

estimates that 79 killer whales 

(residents and transients) could occur 

each month during the 4-month project 

period for a total of 316 takes by Level 

B harassment. No take by Level A 

harassment is proposed for 

authorization or anticipated to occur to 

the ability to visibly detect these large 

whales and in most cases the small size 

of the Level A harassment zones. 

Pacific White-Sided Dolphin 

There are no density estimates of 

Pacific white-sided dolphins available 

in the project area. Pacific white-sided 

dolphins have been observed in Alaska 

waters in groups ranging from 20 to 164 

animals, with the sighting of 164 

animals occurring in Southeast Alaska 

near Dixon Entrance (Muto et al., 2018). 

There were no Pacific white-sided 

dolphins observed during the 135-day 

monitoring period during the Hoonah 

Berth I project; however, a pod of two 

Pacific white-sided dolphins was 

observed during construction of the 

Hoonah Bert II project (SolsticeAK 

2020). Using the largest group size for 

Pacific white-sided dolphins as 

discussed above, NMFS estimates 164 

Pacific white-sided dolphins may be 

seen every other month over the 4- 

month project period for a total of 328 

takes by Level B harassment. No take by 

Level A harassment is proposed or 

anticipated to occur as the largest Level 

A harassment isopleths calculated were 

43.6 m during DTH of 36-in piles and 

21.4 m during impact pile driving of 36- 

in piles. The remaining isopleths were 

all under 10 m. 

Dall’s Porpoise 

Little information is available on the 

abundance of Dall’s porpoise in the 

inland waters of Southeast Alaska. 

Dall’s porpoise are most abundant in 

spring, observed with lower numbers in 

the summer, and lowest numbers in fall. 

Jefferson et al., 2019 presents 

abundance estimates for Dall’s porpoise 

in these waters and found the 

abundance in summer (N = 2,680, CV = 

19.6 percent), and lowest in fall (N = 

1,637, CV = 23.3 percent). Dall’s 

porpoise are common in Icy Strait and 

sporadic with very low densities in Port 

Frederick (Jefferson et al., 2019). 

Dahlheim et al. (2008) observed 346 

Dall’s porpoise in Southeast Alaska 

(inclusive of Icy Strait) during the 

summer (June/July) of 2007 for an 

average of 173 animals per month as 

part of a 17-year study period. During 

the previous Hoonah Berth I project, 

only two Dall’s porpoise were observed, 

and were transiting within the waters of 

Port Frederick in the vicinity of Halibut 

Island. A total of 21 Dall’s porpoises 

were observed on eight days during the 

Hoonah Berth II project in group sizes 

of 2 to 12 porpoise (SolsticeAK 

2020).Therefore, NMFS’ estimates 12 

Dall’s porpoise a week may be seen 

during the 4-month project period for a 

total of 192 takes by Level B harassment. 

Because the calculated Level A 

harassment isopleths are larger for highfrequency cetaceans during DTH of 36- 

in piles (1,459.9 m) and 36-in impact 

pile driving (717.9 m) and the applicant 

would have a reduced shutdown zone at 

200 m, NMFS predicts that some take by 

Level A harassment may occur. It is 

estimated that two Dall’s porpoise could 

be taken by Level A harassment every 5 

days over a 20-day period (15 days of 

DTH of 36-in piles + 5 days of 36-in 

impact pile driving) for a total of 8 takes 

by Level A harassment. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Dahlheim et al. (2015) observed 332 

resident harbor porpoises occur in the 

Icy Strait area, and harbor porpoise are 

known to use the Port Frederick area as 

part of their core range. During the 

Hoonah Berth I project monitoring, a 

total of 32 harbor porpoise were 

observed over 19 days during the 4- 

month project. The harbor porpoises 

were observed in small groups with the 

largest group size reported was four 

individuals and most group sizes 

consisting of three or fewer animals. 

During the test pile program conducted 

at the Berth II project site in May 2018, 

eight harbor porpoises where observed 

over a 7-hour period (SolsticeAK 2018). 

During the Hoonah Berth II project, 120 

harbor porpoises were observed June 

through October. The largest group size 

reported was eight individuals, and 

most group sizes consisting of four or 

fewer animals (SolsticeAK 2020). NMFS 

estimates that four harbor porpoises per 

day could occur in the project area over 

the 4-month project period (110 days) 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12650 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

for a total of 440 takes by Level B 

harassment. Because the calculated 

Level A harassment isopleths are larger 

for high-frequency cetaceans during 

DTH of 36-in piles (1,459.9 m) and 36- 

in impact pile driving (717.9 m) and the 

applicant would have a reduced 

shutdown zone at 200 m, NMFS 

predicts that some take by Level A 

harassment may occur. It is estimated 

that four harbor porpoise could be taken 

by Level A harassment every 5 days 

over a 20-day period (15 days of DTH 

of 36-in piles + 5 days of 36-in impact 

pile driving) for a total of 16 takes by 

Level A harassment. 

Harbor Seal 

There are no density estimates of 

harbor seals available in the project 

area. Keller et al. (2017) observed an 

average of 26 harbor seal sightings each 

month between June and August of 2014 

in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait. During the 

monitoring of the Hoonah Berth I 

project, harbor seals typically occur in 

groups of one to four animals and a total 

of 63 seals were observed during 19 

days of the 135-day monitoring period. 

In 2019, a total of 33 harbor seals were 

seen during the Hoonah Berth II project. 

Only solo individuals where sighted 

during that time (SolsticeAK 2020). 

NMFS estimates that three harbor seals 

per group, and two groups a day, could 

occur in the project area each month 

during the 4-month project period (110 

days) for a total of 660 takes by Level 

B harassment. Because the calculated 

Level A harassment isopleths are larger 

for phocids during DTH of 36-in piles 

(655.9 m) and 36-in impact pile driving 

(322.5 m), compared with the proposed 

shutdown zone at 200 m, NMFS 

predicts that some take by Level A 

harassment may occur. It is estimated 

that one group of three harbor seals a 

day could be taken by Level A 

harassment over a 20-day period (15 

days of DTH of 36-in piles + 5 days of 

36-in impact pile driving) for a total of 

60 takes by Level A harassment. 

Steller Sea Lion 

There are no density estimates of 

Steller sea lions available in the project 

area. NMFS expects that Steller sea lion 

presence in the action area will vary due 

to prey resources and the spatial 

distribution of breeding versus nonbreeding season. In April and May, 

Steller sea lions are likely feeding on 

herring spawn in the action area. Then, 

most Steller sea lions likely move to the 

rookeries along the outside coast (away 

from the action area) during breeding 

season, and would be in the action area 

in greater numbers in August and later 

months (J. Womble, NPS, pers. comm. to 

NMFS AK Regional Office, March 2019). 

However, Steller sea lions are also 

opportunistic predators and their 

presence can be hard to predict. 

Steller sea lions typically occur in 

groups of 1–10 animals, but may 

congregate in larger groups near 

rookeries and haulouts. The previous 

Hoonah Berth I project observed a total 

of 180 Steller sea lion sightings over 135 

days in 2015, amounting to an average 

of 1.3 sightings per day (BergerABAM 

2016). During a test pile program 

performed at the project location by the 

Hoonah Cruise Ship Dock Company in 

May 2018, a total of 15 Steller sea lions 

were seen over the course of 7 hours in 

one day (SolsticeAK 2018). During 

construction of the Hoonah Berth II 

project, a total of 197 Steller sea lion 

sightings over 42 days were reported, 

amounting to an average of 4.6 sightings 

per day (SolsticeAK 2020). NMFS 

estimates that five Steller sea lions per 

day could occur in the project area each 

month during the 4-month project 

period (110 days) for a total of 550 takes 

by Level B harassment, with 39 of those 

anticipated being from the Western DPS 

(0.0702 proportion of the total animals 

(L. Jemison draft unpublished Steller 

sea lion data, 2019). There is some 

evidence of Steller sea lions remaining 

in areas where there is a reliable food 

source. Should a Steller sea lion go 

undetected by a Protected Species 

Observer (PSO) and later observed 

within the Level A harassment zone, the 

City proposes mitigation measures (e.g., 

shutdowns), and it would be unlikely 

that an animal would accumulate 

enough exposure for PTS to occur. 

Therefore, no take by Level A 

harassment is proposed or anticipated to 

occur as the largest Level A isopleths 

calculated were 47.8 m during DTH of 

36-in piles and 23.5 m during impact 

pile driving of 36-in piles. The 

remaining isopleths were approximately 

10 m or less. 

Table 10 below summarizes the 

proposed estimated take for all the 

species described above as a percentage 

of stock abundance. 

TABLE 10—PROPOSED TAKE ESTIMATES AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE

Species Stock 

(NEST) 

Level A 

harassment 

Level B 

harassment Percent of stock 

Minke Whale ............................... N/A ....................................................................... 0 12 ................... N/A. 

Humpback Whale ........................ Central North Pacific ............................................ 0 880 ................. 8.7. 

Gray Whale ................................. Eastern North Pacific (27,000) ............................. 0 4 ..................... Less than 1 percent. 

Killer Whale ................................. Alaska Resident (2,347) .......................................

Northern Resident (302) ......................................

West Coast Transient (243) .................................

........................

0 

256 .................

33 ...................

27 ...................

(Total 316) .....

a 10.9 

a 10.9 

a 11.1. 

Pacific White-Sided Dolphin ....... North Pacific (26,880) .......................................... 0 328 ................. Less than 1 percent. 

Dall’s Porpoise ............................ Alaska (83,400) §b ............................................... 8 144 ................. Less than 1 percent. 

Harbor Porpoise .......................... NA ........................................................................ 16 440 ................. NA. 

Harbor Seal ................................. Glacier Bay/Icy Strait (7,455) ............................... 60 660 ................. 8.9. 

Steller Sea Lion .......................... Eastern U.S. (43,201) ..........................................

Western U.S. (53,624) .........................................

0 511 .................

39 ...................

(Total 550) .....

1.2 

Less than 1 percent. 

aTake estimates are weighted based on calculated percentages of population for each distinct stock, assuming animals present would follow 

same probability of presence in project area. b Jefferson et al. 2019 presents the first abundance estimates for Dall’s porpoise in the waters of Southeast Alaska with highest abundance recorded in spring (N = 5,381, CV = 25.4 percent), lower numbers in summer (N = 2,680, CV = 19.6 percent), and lowest in fall (N = 1,637, CV = 

23.3 percent). However, NMFS currently recognizes a single stock of Dall’s porpoise in Alaskan waters and an estimate of 83,400 Dall’s porpoises is used by NMFS for the entire stock (Muto et al., 2020). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 12651 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

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

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to such 

activity, and other means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses (latter not 

applicable for this action). NMFS 

regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) the likelihood 

of effective implementation (probability 

implemented as planned); and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

General 

The City would follow mitigation 

procedures as outlined in their Marine 

Mammal Monitoring Plan and as 

described below. In general, if poor 

environmental conditions restrict 

visibility full visibility of the shutdown 

zone, pile driving installation and 

removal as well as DTH would be 

delayed. 

Training 

The City must ensure that 

construction supervisors and crews, the 

monitoring team, and relevant City staff 

are trained prior to the start of 

construction activity subject to this IHA, 

so that responsibilities, communication 

procedures, monitoring protocols, and 

operational procedures are clearly 

understood. New personnel joining 

during the project must be trained prior 

to commencing work. 

Avoiding Direct Physical Interaction 

The City must avoid direct physical 

interaction with marine mammals 

during construction activity. If a marine 

mammal comes within 10 m of such 

activity, operations must cease and 

vessels must reduce speed to the 

minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions, as 

necessary to avoid direct physical 

interaction. 

Shutdown Zones 

For all pile driving/removal and DTH 

activities, the City would establish a 

shutdown zone for a marine mammal 

species that is greater than its 

corresponding Level A harassment zone; 

except for a few circumstances during 

impact pile driving and DTH, where the 

shutdown zone is smaller (reduced to 

200 m) than the Level A harassment 

zone for high frequency cetaceans and 

phocids due to the practicability of 

shutdowns on the applicant and to the 

potential difficulty of observing these 

animals in the larger Level A 

harassment zones. The calculated PTS 

isopleths were rounded up to a whole 

number to determine the actual 

shutdown zones that the applicant will 

operate under (Table 11). The purpose 

of a shutdown zone is generally to 

define an area within which shutdown 

of the activity would occur upon 

sighting of a marine mammal (or in 

anticipation of an animal entering the 

defined area). 

TABLE 11—PILE DRIVING SHUTDOWN ZONES DURING PROJECT ACTIVITIES

Pile size, type, and method 

Shutdown zones 

Lowfrequency 

cetaceans 

Midfrequency 

cetaceans 

Highfrequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid Otariid 

Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal 

20-in steel fender pile installation ........................................ 10 10 15 10 10 

30-in steel pile temporary installation .................................. 10 10 15 10 10 

30-in steel pile removal ........................................................ 10 10 15 10 10 

36-in steel permanent installation ........................................ 25 10 35 15 10 

H-pile installation .................................................................. 35 10 35 15 10 

Sheet pile installation ........................................................... 25 10 35 15 10 

Impact Pile Driving 

36-in steel permanent installation ........................................ 625 25 * 200 * 200 25 

20-in fender pile installation ................................................. 10 10 10 10 10 

H-pile installation .................................................................. 25 10 30 15 10 

Sheet pile installation ........................................................... 25 10 30 15 10 

DTH 

36-in steel permanent installation ........................................ 1,230 45 * 200 * 200 50 

20-in steel fender pile installation ........................................ 265 10 * 200 145 15 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12652 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 11—PILE DRIVING SHUTDOWN ZONES DURING PROJECT ACTIVITIES—Continued 

Pile size, type, and method 

Shutdown zones 

Lowfrequency 

cetaceans 

Midfrequency 

cetaceans 

Highfrequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid Otariid 

H-pile installation .................................................................. 265 10 * 200 145 15 

* Due to practicability of the applicant to shutdown and the difficulty of observing some species and low occurrence of some species in the 

project area, such as high frequency cetaceans or pinnipeds out to this distance, the shutdown zones were reduced and Level A harassment 

takes were requested during DTH and for impact pile driving of 36-in piles. 

Soft Start 

The City must use soft start 

techniques when impact pile driving. 

Soft start requires contractors to provide 

an initial set of three strikes from the 

hammer at reduced energy, followed by 

a 30-second waiting period. Then two 

subsequent reduced-energy strike sets 

would occur. 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 30 minutes or 

longer. Soft start is not required during 

vibratory pile driving and removal 

activities. 

Vessels 

Vessels would adhere to the Alaska 

Humpback Whale Approach 

Regulations when transiting for project 

activities (see 50 CFR 216.18, 223.214, 

and 224.103(b)). These regulations 

require that all vessels: 

D Not approach within 91.44 m (100 

yd) of a humpback whale, or cause a 

vessel or other object to approach 

within 91.44 m (100 yd) of a humpback 

whale; 

D Not place vessel in the path of 

oncoming humpback whales causing 

them to surface within 91.44 m (100 yd) 

of vessel; 

D Not disrupt the normal behavior or 

prior activity of a whale; and 

D Operate at a slow, safe speed when 

near a humpback whale (safe speed is 

defined in regulation (see 33 CFR 

83.06)). 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the proposed action area. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as 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: 

D Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

D 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). 

D Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

D How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

D Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

D Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Monitoring Zones 

The City will establish and observe 

monitoring zones for Level B 

harassment as presented in Table 9. The 

monitoring zones for this project are 

areas where SPLs are equal to or exceed 

120 dB rms (for vibratory pile driving/ 

removal and DTH) and 160 dB rms (for 

impact pile driving). These zones 

provide utility for monitoring 

conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e., 

shutdown zone monitoring) by 

establishing monitoring protocols for 

areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. 

Monitoring of the Level B harassment 

zones enables observers to be aware of 

and communicate the presence of 

marine mammals in the project area, but 

outside the shutdown zone, and thus 

prepare for potential shutdowns of 

activity. 

Pre-Start Clearance Monitoring 

Pre-start clearance monitoring must 

be conducted during periods of 

visibility sufficient for the lead PSO to 

determine the shutdown zones clear of 

marine mammals. Pile driving and DTH 

may commence when the determination 

is made. 

Visual Monitoring 

Monitoring must take place from 30 

minutes (min) prior to initiation of pile 

driving and DTH activity (i.e., pre-start 

clearance monitoring) through 30 min 

post-completion of pile driving and 

DTH activity. If a marine mammal is 

observed entering or within the 

shutdown zones, pile driving and DTH 

activity must be delayed or halted. If 

pile driving or DTH is delayed or halted 

due to the presence of a marine 

mammal, the activity may not 

commence or resume until either the 

animal has voluntarily exited and been 

visually confirmed beyond the 

shutdown zone or 15 min have passed 

without re-detection of the animal. Pile 

driving and DTH activity must be halted 

upon observation of either a species for 

which incidental take is not authorized 

or a species for which incidental take 

has been authorized but the authorized 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 12653 

number of takes has been met, entering 

or within the harassment zone. 

PSO Monitoring Locations and 

Requirements 

The City must establish monitoring 

locations as described in the Marine 

Mammal Monitoring Plan. The City 

must monitor the project area to the 

extent possible based on the required 

number of PSOs, required monitoring 

locations, and environmental 

conditions. Monitoring would be 

conducted by PSOs from on land and 

from a vessel. For all pile driving and 

DTH activities, a minimum of one 

observer must be assigned to each active 

pile driving and DTH location to 

monitor the shutdown zones. Three 

PSOs must be onsite during all in-water 

activities as follows: PSO 1 stationed at 

the pile site on the existing City Dock, 

PSO 2 stationed on Halibut Island facing 

south and PSO 3 stationed on a vessel 

running a transect through southern 

portion of the project area in Port 

Frederick. These observers must record 

all observations of marine mammals, 

regardless of distance from the pile 

being driven or during DTH. 

In addition, PSOs will work in shifts 

lasting no longer than 4 hrs with at least 

a 1-hr break between shifts, and will not 

perform duties as a PSO for more than 

12 hrs in a 24-hr period (to reduce PSO 

fatigue). 

Monitoring of pile driving shall be 

conducted by qualified, NMFSapproved PSOs. The City shall adhere to 

the following conditions when selecting 

PSOs: 

D PSOs must be independent (i.e., not 

construction personnel) and have no 

other assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods. 

D At least one PSO must have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activities 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization. 

D Other PSOs may substitute other 

relevant experience, education (degree 

in biological science or related field), or 

training. 

D Where a team of three PSOs are 

required, a lead observer or monitoring 

coordinator shall be designated. The 

lead observer must have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization. 

D PSOs must be approved by NMFS 

prior to beginning any activity subject to 

this IHA. 

The City shall ensure that the PSOs 

have the following additional 

qualifications: 

D Visual acuity in both eyes 

(correction is permissible) sufficient for 

discernment of moving targets at the 

water’s surface with ability to estimate 

target size and distance; use of 

binoculars may be necessary to correctly 

identify the target; 

D Experience and ability to conduct 

field observations and collect data 

according to assigned protocols; 

D Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

D Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

D Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior; 

D Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary; and 

D Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operations to provide for personal safety 

during observations. 

Notification of Intent To Commence 

Construction 

The City shall inform NMFS OPR and 

the NMFS Alaska Region Protected 

Resources Division one week prior to 

commencing construction activities. 

Interim Monthly Reports 

During construction, the City will 

submit brief, monthly reports to the 

NMFS Alaska Region Protected 

Resources Division that summarize PSO 

observations and recorded takes. 

Monthly reporting will allow NMFS to 

track the amount of take (including any 

extrapolated takes), to allow reinitiation 

of consultation in a timely manner, if 

necessary. The monthly reports will be 

submitted by email to akr.section7@

nooa.gov. The reporting period for each 

monthly PSO report will be the entire 

calendar month, and reports will be 

submitted by close of business on the 

10th day of the month following the end 

of the reporting period. 

Final Report 

The City must submit a draft report on 

all monitoring conducted under this 

IHA within 90 calendar days of the 

completion of monitoring or 60 calendar 

days prior to the requested issuance of 

any subsequent IHA for construction 

activity at the same location, whichever 

comes first. A final report must be 

prepared and submitted within 30 days 

following resolution of any NMFS 

comments on the draft report. If no 

comments are received from NMFS 

within 30 days of receipt of the draft 

report, the report shall be considered 

final. All draft and final marine 

mammal monitoring reports must be 

submitted to 

PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov 

and ITP.Egger@noaa.gov. The report 

must contain the informational elements 

described in the Marine Mammal 

Monitoring Plan and, at minimum, must 

include: 

D Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 

D Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including: 

Æ How many and what type of piles 

were driven and by what method (e.g., 

impact, vibratory, DTH); 

Æ Total duration of driving time for 

each pile (vibratory driving) and 

number of strikes for each pile (impact 

driving); and 

Æ For DTH, duration of operation for 

both impulsive and non-pulse 

components. 

D PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; 

D (Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance; 

D Upon observation of a marine 

mammal, the following information: 

Æ PSO who sighted the animal and 

PSO location and activity at time of 

sighting; 

Æ Time of sighting; 

Æ Identification of the animal (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO 

confidence in identification, and the 

composition of the group if there is a 

mix of species; 

Æ Distance and bearing of each 

marine mammal observed to the pile 

being driven for each sighting (if pile 

driving and DTH was occurring at time 

of sighting); 

Æ Estimated number of animals (min/ 

max/best); 

Æ Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, 

group composition etc.; 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12654 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

Æ Animal’s closest point of approach 

and estimated time spent within the 

harassment zone. 

Æ Description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses to the activity (e.g., no 

response or changes in behavioral state 

such as ceasing feeding, changing 

direction, flushing, or breaching); 

D Detailed information about 

implementation of any mitigation (e.g., 

shutdowns and delays), a description of 

specific actions that ensued, and 

resulting changes in behavior of the 

animal, if any; and 

D All PSO datasheets and/or raw 

sightings data. 

Reporting of Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

City must report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources 

(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov), 

NMFS (301–427–8401) and to the 

Alaska regional stranding network (877– 

925–7773) as soon as feasible. If the 

death or injury was clearly caused by 

the specified activity, the City must 

immediately cease the specified 

activities until NMFS OPR is able to 

review the circumstances of the incident 

and determine what, if any, additional 

measures are appropriate to ensure 

compliance with the terms of this IHA. 

The City must not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS. The 

report must include the following 

information: 

D Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

D Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

D Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

D Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

D If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

D General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

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’s 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). 

As stated in the proposed mitigation 

section, shutdown zones that are larger 

than the Level A harassment zones will 

be implemented in the majority of 

construction days, which, in 

combination with the fact that the zones 

are so small to begin with, is expected 

to avoid the likelihood of Level A 

harassment for six of the nine species. 

For the other three species (harbor seals, 

Dall’s and harbor porpoises), a small 

amount of Level A harassment has been 

conservatively proposed because the 

Level A harassment zones are larger 

than the proposed shutdown zones 

during impact pile driving of 36-in piles 

and during DTH. However, given the 

nature of the activities and sound source 

and the unlikelihood that animals 

would stay in the vicinity of the piledriving for long, any PTS incurred 

would be expected to be of a low degree 

and unlikely to have any effects on 

individual fitness. 

Exposures to elevated sound levels 

produced during pile driving activities 

may cause behavioral responses by an 

animal, but they are expected to be mild 

and temporary. Effects on individuals 

that are taken by Level B harassment, on 

the basis of reports in the literature as 

well as monitoring from other similar 

activities, will likely be limited to 

reactions such as increased swimming 

speeds, increased surfacing time, or 

decreased foraging (if such activity were 

occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 

2006; Lerma, 2014). Most likely, 

individuals will simply move away 

from the sound source and be 

temporarily displaced from the areas of 

pile driving, although even this reaction 

has been observed primarily only in 

association with impact pile driving. 

These reactions and behavioral changes 

are expected to subside quickly when 

the exposures cease. 

To minimize noise during pile 

driving, the City will use pile caps (pile 

softening material). Much of the noise 

generated during pile installation comes 

from contact between the pile being 

driven and the steel template used to 

hold the pile in place. The contractor 

will use high-density polyethylene or 

ultra-high-molecular- weight 

polyethylene softening material on all 

templates to eliminate steel on steel 

noise generation. 

During all impact driving, 

implementation of soft start procedures 

and monitoring of established shutdown 

zones will be required, significantly 

reducing the possibility of injury. Given 

sufficient notice through use of soft start 

(for impact driving), marine mammals 

are expected to move away from an 

irritating sound source prior to it 

becoming potentially injurious. In 

addition, PSOs will be stationed within 

the action area whenever pile driving/ 

removal and DTH activities are 

underway. Depending on the activity, 

the City will employ the use of three 

PSOs to ensure all monitoring and 

shutdown zones are properly observed. 

The HMIC Cargo Dock would likely 

not impact any marine mammal habitat 

since its proposed location is within an 

area that is currently used by large 

shipping vessels and in between two 

existing, heavily-traveled docks, and 

within an active marine commercial and 

tourist area. There are no known 

pinniped haulouts or other biologically 

important areas for marine mammals 

near the action area. In addition, 

impacts to marine mammal prey species 

are expected to be minor and temporary. 

Overall, the area impacted by the project 

is very small compared to the available 

habitat around Hoonah. The most likely 

impact to prey will be temporary 

behavioral avoidance of the immediate 

area. During pile driving/removal and 

DTH activities, it is expected that fish 

and marine mammals would 

temporarily move to nearby locations 

and return to the area following 

cessation of in-water construction 

activities. Therefore, indirect effects on 

marine mammal prey during the 

construction are not expected to be 

substantial. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 12655 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

D No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

D Minimal impacts to marine 

mammal habitat/prey are expected; 

D The action area is located and 

within an active marine commercial and 

tourist area; 

D There are no rookeries, or other 

known areas or features of special 

significance for foraging or reproduction 

in the project area; 

D Anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment consist of, at worst, 

temporary modifications in behavior; 

and 

D The required mitigation measures 

(i.e. shutdown zones) are expected to be 

effective in reducing the effects of the 

specified activity. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under Section 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. 

Seven of the nine marine mammal 

stocks proposed for take are 

approximately 11 percent or less of the 

stock abundance. There are no official 

stock abundances for harbor porpoise 

and minke whales; however, as 

discussed in greater detail in the 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities, we believe 

for the abundance information that is 

available, the estimated takes are likely 

small percentages of the stock 

abundance. For harbor porpoise, the 

abundance for the Southeast Alaska 

stock is likely more represented by the 

aerial surveys that were conducted as 

these surveys had better coverage and 

were corrected for observer bias. Based 

on this data, the estimated take could 

potentially be approximately 4 percent 

of the stock abundance. However, this is 

unlikely and the percentage of the stock 

taken is likely lower as the proposed 

take estimates are conservative and the 

project occurs in a small footprint 

compared to the available habitat in 

Southeast Alaska. For minke whales, in 

the northern part of their range they are 

believed to be migratory and so few 

minke whales have been seen during 

three offshore Gulf of Alaska surveys 

that a population estimate could not be 

determined. With only twelve proposed 

takes for this species, the percentage of 

take in relation to the stock abundance 

is likely to be very small. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

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 the 

specified activity: (1) That is likely to 

reduce the availability of the species to 

a level insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 

hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing 

subsistence users; or (iii) Placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; 

and (2) That cannot be sufficiently 

mitigated by other measures to increase 

the availability of marine mammals to 

allow subsistence needs to be met. 

In September 2020, the Indigenous 

People’s Council for Marine Mammals 

(IPCoMM), the Alaska Sea Otter and 

Steller Sea Lion Commission, Huna 

Totem Corporation, and the Hoonah 

Indian Association (HIA) were 

contacted to determine potential project 

impacts on local subsistence activities. 

No comments were received from 

IPCoMM or the Alaska Sea Otter and 

Steller Sea Lion Commission. On 

September 14, 2020, Huna Totem 

Corporation expressed support for the 

project and indicated that they do not 

anticipate any marine mammal or 

subsistence. 

The proposed project is not likely to 

adversely impact the availability of any 

marine mammal species or stocks that 

are commonly used for subsistence 

purposes or to impact subsistence 

harvest of marine mammals in the 

region because construction activities 

are localized and temporary; mitigation 

measures will be implemented to 

minimize disturbance of marine 

mammals in the project area; and the 

project will not result in significant 

changes to availability of subsistence 

resources. 

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 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that there will not be an 

unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from the City’s 

proposed activities. 

Therefore, we believe there are no 

relevant subsistence uses of the affected 

marine mammal stocks or species 

implicated by this action. NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the total 

taking of affected species or stocks 

would not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of such 

species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with the Alaska Regional 

Office (AKRO). 

NMFS is proposing to authorize take 

of Mexico DPS humpback whales, and 

Western DPS Steller sea lions which are 

listed under the ESA. The Permit and 

Conservation Division has requested 

initiation of Section 7 consultation with 

the AKRO for the issuance of this IHA. 

NMFS will conclude the ESA 

consultation prior to reaching a 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12656 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

determination regarding the proposed 

issuance of the authorization. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to the City for conducting for the 

proposed pile driving and removal 

activities as well as DTH during 

construction of the Hoonah Marine 

Industrial Center Cargo Dock Project, 

Hoonah Alaska for one year, beginning 

March or April 2021, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. A draft of the 

proposed IHA can be found at https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHA for the proposed pile driving and 

removal activities as well as DTH during 

construction of the Hoonah Marine 

Industrial Center Cargo Dock Project. 

We also request at this time, comments 

on the potential for Renewal of this 

proposed IHA as described in the 

paragraph below. Please include with 

your comments any supporting data or 

literature citations to help inform 

decisions on the request for this IHA or 

a subsequent Renewal IHA. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, 1-year Renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical or nearly identical, or nearly 

identical, activities as described in the 

Description of Proposed Activities 

section of this notice is planned or (2) 

the activities as described in the 

Description of Proposed Activities 

section of this notice would not be 

completed by the time the IHA expires 

and a Renewal would allow for 

completion of the activities beyond that 

described in the Dates and Duration 

section of this notice, provided all of the 

following conditions are met: 

D A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to the needed 

Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that the Renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond one year from 

expiration of the initial IHA); 

D The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted under the requested 

Renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take); and 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

Upon review of the request for 

Renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: February 26, 2021. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04431 Filed 3–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA845 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

General Provisions for Domestic 

Fisheries; Application for Exempted 

Fishing Permits 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional 

Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, 

Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has 

made a preliminary determination that 

an Exempted Fishing Permit application 

contains all of the required information 

and warrants further consideration. The 

Exempted Fishing Permit would allow 

two commercial fishing vessels to use 

large mesh gillnet gear to collect preconstruction data on the abundance, 

size structure, and distribution of 

monkfish and winter skate in the South 

Fork Wind Farm work area and adjacent 

waters, under the direction of the 

Commercial Fisheries Research 

Foundation. Regulations under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

require publication of this notification 

to provide interested parties the 

opportunity to comment on applications 

for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 19, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments by any of the following 

methods: 

• Email: nmfs.gar.efp@noaa.gov. 

Include in the subject line ‘‘CFRF South 

Fork Wind Farm Gillnet EFP.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Louis Forristall, Marine Resources 

Management Specialist, 978–281–9321, 

Louis.Forristall@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commercial Fisheries Research 

Foundation (CFRF) submitted a 

complete application for an Exempted 

Fishing Permit (EFP) in support of its 

South Fork Wind Farm (SFWF) Gillnet 

Survey on October 16, 2020. The 

proposed research would use largemesh gillnet gear in a Before-AfterControl-Impact study design to collect 

pre-construction data on the abundance, 

size structure, and distribution of 

monkfish, winter skate, and other 

species in the SFWF lease area and 

adjacent waters. 

This EFP would temporarily exempt 

up to two active vessels and six backup 

vessels from: Possession limits and 

minimum size requirements specified in 

50 CFR 648 subparts A, B, and D 

through O for on-board sampling and 

donation of sampled catch; and gillnet 

tagging requirements in 50 CFR 648 

subparts A and F, so gillnets used in the 

surveys can be marked with tags from 

CFRF. 

A rotational sampling schedule would 

be used between a survey site inside the 

SFWF lease area and two reference 

survey areas outside the lease area. 

Individual surveys would sample one or 

two of these areas per trip, depending 

on the rotational schedule and steam 

time between the areas. Each survey 

would consist of four 1-day trips: Two 

trips to set the gear and two trips to 

retrieve gear and sample the catch. 

Survey trips would take place 

seasonally four times per month from 

April–June and again from October– 

December for each project year resulting 

in four sampling periods: October 2020– 

December 2020; April 2021–June 2021; 

October 2021–December 2021; and 

April 2022–June 2022. In total, 90 nets 

would be sampled after 48 hour soak 

times twice per month during the 

survey periods. 

Vessels sampling gillnets under this 

EFP would declare out of fishery (DOF) 

to avoid using a monkfish day-at-sea 

(DAS) while carrying out the research 

activities covered by this EFP. Vessels 

operating as DOF and solely conducting 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES