Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 12411 

Fisheries and Protected Resources’’ in 

the subject line of the message. 

Instructions: Response to this request 

for information (RFI) is voluntary. 

Respondents may comment on fisheries, 

protected resources or both. For all 

submissions, clearly indicate which 

issue(s) are being addressed. Email 

attachments will be accepted in plain 

text, Microsoft Word, or Adobe PDF 

formats only. Each individual or 

institution is requested to submit only 

one response. The Department of 

Commerce may post responses to this 

RFI, without change, on a Federal 

website. NOAA, therefore, requests that 

no business proprietary information, 

copyrighted information, or personally 

identifiable information be submitted in 

response to this RFI. Please note that the 

U.S. Government will not pay for 

response preparation, or for the use of 

any information contained in the 

response. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Sagar, heather.sagar@noaa.gov, 

301–427–8019. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 27, 2021, the President signed a 

new Executive Order on Tackling the 

Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. 

Section 216(c) of the Executive Order 

requires the Secretary of Commerce, 

through the Administrator of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, to collect input from 

fishermen, regional ocean councils, 

fishery management councils, scientists, 

and other stakeholders on how to make 

fisheries and protected resources more 

resilient to climate change, including 

changes in management and 

conservation measures, and 

improvements in science, monitoring, 

and cooperative research. 

Dated: February 24, 2021. 

Benjamin Friedman, 

Deputy Under Secretary for Operations, 

Performing the Duties of Under Secretary of 

Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and 

NOAA Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04137 Filed 3–2–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XA810] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Berth III 

New Mooring Dolphins Project in 

Ketchikan, Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

City of Ketchikan, Alaska (COK) to 

incidentally harass, by Level A and B 

harassment, marine mammals during 

construction activities associated with 

the Berth III New Mooring Dolphins 

Project in Ketchikan, AK. 

DATES: This Authorization is effective 

for a period of one year, from October 

1, 2021 through September 30, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Pauline, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions, sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) 

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

direct the Secretary of Commerce (as 

delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of 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 the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

Summary of Request 

On May 14, 2020, NMFS received a 

request from COK for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to 

construction activities associated with 

the Berth III Mooring Dolphin Project in 

Ketchikan, Alaska. After several 

revisions, the application was deemed 

adequate and complete on September 

22, 2021. COK’s request is for take of 

nine species of marine mammals by 

harassment, including Level A 

harassment of three of these species. 

Neither COK nor NMFS expects serious 

injury or mortality to result from this 

activity and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

COK plans to make improvements to 

Berth III, in order to accommodate a 

new fleet of large cruise ships (i.e. Bliss 

class) and to meet the needs of the 

growing cruise ship industry and its 

vessels in Southeast Alaska. Expansion 

activities include vibratory pile 

removal, vibratory pile driving, impact 

pile driving and down-the-hole (DTH) 

pile installation. Underwater sound 

generated by these in-water activities 

may result in harassment including 

Level B harassment and Level A 

harassment of marine mammal species. 

In-water work is scheduled to occur 

over approximately 120 days between 

October 1, 2021 and March 13, 2022 

although the IHA would be effective 

until September 30, 2022. 

The proposed project would install 

three new mooring dolphins (MD) with 

one at the north end of Berth III (MD#2) 

and two at the south end (MD#3 & 

MD#4) as shown in Figure 2 in COK’s 

IHA application (available online at: 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12412 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 

incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities). A total of 20 

piles will be installed. Eight of the piles 

are temporary template piles and would 

be removed as shown in Table 1. Pile 

driving will be conducted from an 

anchored barge, utilizing vibratory and 

impact hammers to install and remove 

piles and DTH pile installation to 

position rock sockets and tension 

anchors. Rock socketing is a process 

where a pile is driven by conventional 

vibratory and impact hammers until 

reaching solid bedrock. If at that point 

the pile cannot support the needed load, 

a hole can be drilled into the rock with 

a DTH system to allow the pile to be 

anchored up to 10 or more feet into the 

solid rock. Tension anchoring involves 

creating an anchor hole that is smaller 

in diameter than the pile. The holes 

extend 10 to 20 feet or more below the 

bottom of the pile. A steel bar or other 

anchoring structure (e.g., rebar frame) is 

then grouted or cemented in place from 

the bottom of the anchor hole and 

extending up to the top of the pile. 

Attaching the anchor bar or frame to the 

pile then helps anchor the pile in place 

to support the required project loads. 

TABLE 1—PROJECT PILE TYPES AND QUANTITIES

Location Item Size and type Qty 

MD#2 .............................. Dolphin and Fender Piles ...................................... 48-inch (1.22 m) steel pipe piles ........................... 6 

Temporary Template Piles ..................................... 30-inch (0.76 m) steel pipe piles ........................... 8 

MD#3 .............................. Dolphin Piles .......................................................... 36-inch (0.9 m) steel pipe piles ............................. 3 

MD#4 .............................. Dolphin Piles .......................................................... 36-inch (0.9 m) steel pipe piles ............................. 3 

A detailed description of the planned 

Berth III New Mooring Dolphins Project 

is provided in the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (85 FR 

71612; November 10, 2020). Since that 

time, no changes have been made to the 

planned activities. Therefore, a detailed 

description is not provided here. Please 

refer to that Federal Register notice for 

the description of the specific activity. 

Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures are described in detail later in 

this document (please see Mitigation 

and Monitoring and Reporting sections). 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue 

an IHA to COK was published in the 

Federal Register on November 12, 2020 

(85 FR 71612). That notice described, in 

detail, COK’s activity, the marine 

mammal species that may be affected by 

the activity, and the anticipated effects 

on marine mammals. During the 30-day 

public comment period, NMFS received 

comments from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission). Please see 

the Commission’s letter for full details 

regarding their recommendations and 

rationale. The letter is available online 

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

action/incidental-take-authorizationberth-iii-new-mooring-dolphins-projectketchikan-alaska. A summary of the 

Commission’s recommendations as well 

as NMFS’ responses is below. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

inquired about the methodology used to 

extrapolate the source level for DTH 

installation of 48-inch piles and 

recommended that NMFS publish a 

revised authorization for public 

comment that fully describes its 

extrapolation method before issuing any 

final authorization to COK. 

Response: The extrapolation 

technique and software packages 

employed by NMFS and described 

below are commonly used and widely 

accepted by the scientific community. 

In summary, NMFS ran regressions in 

the R programming language (version 

3.5.1) using the R Commander Graphical 

User Interface. Data were average source 

levels from recordings of single piles 

and available covariates (e.g., water 

depth, pile depth, hole size, distance of 

sound source measurement) where 

NMFS had access to published and 

unpublished DTH monitoring data. The 

Generalized Linear Model routine in R 

Commander was used to assess the fit of 

linear and non-linear multiple 

regression models of the data. Model 

assumptions were assessed graphically 

and mathematically and the best fit of 

models that fit statistical assumptions 

and retained statistically significant 

covariates was chosen mathematically. 

The best fit model was used to calculate 

the source level for the extrapolated 

hole size. The calculated source level 

was then rounded to the next highest 

integer decibel for use in this action. 

NMFS does not concur that the notice 

of proposed authorization needs to be 

re-published given that a re-published 

notice would utilize the same 

extrapolation methodology and arrive at 

the same source level for DTH 

installation of 48-inch piles. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS use a 

repetition rate of 13 strikes/second and 

the proxy source level of 146 dB re 1 

mPa2-sec at 10 m from Guan and Miner 

(2020) to re-estimate the Level A 

harassment and shutdown zones for 

DTH pile installation of 12-inch piles. 

Response: NMFS did utilize a proxy 

source level of 146 dB re 1 mPa2-sec for 

DTH pile installation of 12-inch piles. 

NMFS does not agree with the 

recommendation to use a strike rate of 

13 strikes per second as strike rates can 

be highly variable. While it appears that 

strike rates may decrease as hole sizes 

become smaller, there is no specific 

strike rate data available for 12-inch 

piles. Therefore, NMFS used a strike 

rate across all DTH activities of 10 

strikes per second. 

Comment 3: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS require COK 

to conduct sound source and sound 

propagation measurements of DTH pile 

installation. 

Response: NMFS agrees that there 

would be value in conducting sound 

source testing on some of the piles for 

which DTH installation data is not 

available. However, the City of 

Ketchikan has not budgeted for sound 

source verification and propagation 

measurements and a requirement of this 

nature would not be practicable. 

Therefore, NMFS does not concur with 

the Commission’s recommendation. 

Comment 4: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS employ 

alternate methodologies to estimate take 

of harbor seals. They recommended 

either basing take estimates on survey 

data from a local haulout location or on 

observations made during a COKsponsored rock blasting project (84 FR 

36891; July 30, 2019). 

Response: There are a number of ways 

to estimate take in the absence of 

density data. NMFS based take on 

observed harbor seal group size near the 

project area. This methodology has 

previously been employed by NMFS at 

other locations in Ketchikan (84 FR 

36891; July 30, 2019 and 85 FR 673; 

January 7, 2020). Applying the available 

haulout data would likely overestimate 

take since it assumed that all 83 seals at 

the haulout would be taken during each 

day of construction. NMFS did use the 

data from the COK-sponsored rock 

blasting project but interpreted the 

results differently than the Commission. 

Given that harbor seals are known to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 12413 

follow fishing vessels into the marina, 

COK and NMFS assumed that more 

seals would be found in or near the 

harbor, while the Commission assumed 

that the animals would be evenly 

distributed across the entire 12.5-km 

Level B harassment zone. Since NMFS 

believes seal concentrations are likely to 

be greater near the harbor, we do not 

concur with the Commission’s 

recommendation. 

Comment 5: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS revise 

condition 6(b)(ix) in the final 

authorization to require COK to report 

the number of individuals of each 

species detected within the Level A and 

B harassment zones, and estimates of 

number of marine mammals taken by 

Level A and B harassment, by species. 

The Commission recommended NMFS 

include requirements that COK include 

in its monitoring report (1) the 

estimated percentages of the Level A 

and B harassment zones that were not 

visible, (2) an extrapolation of the 

estimated takes by Level A and B 

harassment based on the number of 

observed exposures within the Level A 

and B harassment zones and the 

percentages of the Level A and B 

harassment zones that were not visible 

(i.e., extrapolated takes) consistent with 

other authorizations, and (3) the total 

number of Level A and B harassment 

takes based on both the observed and 

extrapolated takes for each species. 

Response: We do not fully concur 

with the Commission’s recommendation 

and do not adopt it as stated. NMFS 

agrees with the recommendation to 

require COK to report the number of 

individuals of each species detected 

within the harassment zones and has 

included this requirement in both the 

proposed and final authorizations. (See 

condition 6(b)(ix).) NMFS does not 

agree with the recommendation to 

require COK to report estimates of the 

numbers of marine mammals taken by 

Level B harassment. The Commission 

does not explain why it believes this 

requirement is necessary, nor does it 

provide recommendations for methods 

of generating such estimates in a 

manner that would lead to credible 

results. NMFS does agree COK should 

report the estimated percentage(s) of the 

Level B harassment zones that were not 

visible, and has included this 

requirement in both the proposed and 

final authorizations. (See condition 

6(b)(iii).) These pieces of information— 

numbers of individuals of each species 

detected within the harassment zones 

and the estimated percentage(s) of the 

harassment zones that were not 

visible—may be used to glean an 

approximate understanding of whether 

COK may have exceeded the amount of 

take authorized. Although the 

Commission does not explain its 

reasoning for offering these 

recommendations, NMFS recognizes the 

basic need to understand whether an 

IHA-holder may have exceeded its 

authorized take. The need to accomplish 

this basic function of reporting does not 

require that NMFS require applicants to 

use methods we do not have confidence 

in to generate estimates of ‘‘total take’’ 

that cannot be considered reliable. 

Comment 6: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS include in the 

final authorization an additional table 

that specifies the extents of the Level A 

harassment zones that exceed the shutdown zones, particularly for HF 

cetaceans and phocids. 

Response: The table described by the 

Commission has been used very 

infrequently and only in situations with 

there are limited pile types, pile sizes, 

and/or pile installation methods 

employed. Such a table would be 

cumbersome and unwieldy in this 

instance given the numerous pile types, 

pile sizes and pile installation methods 

planned for use in which different Level 

A harassment isopleths are dependent 

on either varying duration or strike rate 

for both impact and DTH installation. 

The information that the Commission 

desires is readily available in Table 7 

and Table 10. 

Comment 7: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS reinforce that 

COK must keep a running tally of the 

total Level A and B harassment takes, 

both observed and extrapolated, for each 

species consistent with condition 4(g) of 

the final authorization. 

Response: The IHA indicates the 

number of takes authorized for each 

species. We agree that COK must ensure 

they do not exceed authorized takes, but 

do not concur with the Commission’s 

repeated recommendations regarding 

the need for NMFS to oversee IHAholders’ compliance with issued IHAs, 

including the use of a ‘‘running tally’’ of 

takes. Regardless of the Commission’s 

substitution of the word ‘‘reinforce’’ for 

the word ‘‘ensure,’’ as compared with its 

prior recommendations for other 

actions, compliance with the terms of an 

issued IHA remains the responsibility of 

the IHA-holder. 

Comment 8: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS refrain from 

issuing a renewal for any authorization 

unless it is consistent with the 

procedural requirements specified in 

section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the MMPA. 

Response: In prior responses to 

comments about IHA Renewals (e.g., 84 

FR 52464; October 02, 2019 and 85 FR 

53342, August 28, 2020), NMFS has 

explained how the Renewal process, as 

implemented, is consistent with the 

statutory requirements contained in 

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

provides additional efficiencies beyond 

the use of abbreviated notices, and, 

further, promotes NMFS’ goals of 

improving conservation of marine 

mammals and increasing efficiency in 

the MMPA compliance process. 

Therefore, we intend to continue 

implementing the Renewal process. 

Changes From the Proposed IHA to 

Final IHA 

NMFS increased authorized take of 

harbor porpoise from 40 to 80 and 

authorized take of minke whale from 2 

to 8 based on informal comments from 

the Commission. Authorized take of 

humpback whales was also increased 

from 68 to 119 due to the daily 

occurrence of a single humpback whale 

in Tongass Narrows after the notice of 

proposed IHA (85 FR 71612; November 

12, 2020) had published in the Federal 

Register. These changes are described in 

detail in the Estimated Take section. 

The source level for DTH installation of 

12-inch anchors was reduced from 166.2 

dB to 162 dB based on data from Guan 

and Miner (2020) where 18-inch piles 

were measured. Anchor holes for COK 

will be 12-inch. Therefore, it is more 

accurate to use the 18-inch SL as the 

proxy sound source level for 12-inch 

anchors compared to 30-, 36- and 48- 

inch piles from Reyff & Heyvaert (2019), 

Reyff (2020), and Denes et al. (2019) 

which were used to derive 166.2 dB SL 

value. Therefore, the Level B 

harassment isopleth for DTH 

installation of 12-inch anchors was 

reduced from 12,023 m to 6,310 m. In 

the Monitoring and Reporting section, 

NMFS has added language stating that 

PSOs must work in rotating shifts of 4 

hours and individual PSOs must not 

perform duties for more than 12 hours 

in a 24-hour period. New language has 

also been added requiring PSOs to use 

elevated platforms at observation points 

to the extent practicable. 

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-assessments) and more 

general information about these species 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12414 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

website (https://

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

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and authorized 

for this action, and summarizes 

information related to the population or 

stock, including regulatory status under 

the MMPA and Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 

follow Committee on Taxonomy (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’s 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’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. Alaska SARs (Muto et al. 

2020). All values presented in Table 2 

are the most recent available at the time 

of publication and are available in the 

2019 SARs (Muto et al., 2020) and draft 

2020 SARs (available online at: https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA

Common name Scientific name MMPA stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance Nbest (CV, 

Nmin, most recent abundance 

survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae 

Gray Whale ...................... Eschrichtius robustus ............. Eastern North Pacific ............. -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 2016) .. 801 139 

Family Balaenidae 

Humpback whale .............. Megaptera novaeangliae ........ Central North Pacific .............. -, -,Y 10,103 (0.3; 7,891; 2006) ...... 83 25 

Minke whale ..................... Balaenoptera acutorostrata .... Alaska ..................................... -, -, N N.A. ........................................ N.A. 0 

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae 

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

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

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

Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea 

Transient.

-, -, N 587 (N.A.; 587; 2012 .............. 5.87 1 

Pacific white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus obliquidens North Pacific ........................... -, -, N 26,880 (N.A.; N.A.; 1990) ...... N.A. 0 

Family Phocoenidae 

Harbor porpoise ............... Phocoena phocoena .............. Southeast Alaska ................... -, -, Y 1,354 (0.10; 896; 2012) ......... 8.95 34 

Dall’s porpoise .................. Phocoenoides dalli ................. Alaska ..................................... -, -, N 83,400 (0.097; N.A.; 1991 ...... N.A. 38 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions) 

Steller sea lion ................. Eumetopias jubatus ................ Eastern U.S. ........................... -, -, N 43,201 (N.A.; 43,201; 2017) .. 2,592 112 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals) 

Harbor seal ....................... Phoca vitulina richardii ........... Clarence Strait ....................... -, -, N 27,659 (N.A.; 24,854; 2015) .. 746 40 

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

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

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

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable (N.A.). 3These values, found in NMFS’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. 

As indicated above, all nine species 

(with 12 managed stocks) in Table 2 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur, and we are 

authorizing it. 

A detailed description of the of the 

species likely to be affected by the 

project, including brief introductions to 

the species and relevant stocks as well 

as available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

information regarding local occurrence, 

were provided in the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (85 FR 

71612); since that time, we are not 

aware of any changes in the status of 

these species and stocks; therefore, 

detailed descriptions are not provided 

here. Please refer to that Federal 

Register notice for these descriptions. 

Please also refer to NMFS’ website 

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

accounts. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 12415 

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 based on 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. 

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 mammal 

species (seven cetacean and two 

pinniped (one otariid and one phocid) 

species) have the reasonable potential to 

co-occur with the planned survey 

activities. 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 and ziphiid species and the 

sperm whale), and two are classified as 

high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., porpoise 

spp.). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

pile removal activities have the 

potential to result in behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the survey area. The notice 

of proposed IHA (85 FR 71602; 

November 10, 2020) included a 

discussion of the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and the potential effects of 

underwater noise from WSDOT’s 

vibratory pile removal on marine 

mammals and their habitat. That 

information and analysis is incorporated 

by reference into this final IHA 

determination and is not repeated here; 

please refer to the notice of proposed 

IHA (85 FR 71602; November 10, 2020). 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which will 

inform both NMFS’ consideration of 

‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as use of the 

acoustic sources (i.e., vibratory or 

impact pile driving or DTH pile 

installation) has the potential to result 

in disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals. There is 

also some potential for auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to result, primarily 

for high frequency cetacean species and 

phocid pinnipeds. Auditory injury is 

unlikely to occur in low-frequency and 

mid-frequency cetacean species and 

otariid pinnipeds. The planned 

mitigation and monitoring measures are 

expected to minimize the severity of the 

taking to the extent practicable. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) and the number of days of 

activities. We note that while these 

basic factors can contribute to a basic 

calculation to provide an initial 

prediction of takes, additional 

information that can qualitatively 

inform take estimates is also sometimes 

available (e.g., previous monitoring 

results or average group size). Below, we 

describe the factors considered here in 

more detail and present the authorized 

take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12416 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

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

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(e.g., hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

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

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

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

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 

(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. 

COK’s planned activity includes the 

use of continuous (vibratory pile 

driving, DTH pile installation) and 

impulsive (impact pile driving), sources, 

and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) criteria are applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). COK’s planned activity 

includes the use of impulsive (impact 

pile driving, DTH pile installation) and 

non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving/ 

removal, DTH pile installation) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 4. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the thresholds are described in NMFS 

2018 Technical Guidance, which may 

be accessed at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

TABLE 4—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

value of 1μPa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, 

peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the 

subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. 

The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function 

(LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is 

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

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

and transmission loss coefficient. 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

planned project. Marine mammals are 

expected to be affected via sound 

generated by the primary components of 

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

vibratory pile removal, impact pile 

driving, and DTH pile installation). 

Vibratory hammers produce constant 

sound when operating, and produce 

vibrations that liquefy the sediment 

surrounding the pile, allowing it to 

penetrate to the required seating depth. 

An impact hammer would then 

generally be used to place the pile at its 

intended depth through rock or harder 

substrates. An impact hammer is a steel 

device that works like a piston, 

producing a series of independent 

strikes to drive the pile. Impact 

hammering typically generates the 

loudest noise associated with pile 

installation. The actual durations of 

each installation method vary 

depending on the type of pile, size of 

the pile, and substrate characteristics 

(e.g. bedrock). 

In order to calculate distances to the 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment sound thresholds for piles of 

various sizes being used in this project, 

NMFS used acoustic monitoring data 

from other locations to inform selection 

of representative source levels (see 

Table 5). 

Sound source levels for vibratory 

installation of 30-inch steel piles were 

obtained by Denes et al. (2016) during 

the installation of 30-inch steel pipe 

piles at the Ketchikan Ferry Terminal. 

Vibratory removal of 30-inch piles is 

expected to be quieter than installation, 

so this value is used as a proxy. Sound 

levels for vibratory installation of 48- 

inch steel piles were obtained by Austin 

et al. (2016) during the installation of 

test piles at the Port of Anchorage. The 

applicant elected to conservatively 

employ sound source levels for the 48- 

inch piles as a proxy to calculate 

harassment isopleths for 36-inch piles. 

Sound levels for impact installation of 

30-inch steel piles were taken from 

Denes et al. (2016) during the 

installation of piles at the Ketchikan 

Ferry Terminal. Sound levels for impact 

installation of 48-inch steel piles were 

obtained by Austin et al. (2016) during 

the installation of test piles at the Port 

of Anchorage. Overall median levels 

were not reported for peak and single 

strike SEL values. Therefore, the highest 

values reported for peak and single 

strike SEL were used. The highest levels 

reported were a peak of 213.2 dB re: 1 

mPa at 14 m and a single strike SEL of 

186.7 dB re: 1 mPa2–sec on pile IP5 at 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 12417 

11 m (Austin et al. 2016). Sound source 

levels for 48-inch piles are used as a 

proxy to calculate harassment isopleths 

for 36-inch piles. 

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 non-impulsive noise source. 

However, Denes et al.(2019) concluded 

from their study in Virginia that DTH 

should be characterized as impulsive 

based on a >3 dB difference in sound 

pressure level in a 0.035-second 

window (Southall et al. 2007) compared 

to a 1-second window. 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 the User 

Spreadsheet may be employed. Level B 

harassment isopleths are determined by 

applying non-impulsive criteria and 

using the 120 dB 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. 

The source level employed to derive 

Level B harassment isopleths for DTH 

pile installation (socketing) of all pile 

sizes was derived from the Denes et al. 

(2016) study at Kodiak, Alaska. The 

reported median source value for 

drilling was determined to be 166.2 dB 

RMS. 

For DTH anchoring of 12-inch holes, 

COK used a sound source level from 18- 

inch piles from Guan and Miner (2020) 

as a proxy (146 dB SEL) for Level A 

harassment calculations. For DTH 

installation of 30 and 36-inch sockets, 

source levels from 42-inch holes from 

Reyff & Heyvaert (2019), Reyff (2020), 

and Denes et al. (2019) were employed. 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATES OF MEAN UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS GENERATED DURING VIBRATORY PILE REMOVAL, 

VIBRATORY PILE INSTALLATION, IMPACT PILE INSTALLATION, AND DTH PILE INSTALLATION

Method and pile type 

Sound source level at 10 meters 

Literature source 

SPL rms SPLPK SSSEL

Vibratory Hammer 

30-inch steel piles ............................ 161.9 ........................ ........................ Denes et al. 2016. 

36-and 48-inch steel piles ................ 168.2 ........................ ........................ Austin et al. 2016. 

Impact Hammer 

30-inch diameters ............................. 195 208.5 180.7 Denes et al. 2016. 

36- and 48-inch 1 .............................. 198.6 213.2 2 186.7 3 Austin et al. 2016. 

DTH Pile Installation 

DTH Sockets (48-inch) 4 .................. 166.2 ........................ 168 Extrapolated from DTH SSV studies listed below; 

Denes et al. (2016). 

DTH Sockets (30-, 36-inch) 4 ........... 166.2 194 164 Reyff & Heyvaert (2019); Reyff (2020); Denes et al. 

(2016, Denes et al. 2019). 

DTH Anchors (12-inch) 5 .................. 162 172 146 Guan and Miner (2020). 

1Sound source levels for 48-inch piles are used as a proxy to calculate harassment isopleths for 36-inch piles. 

2 Represents maximum value measured at 14 m. 

3 Represents maximum value measured at 11 m. 

4 DTH drilling source levels for 24-inch piles from Denes et al. (2016) was used as a proxy for 30-inch to 48-inch piles. SL was revised to 

166.2 dB from 166 dB utilized in notice of proposed IHA to more accurately reflect averaged results of DTH installation of 30-, 36- and 48-inch 

piles from Reyff & Heyvaert (2019); Reyff (2020); Denes et al. (2019). 5The pile/hole size from Guan and Miner (2020) measured 18-inches and anchor holes for COK will be 12-inches. Therefore, it is more accurate to use the 18-inch SL as the proxy sound source level for 12-inch anchors. 

SS SEL = single strike sound exposure level; dB peak = peak sound level; rms = root mean square. 

Level A harassment Zones 

When the NMFS Technical Guidance 

(2016) was published, in recognition of 

the fact that ensonified area/volume 

could be more technically challenging 

to predict because of the duration 

component in the new thresholds, we 

developed a User Spreadsheet that 

includes tools to help predict a simple 

isopleth that can be used in conjunction 

with marine mammal density or 

occurrence to help predict takes. We 

note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used for these tools, we anticipate that 

isopleths produced are typically going 

to be overestimates of some degree, 

which may result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A harassment 

take. However, these tools offer the best 

way to predict appropriate isopleths 

when more sophisticated 3D modeling 

methods are not available, and NMFS 

continues to develop ways to 

quantitatively refine these tools, and 

will qualitatively address the output 

where appropriate. For stationary 

sources such as impact driving, 

vibratory driving and DTH pile 

installation example from project, 

NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the 

distance at which, if a marine mammal 

remained at that distance the whole 

duration of the activity, it would incur 

PTS. 

Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet 

(Table 6) and the resulting isopleths are 

reported below (Table 7). Level A 

harassment thresholds for impulsive 

sound sources (impact pile driving, 

DTH pile installation) are defined for 

both SELcum and Peak SPL, with the 

threshold that results in the largest 

modeled isopleth for each marine 

mammal hearing group used to establish 

the effective Level A harassment 

isopleth. Note that the peak SPL for 

DTH installation of 48-inch piles is 

unknown as no sound source 

verification testing has been conducted 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12418 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 

on piles of that size. The single strike 

SEL was extrapolated using data points 

measured for smaller piles during DTH 

installation. In this project, Level A 

harassment isopleths based on SELcum 

were always larger than those based on 

Peak SPL. 

TABLE 6—PARAMETERS OF PILE DRIVING AND DRILLING ACTIVITY USED IN USER SPREADSHEET

Equipment type 

Vibratory 

pile driver 

(installation/ 

removal of 30- 

inch steel piles) 

Vibratory 

pile driver 

(installation of 

36 and 48-inch 

steel piles) 

Impact 

pile driver 

(30-inch steel 

piles) 

Impact 

pile driver 

(36 and 48-inch 

steel piles) 

DTH sockets 

DTH anchor 

(12-inch steel 

piles) 30-, 36-in 1 2 48-in 

Source Level ..... 161.9 RMS ...... 168.2 RMS ...... 180.7 SS SEL 186.7 SS SEL 164 SS SEL/ 

194 SPLpk.

168 SS SEL .... 146 SS SEL/ 

172 SPLpk. 

Weighting Factor 

Adjustment 

(kHz).

2.5 ................... 2.5 ................... 2 ...................... 2 ...................... 2 2. 

(a) Activity duration (time) 

within 24 

hours.

(a) Up to 6 hrs 

OR >6–8 

hrs(c) 1.

(a) Up to 6 hrs 

OR >6–8 hrs 

(c) 1.

(a) 1–10 minutes (b) Up 

to 500 strikes 

(c) 1.

(a) 1–10 minutes (b) Up 

to 500 strikes 

(c) 1.

(a) Up to 3 hrs 

OR >3–6 hrs.

(a) Up to 2 hrs 

OR >2–3 hrs 

OR >3–4 hrs.

(a) Up to 6 hrs 

OR >6–8 hrs. 

(b) Number of 

strikes per pile 

(impact) OR 

number of 

strikes per 

second (DTH).

......................... ......................... (a) >10–20 minutes.

(b) 501–1,000 

strikes (c) 1.

(a) >10–20 minutes.

(b) 501–1,000 

strikes (c) 1.

(b) 10 strike/ 

sec.

(b) 10 strike/ 

sec.

(b) 10 strikes/ 

sec. 

(c) Number of 

piles per day.

......................... ......................... (a) >20–30 minutes (b) 

1,001–1,500 

strikes (c) 1.

(a) >20–30 minutes (b) 

1,001–1,500 

strikes (c) 1.

(c) 1 ................. (c) 1 ................. (c) 1. 

Propagation 

(xLogR).

15 .................... 15 .................... 15 .................... 15 .................... 15 15. 

Distance of 

source level 

measurement 

(meters).

10 .................... 10 .................... 10 .................... 11 .................... 10 10. 

1 DTH drilling source levels for 42-inch piles from Reyff and Heyvaert (2019), (Reyff 2020), and Denes et al. (2019) were used as a proxy for 

30- and 36-inch piles. 2 DTH drilling source levels for 18-inch piles from Guan and Miner (2020) were used as a proxy for 12-inch piles. 

TABLE 7—CALCULATED DISTANCES TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS (m) DURING VIBRATORY PILE INSTALLATION/ 

REMOVAL, IMPACT INSTALLATION AND DTH PILE INSTALLATION FOR EACH HEARING GROUP

Source Daily duration 

PTS onset isopleth (m) 

Cetaceans Pinnipeds 

Low-frequency Mid-frequency High-frequency Phocid Otariid 

30-inch Vibratory (Installation or Removal) Up to 6 hours ........... 25.9 2.3 38.3 15.7 1.1 

7 to 8 hours .............. 31.4 2.8 46.4 19.1 1.3 

36- and 48-inch Vibratory ........................... Up to 6 hours ........... 68.1 6 100.7 41.4 2.9 

7 to 8 hours .............. 82.5 7.3 122 50.1 3.5 

Down-the-Hole Socket (30-, 36-inch) ......... Up to 3 hours ........... 1,225.6 43.6 1,459.9 655.9 47.8 

4 to 6 hours .............. 1,945.5 69.3 2,317.4 1,041.2 75.8 

Down-the-Hole Socket (48-inch) ................. Up to 2 ..................... 1,728.3 61.5 2,058.7 924.9 67.3 

>2 to 3 hours ............ 2,264.8 80.5 2,697.7 1,212 88.2 

>3 to 4 hours ............ 2,743.6 97.6 3,268 1,468.2 106.9 

Down the Hole Anchor (12-inch) ................ Up to 6 hours ........... 122.8 4.4 146.2 65.7 4.8 

7 to 8 hours .............. 148.7 5.3 177.1 79.6 5.8 

30-inch Diesel Impact ................................. Up to 500 strikes (1– 

10 minutes).

442 15.7 526.4 236.5 17.2 

501–1,000 strikes 

(11–20 minutes).

701.6 25 835.7 375.4 27.3 

1,001–1,500 strikes 

(21–30 minutes).

919.3 32.7 1,095 492 35.8 

36- and 48-inch Diesel Impact .................... Up to 500 strikes (1– 

10 minutes).

1,221.2 43.4 1,454.6 653.5 47.9 

501–1,000 strikes 

(11–20 minutes).

1,938.5 68.9 2,309 1,037.4 75.5 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 12419 

TABLE 7—CALCULATED DISTANCES TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS (m) DURING VIBRATORY PILE INSTALLATION/ 

REMOVAL, IMPACT INSTALLATION AND DTH PILE INSTALLATION FOR EACH HEARING GROUP—Continued 

Source Daily duration 

PTS onset isopleth (m) 

Cetaceans Pinnipeds 

Low-frequency Mid-frequency High-frequency Phocid Otariid 

1,001–1,500 strikes 

(21–30 minutes).

2,540.1 90.3 3,025.7 1,359.4 99 

Level B Harassment Zones 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2), 

Where 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical 

spreading equals 15 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement 

The recommended TL coefficient for 

most nearshore environments is the, 

practical spreading value of 15. This 

value results in an expected propagation 

environment that would lie between 

spherical and cylindrical spreading loss 

conditions, which is the most 

appropriate assumption for COK’s 

planned activity. 

Using the practical spreading model, 

COK determined underwater noise 

would fall below the behavioral effects 

threshold of 120 dB rms for marine 

mammals at a maximum radial distance 

of 16,343 m for vibratory pile driving of 

36 and 48-inch diameter piles. Other 

activities, including rock anchoring and 

impact pile driving, have smaller Level 

B harassment zones. All Level B 

harassment isopleths are reported in 

Table 8 below. It should be noted that 

based on the geography of Tongass 

Narrows and the surrounding islands, 

sound will not reach the full distance of 

the Level B harassment isopleth. The 

largest Level B Harassment isopleth will 

be truncated by land masses at 

approximately 12,500 m to the southeast 

and approximately 3,590 m northwest of 

the project area. Constraining land 

masses include Revillagigedo Island, 

Gravina Island, Pennock Island and 

Spire Island. 

TABLE 8—CALCULATED LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS

Source 

Behavioral 

disturbance 

isopleth 

(m) 120 dB 

30-inch Vibratory (Installation 

or Removal) ...................... 6,213 

36- and 48-inch Vibratory ..... 16,343 

DTH installation 1 (Socket) ... 12,023 

DTH installation (anchor) 2 ... 6,310 

30-inch Diesel Impact ........... 2,154 

36- and 48-inch Diesel Impact ................................... 3,744 

1SL of 166.2 dB was used for socket installation instead of 166 as used in notice of proposed IHA. 2SL of 162 dB (Guan and Miner 2020) was 

used for 12-inch anchor installation. 

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. 

Note that there is no density data for 

any of the species near the Berth III 

mooring dolphin project area, therefore 

the take estimate is informed by 

qualitative data. 

The number of marine mammals that 

may be exposed to harassment 

thresholds is calculated by estimating 

the likelihood of a marine mammal 

being present within a harassment zone 

during the associated activities. 

Estimated marine mammal abundance is 

determined by reviewing local and 

regional reports, surveys, permits and 

observations of abundance and 

frequency near the planned project 

action. For example, for species that are 

common with the potential to occur 

daily, the take calculations are based on 

the group size multiplied by the 

projected number of days of underwater 

noise activities. For species that are less 

common, take estimates are based on 

group size multiplied by the frequency 

(e.g. weekly, monthly). The estimated 

number of takes are based upon 

reasonable ranges from the best 

information currently available for these 

species near the project area. 

Authorization of Level A harassment 

takes was requested by COK for harbor 

seal, harbor porpoise, and Dall’s 

porpoise. Harbor seals are habituated to 

fishing vessels and may follow vessels 

that enter the marina. Dall’s and harbor 

porpoises’ small size and speed make it 

possible that these animals could occur 

within the Level A harassment zones 

and potentially incur injury prior to 

detection. 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales occur frequently in 

Tongass Narrows and the adjacent 

Clarence Strait during summer and fall 

months to feed, but are less common 

during winter and spring. The average 

group size during the fall surveys was 

two whales according to Dalheim et al. 

(2009). Local reports of humpback 

whale group size in Tongass Narrows 

are similar, with the typical size being 

between 1 and 3. During the spring 

months, humpback whales tend to 

congregate in areas outside of the 

Ketchikan area, such as Lynn Canal and 

Fredrick Sound. Therefore, it is 

assumed that the occurrence of 

humpback whales in the project area is 

two individuals twice per week 

throughout the project. A group size of 

two was also assumed in the Biological 

Opinion provided to the US Army Corp 

of Engineers (USACE) for the Alaska 

Department of Transportation & Public 

Ferries (ADOT&PF) Berth improvement 

project in Tongass Narrows (NMFS 

2019). 

In the notice of proposed IHA (85 FR 

71612; November 12, 2020) NMFS 

estimated that up to 2 individuals could 

be exposed to underwater noise twice a 

week during the 17 weeks of the 

project’s in-water work, for a total of 68 

incidents of take from the Central North 

Pacific stock. Wade et al. (2016) 

determined that 6.1 percent of all 

humpback whales in Southeast Alaska 

and northern British Columbia were 

members of the Mexico DPS, while all 

others are assumed to be members of the 

Hawaii DPS. Therefore, NMFS had 

proposed to authorize 68 incidents of 

take by Level B harassment from the 

Central North Pacific Stock with 64 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12420 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 

instances from the Hawaii DPS and four 

instances from the endangered Mexico 

DPS. However, NMFS has increased 

authorized take by Level B harassment 

due to the daily presence of a single 

humpback whale close to Ketchikan 

during the month of November (USA 

Today, December 1, 2020). NMFS 

assumed that one whale would be 

present in the project area daily 

throughout the duration of the project. 

Based on the recent occurrence 

information, we estimate that one 

humpback whale will be within the 

Level B harassment zone daily for 17 

weeks. 

Therefore: 

(7 × 17) = 119 exposures of Central 

North Pacific stock humpback whales 

to Level B harassment 

As described above, an estimated 6.1 

percent of humpback whales in 

Southeast Alaska are from the Mexico 

DPS (Wade et al. 2016). Therefore, of the 

119 animals potentially exposed to 

Level B harassment due to Berth III pile 

driving activities, 6.1 percent or 7 of 

these 119 exposures would be ESAlisted Mexico DPS humpback whales, 

and the remaining 112 would most 

likely from the non-listed Hawaii DPS. 

Take by Level A harassment is not 

expected for humpback whales because 

of the expected effectiveness of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures. 

While calculated Level A harassment 

zones are up to 2,800 m, multiple 

protected species observers (PSOs) will 

monitoring Tongass Narrows which is < 

less than 600 m in width and represents 

a much smaller effective Level A 

harassment zone. Humpbacks are 

usually readily visible, therefore, 

shutdown measures can be 

implemented prior to any humpback 

whales incurring PTS within Level A 

harassment zones. 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lion abundance in the 

Tongass Narrows area is not well known 

and no systematic studies of Steller sea 

lions have been conducted in or near 

the Tongass Narrows area. However, sea 

lions are known to occur in the Tongass 

Narrows area throughout the year with 

peak numbers March through 

September (ADOT 2019). Sea lions may 

be present during salmon and herring 

runs and are known to visit hatcheries 

and fish processing facilities in the 

vicinity. 

Group sizes are generally 6 to 10 

individuals (Freitag 2017) but have been 

reported to reach 80 animals (Freitag 

2017). COK assumed one large group of 

10 individuals could be present each 

day in the project vicinity based on HDR 

(2019) and Freitag (2017) (as cited in 83 

FR 22009; May 11, 2018). NMFS agrees 

that this daily estimate is appropriate 

and therefore has authorized up to 1,200 

takes by Level B harassment. 

Take by Level A harassment is not 

expected for Steller sea lions because of 

the relatively small Level A harassment 

zones for otariids (Table 7) and the 

expected effectiveness of the monitoring 

and mitigation measures discussed 

below. 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seal densities in the Tongass 

Narrows area are not well known. No 

systematic studies of harbor seals have 

been conducted in or near Tongass 

Narrows. Seals are known to occur yearround with little seasonal variation in 

abundance (Freitag 2017) and local 

experts estimate that there are about 1 

to 3 harbor seals in Tongass Narrows 

every day, in addition to those that 

congregate near the seafood processing 

plants and fish hatcheries. COK 

conducted pinnacle rock blasting in 

December 2019 and January 2020 near 

the vicinity of the planned project and 

recorded a total of 21 harbor seal 

sightings of 24 individuals over 76.2 

hours of pre- and post-blast monitoring 

(Sitkiewicz 2020). Harbor seals were 

observed in groups ranging from 1–3 

animals throughout the 0.70-mile (1.12- 

kilometer) observation zone. Based on 

this knowledge, COK assumed an 

average group size in Tongass Narrows 

of three individuals. They anticipated 

that three groups of three harbor seals 

per group could be exposed to projectrelated underwater noise each day for 

120 days of in-water work. Given that 

harbor seals are known to follow fishing 

vessels into the marina and may be 

difficult to detect, COK assumed that 

one group of three seals could be taken 

by Level A harassment daily, resulting 

in 360 Level A harassment takes. NMFS 

agreed with these assumptions and, 

therefore, has authorized 720 takes by 

Level B harassment and 360 takes by 

Level A harassment. 

Dall’s Porpoise 

The mean group size of Dall’s 

porpoise in Southeast Alaska is 

estimated at approximately three 

individuals (Dahlheim et al., 2009; 

Jefferson et al., 2019). However, in the 

Ketchikan vicinity, Dall’s porpoises are 

reported to typically occur in groups of 

10–15 animals, with an estimated 

maximum group size of 20 animals 

(Freitag 2017, as cited in 83 FR 22009, 

May 11, 2018). Overall, sightings of 

Dall’s porpoise are infrequent near 

Ketchikan, but they could be present on 

any given day during the construction 

period. 

COK assumed that a maximum group 

size of 20 Dall’s porpoise could occur in 

the project area each month. NMFS 

concurs with this assessment and has 

authorized 80 takes of Dall’s porpoise 

over the anticipated four-month project 

duration. 

Given the large size of the Level A 

harassment zone associated with impact 

pile driving for high-frequency 

cetaceans, it is possible Dall’s porpoises 

may enter the Level A harassment zone 

undetected. Therefore, NMFS has 

authorized a total of 60 takes of Dall’s 

porpoise by Level B harassment and 20 

takes by Level A harassment over the 

course of the project. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises are non-migratory; 

therefore, occurrence estimates are not 

dependent on season. Freitag (2017 as 

cited in 83 FR 37473; August 1, 2018) 

observed harbor porpoises in Tongass 

Narrows zero to one time per month. 

Harbor porpoises observed in the project 

vicinity typically occur in groups of one 

to five animals with an estimated 

maximum group size of eight animals 

(83 FR 37473, August 1, 2018, Solstice 

2018). Based on this previous 

information from the Ketchikan Berth IV 

Expansion project and the AKDOT 

Tongass Narrows project, COK 

estimated that two groups of five harbor 

porpoise may enter the Tongass 

Narrows twice per month. NMFS agrees 

with this estimate and, therefore, has 

authorized 80 takes of harbor porpoise 

during the duration of the project. 

Given that harbor porpoises are 

stealthy, having no visible blow and a 

low profile in the water making the 

species difficult for monitors to detect 

(Dahlheim et al. 2015), COK requested 

that a total of 20 takes of harbor 

porpoises by Level A harassment be 

authorized. Therefore, NMFS has 

authorized 20 takes of harbor porpoise 

by Level A harassment and 60 takes by 

Level B harassment. The number of 

proposed takes in the proposed IHA (40) 

was incorrect due to a mathematical 

error. 

Killer Whale 

Typical pod sizes observed within the 

project vicinity range from 1 to 10 

animals. COK assumed that the 

frequency of killer whales passing 

through the action area is estimated to 

be once per month and also 

conservatively assumed a pod size of 10. 

Therefore, NMFS has authorized 40 

takes of killer whales by Level B 

harassment. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 12421 

Take by Level A harassment is not 

expected for killer whales because of the 

small Level A harassment zones for 

mid-frequency cetaceans and the 

expected effectiveness of the monitoring 

and mitigation measures discussed 

below. 

Gray Whale 

Gray whales have not been reported 

within the Tongass Narrows; however, 

their presence cannot be entirely 

discounted. Since the largest Level B 

harassment zone extends beyond 

Tongass Narrows, COK assumed that up 

to two gray whales may be taken per 

month. Therefore, NMFS has authorized 

up to 8 takes of gray whale by Level B 

harassment. 

Due to the unlikely occurrence of gray 

whales and the ability to shut down pile 

driving activities prior to a whale 

entering the Level A harassment zone, 

no Level A harassment takes of gray 

whales were requested or are 

authorized. 

Minke Whale 

There are no known occurrences of 

minke whales within the project area 

although they may be present in 

Tongass Narrows and Clarence Strait 

year-round. Their abundance 

throughout Southeast Alaska is low. 

However, minke whales are distributed 

throughout a wide variety of habitats 

and could occur near the project area. 

Minke whales are generally sighted as 

individuals (Dahlheim et al. 2009). 

NMFS had proposed to authorize two 

minke whale takes by Level B 

harassment in the proposed IHA. 

However, based on an informal 

comment from the Commission, NMFS 

has increased to eight the authorized 

take of minke whales (two takes per 

month) since they are at least if not 

more likely to occur in Tongass Narrows 

compared to gray whales, which have 

never been observed in Tongass 

Narrows. No Level A harassment takes 

of minke whales are anticipated due to 

the very limited occurrence of minke 

whales and the ability to shut down pile 

driving activities prior to a whale 

entering the Level A harassment zone. 

Pacific White-Sided Dolphin 

Pacific white-sided dolphins have not 

been reported within the Tongass 

Narrows; however, the dolphin is 

within its range and thus its presence 

cannot be discounted. Pacific whitesided dolphin group sizes generally 

range from between 20 and 164 animals. 

For the purposes of this assessment, 

COK assumed one group of 30 dolphins 

may be present within the Level B 

harassment zone every tenth day, or 

about every other week, similar to what 

was estimated for a prior IHA (84 FR 

36891; July 30, 2019). Therefore, NMFS 

has authorized 360 takes of Pacific 

white-sided dolphin by Level B 

harassment. 

No Level A takes are expected due to 

the relatively small size of Level A 

harassment zone for mid-frequency 

cetaceans which can be readily 

monitored. 

Table 9 below summarizes the 

authorized take for all the species 

described above as a percentage of stock 

abundance. 

TABLE 9—AUTHORIZED TAKE BY LEVEL A AND B HARASSMENT AND AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE

Species Level B 

takes 

Level A 

takes 

Stock 

abundance 

Percent of 

stock 

Humpback whale 1 ........................................................................................... 119 N/A 10,103 1.18 

Steller sea lion eDPS ...................................................................................... 1,200 N/A 43,201 2.78 

Harbor seal ...................................................................................................... 720 360 27,659 3.90 

Dall’s porpoise ................................................................................................. 60 20 83,400 0.09 

Harbor porpoise ............................................................................................... 60 20 1,354 5.90 

Killer whale 2

AK resident ............................................................................................... 40 N/A 2,347 1.70 

West coast transient ................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 243 16.46 

Northern resident ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 302 13.25 

Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient ..................... ........................ ........................ 587 6.81 

Gray whale ....................................................................................................... 8 N/A 26,960 0.03 

Pacific white-sided Dolphin .............................................................................. 360 N/A 26,880 1.34 

Minke whale ..................................................................................................... 8 N/A N/A N/A 

1Assumes that 6.1 percent of humpback whales exposed are members of the Mexico DPS (Wade et al. 2016). Distribution of take by ESA status is 112 Level B takes for Hawaii DPS and 7 Level B take for Mexico DPS. 2These percentages assume all takes come from the same killer whale stock, thus the percentage should be adjusted down if multiple stocks 

are actually affected. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses. 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat, as well as 

subsistence uses. 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12422 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

The following mitigation measures are 

required for this IHA: 

• For in-water heavy machinery work 

other than pile driving, if a marine 

mammal comes within 10 m, operations 

shall cease and vessels shall reduce 

speed to the minimum level required to 

maintain steerage and safe working 

conditions. This type of work could 

include the following activities: (1) 

Movement of the barge to the pile 

location; or (2) positioning of the pile on 

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

the pile); 

• Briefings must be conducted 

between construction supervisors and 

crews and the marine mammal 

monitoring team prior to the start of all 

pile driving activity and when new 

personnel join the work, to explain 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocol, and operational procedures; 

• For those marine mammals for 

which take has not been authorized, inwater pile installation and removal will 

shut down immediately if such species 

are observed within or entering the 

Level A or Level B harassment zone; 

and 

• If take reaches the authorized limit 

for an authorized species, pile 

installation and removal will be stopped 

as these species approach the Level A or 

Level B harassment zone to avoid 

additional take. 

• COK is required to implement all 

mitigation measures described in the 

biological opinion (issued on DATE). 

The following mitigation measures 

would apply to COK’s in-water 

construction activities. 

• Establishment of Shutdown 

Zones—COK will establish shutdown 

zones for all pile driving and removal 

activities. 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). Shutdown 

zones will vary based on the activity 

type and marine mammal hearing group 

(Table 10). Due to sediment 

characteristics and variation in pile 

sizes, COK does not know how much 

time will be required for vibratory 

driving/removal and DTH installation at 

each pile or how many strikes will be 

required for impact installation. Given 

this uncertainty, COK will utilize a 

tiered system to identify and monitor 

appropriate shutdown zones based on 

activity duration or the number of 

strikes required for pile installation or 

removal. During vibratory driving/ 

removal and DTH pile installation, the 

shutdown zone size will initially be set 

at the lowest tier, which represents the 

least amount of active installation/ 

removal time. Shutdown zones will be 

expanded to the next largest zone after 

Tier 1 time period has elapsed. For 

those activities with three specified tiers 

(i.e., impact driving, DTH socketing), 

the shutdown zone will be expanded to 

the largest isopleths identified in Tier 3 

if the activity extends beyond the Tier 

2 active time period. During impact 

driving, the shutdown zones associated 

with 0–500 strikes will be monitored 

until 500 strikes have occurred. The 

shutdown zones will increase to the 

next tier between 501–1,000 strikes. 

After 1,000 strikes the shutdown zones 

will subsequently be increased to the 

largest zone sizes. 

• If a marine mammal is entering or 

is observed within an established 

shutdown zone, pile driving must be 

halted or delayed. Pile driving may not 

commence or resume until either the 

animal has voluntarily left and been 

visually confirmed beyond the 

shutdown zone or 15 minutes have 

passed without subsequent detections of 

small cetaceans and pinnipeds; or 30 

minutes have passed without 

subsequent detections of large 

cetaceans. 

• The placement of PSOs during all 

pile driving and removal activities 

(described in detail in the Monitoring 

and Reporting section) will ensure that 

the entire shutdown zone is visible 

during pile installation. Should 

environmental conditions deteriorate 

such that marine mammals within the 

entire shutdown zone would not be 

visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile 

driving and removal must be delayed 

until the PSO is confident marine 

mammals within the shutdown zone 

could be detected. 

• PSOs—COK will employ PSOs who 

will be able to fully monitor Level A 

harassment zones. Placement of PSOs 

will allow observation of marine 

mammals within the large segments of 

the Level B harassment zones. However, 

due to the large size of some of the Level 

B harassment zones (Table 8), PSOs will 

not be able to effectively observe the 

entire zone. 

• Pre-activity Monitoring—Prior to 

the start of daily in-water construction 

activity, or whenever a break in pile 

driving/removal of 30 minutes or longer 

occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown 

and monitoring zones for a period of 30 

minutes. The shutdown zone will be 

considered cleared when a marine 

mammal has not been observed within 

the zone for that 30-minute period. If a 

marine mammal is observed within the 

shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot 

proceed until the animal has left the 

zone or has not been observed for 15 

minutes. When a marine mammal for 

which take is authorized is present in 

the harassment zone, activities may 

begin. If work ceases for more than 30 

minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of 

the shutdown zones will commence. 

• Soft Start—Soft-start procedures are 

believed to provide additional 

protection to marine mammals by 

providing warning and/or giving marine 

mammals a chance to leave the area 

prior to the hammer operating at full 

capacity. For impact pile driving, COK 

will be required to provide an initial set 

of three strikes from the hammer at 

reduced energy, followed by a thirtysecond waiting period. This procedure 

will be conducted three times before 

impact pile driving begins. Soft start 

will be implemented at the start of each 

day’s impact pile driving and at any 

time following cessation of impact pile 

driving for a period of thirty minutes or 

longer. 

• Scheduling—Pile driving or 

removal activities must occur during 

daylight hours. If poor environmental 

conditions restrict visibility of the 

shutdown zones (e.g., from excessive 

wind or fog, high Beaufort state), pile 

installation may not be initiated. Work 

that has begun with a fully cleared Level 

B harassment zone may continue during 

inclement weather (e.g., fog, heavy rain) 

or periods of limited visibility. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 12423 

TABLE 10—SHUTDOWN AND MONITORING ZONES FOR EACH DRIVING/REMOVAL ACTIVITY

Pile size 

Low frequency 

cetacean 

shutdown area 

(m) 

Mid frequency 

cetacean 

shutdown area 

(m) 

High 

frequency 

shutdown area 

(m) (harbor 

porpoise, dall’s 

porpoise) 1

Phocid 

pinniped 

shutdown area 

(m) (harbor 

seal) 

Otariid 

pinniped 

shutdown area 

(m) (steller 

sea lion) 

Level B 

harassment 

zone (m) 

Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal: 

30-inch piles up to 8 hrs .......................... 40 10 50 10 6,300 

36- and 48-inch piles up to 8 hrs ............ 90 10 50 10 1 12,500 

Impact Pile Driving: 

30-inch piles up to 500 strikes ................. 500 40 50 10 40 2,200 

30-inch piles 501 to 1,000 strikes ............ 700 

30-inch piles 1,001 to 1,500 strikes ......... 1,000 

36- and 48-inch piles up to 500 strikes ... 1,300 50 50 10 50 3,800 

36- and 48-inch piles 501 to 1,000 

strikes ................................................... 2,000 70 80 

36- and 48-inch piles 1,001 to 1,500 

strikes ................................................... 2,600 90 100 

DTH Socket: 

30-, 36-inch piles up to 3 hrs ................... 1,300 50 50 10 50 12,500 

30-, 36-inch piles 3 hrs—6 hrs ................ 2,000 70 

48-inch piles up to 2 hours ...................... 1,750 65 70 

48-inch piles >2 to 3 hrs .......................... 2,300 85 100 

48-inch piles >3 to 4 hours ...................... 2,750 100 110 

DTH Anchor: 

12-inch hole up to 8 hours ....................... 150 10 50 10 6,350 

1 Represents largest Level B Harassment isopleth. Note that isopleth is truncated by land masses at 12,500 meters. 

To minimize impacts to marine 

mammals and their prey vibratory 

installation will be used as the primary 

methods of pile installation. Impact 

driving will be minimized and used 

only as needed to seat the pile in its 

final position or to penetrate material 

that is too dense for a vibratory hammer. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s planned measures, as well as 

other measures considered by NMFS, 

we have determined that the required 

measures provide the means effecting 

the least practicable impact on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the planned action area. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: • Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); • Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); • Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; • How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; • Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and • Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

Monitoring must be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after pile driving and removal activities. 

In addition, observers shall record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and shall document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from piles being driven or 

removed. Marine mammal monitoring 

during pile driving and removal must be 

conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs in 

a manner consistent with the following: 

• Independent PSOs (i.e., not 

construction personnel) who have no 

other assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods must be used; 

• At least one PSO must have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; 

• Other PSOs may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience; 

• Where a team of two or more PSOs 

are required, a lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator must be 

designated. The lead observer must have 

prior experience working as a marine 

mammal observer during construction; 

• COK must submit PSO Curriculum 

Vitae for approval by NMFS prior to the 

onset of pile driving; 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12424 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 

• PSOs must work in rotating shifts of 

4 hours and individual PSOs must not 

perform duties for more than 12 hours 

in a 24-hour period; and 

• PSOs must use elevated platforms 

at observation points to the extent 

practicable. 

PSOs should have the following 

additional qualifications: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior; and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

A minimum of three onshore 

observers will be stationed along 

Tongass Narrows at locations that 

provide optimal visual coverage for 

shutdown and monitoring zones. To 

maximize the visual coverage of 

shutdown and monitoring zones, 

observers will use elevated platforms at 

observation points to the extent 

practicable. Observers will be in contact 

with each other via two-way radio and 

with a cellular phone used as back-up 

communications. The primary purpose 

of this observer is to implement the 

shutdown zones and monitor the Level 

B harassment zones. PSOs must be 

positioned in order to focus on 

monitoring these zones. PSOs would 

scan the waters using binoculars, and/ 

or spotting scopes, and would use a 

handheld global positioning system 

(GPS) or range-finder device to verify 

the distance to each sighting from the 

project site. 

Monitoring will be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after pile driving/removal activities. In 

addition, observers shall record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and shall document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from piles being driven or 

removed. Pile driving activities include 

the time to install or remove a single 

pile or series of piles, as long as the time 

elapsed between uses of the pile driving 

equipment is no more than 30 minutes. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report would be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal activities, or 

60 days prior to a requested date of 

issuance of any future IHAs for projects 

at the same location, whichever comes 

first. It will include an overall 

description of work completed, a 

narrative regarding marine mammal 

sightings, and associated marine 

mammal observation data sheets. 

Specifically, the report must include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including how many and what type of 

piles were driven or removed and by 

what method (i.e., impact or vibratory); 

• Weather parameters and water 

conditions during each monitoring 

period (e.g., wind speed, percent cover, 

visibility, sea state) and estimated 

observable distance (if less than the 

harassment zone distance). 

• The number of marine mammals 

observed, by species, relative to the pile 

location and if pile driving or removal 

was occurring at time of sighting; 

• Age and sex class, if possible, of all 

marine mammals observed; 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; 

• Distances and bearings of each 

marine mammal observed to the pile 

being driven or removed for each 

sighting (if pile driving or removal was 

occurring at time of sighting); 

• Description of any marine mammal 

behavior patterns during observation, 

including direction of travel and 

estimated time spent within the Level A 

and Level B harassment zones while the 

source was active; 

• Number of individuals of each 

species (differentiated by month as 

appropriate) detected within the 

harassment zones,; 

• Detailed information about any 

implementation of any mitigation 

triggered (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a 

description of specific actions that 

ensued, and resulting behavior of the 

animal, if any; 

• Description of attempts to 

distinguish between the number of 

individual animals taken and the 

number of incidences of take, such as 

ability to track groups or individuals; 

and 

• Submit all PSO datasheets and/or 

raw sighting data (in a separate file from 

the Final Report referenced immediately 

above). 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft final 

report will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

IHA-holder shall report the incident to 

the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) 

(301–427–8401), NMFS and to the 

Alaska regional stranding coordinator 

(907–586–7209) as soon as feasible. If 

the death or injury was clearly caused 

by the specified activity, the IHA-holder 

must immediately cease the specified 

activities until NMFS 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 the IHA. 

The IHA-holder must not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS. 

The report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 12425 

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). 

Vibratory pile removal, vibratory pile 

driving, impact pile driving, and DTH 

pile installation have the potential to 

disturb or displace marine mammals. 

Specifically, these planned project 

activities may result in take, in the form 

of Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment. Potential takes could occur 

if individuals are present in the 

ensonified zone when these activities 

are underway. No mortality is 

anticipated given the nature of the 

activity and measures designed to 

minimize the possibility of injury to 

marine mammals. 

The Level A harassment zones 

identified in Table 7 are based upon an 

animal exposed to vibratory pile 

driving, impact pile driving, and DTH 

pile installation for periods of time 

ranging from 30 minutes for impact 

driving, up to 8 hours for vibratory 

driving, up to 6 hours for DTH socketing 

and 8 hours for DTH anchoring. 

Exposures of this length are unlikely for 

vibratory driving/removal and DTH pile 

installation scenarios given marine 

mammal movement throughout the area. 

Even during impact driving scenarios, 

an animal exposed to the accumulated 

sound energy would likely experience 

only limited PTS at the lower 

frequencies where pile driving energy is 

concentrated. 

Behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to pile driving at the project 

site, if any, are expected to be mild and 

temporary. Given that the installation of 

12 permanent piles and eight temporary 

piles would occur over 4 months, any 

harassment would be temporary and 

intermittent. 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) (Southall et al. 2007, ABR 

2016). Most likely, individuals will 

simply move away from the sound 

source and be temporarily displaced 

from the areas of pile driving. These 

reactions and behavioral changes are 

expected to subside quickly when the 

exposures cease. 

The potential for harassment is 

minimized through the implementation 

of the required mitigation measures. 

During all impact driving, 

implementation of soft start procedures 

and monitoring of established shutdown 

zones shall be required, significantly 

reducing any 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. To 

reduce the severity of in-water noise, 

vibratory pile driving will be the 

primary installation method for the 

project and impact hammers will only 

be used to seat pile tips into fractured 

bedrock ahead of the hammering 

operations or if material is encountered 

that is too dense to penetrate with a 

vibratory hammer. 

The planned project is located within 

an active marine commercial and 

industrial area with no known pinniped 

haulouts or rookeries near the project 

area. While construction of mooring 

dolphins at Berth III would have some 

permanent removal of habitat available 

to marine mammals, the area lost is 

relatively small and not of particular 

importance to any marine mammals. 

Any impacts on prey that would 

occur during in-water construction 

would have at most short-terms effects 

on foraging of individual marine 

mammals, and likely no effect on the 

populations of marine mammals as a 

whole. Therefore, effects on marine 

mammal prey during the construction 

are expected to be minimal and, 

therefore, are unlikely to cause 

substantial effects on marine mammals 

at the individual or population level. 

In addition, it is unlikely that minor 

noise effects in a small, localized area of 

habitat would have any effect on the 

stocks’ ability to recover. In 

combination, we believe that these 

factors, as well as the available body of 

evidence from other similar activities, 

demonstrate that the potential effects of 

the specified activities will have only 

minor, short-term effects on individuals. 

The specified activities are not expected 

to impact rates of recruitment or 

survival and will therefore not result in 

population-level impacts. 

For all species except humpback 

whales, there are no known BIAs near 

the project zone that would be impacted 

by COK’s planned activities. For 

humpback whales, the whole of 

Southeast Alaska is a seasonal BIA from 

spring through late fall (Ferguson et al., 

2015). However, Tongass Narrows and 

Clarence Strait are not important 

portions of this habitat due to 

development and human presence. 

Tongass Narrows is also a small 

passageway and represents a very small 

portion of the total available habitat for 

humpback whales. Finally, there is no 

ESA-designated critical habitat for 

humpback whales. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• Authorized Level A harassment 

would be limited and of low degree; 

• Mitigation measures such as 

employing vibratory driving to the 

maximum extent practicable, soft-starts, 

and shut downs will be implemented; 

• Impacts to marine mammal habitat 

are anticipated to be minimal; 

• The project area is located in an 

industrialized and commercial marina; 

• The project area does not include 

any rookeries, or known areas or 

features of special significance for 

foraging or reproduction; and 

• The anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment consist of, at worst, 

temporary modifications in behavior. 

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 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS finds that the total 

marine mammal take from the planned 

activity will have a negligible impact on 

all affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

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

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12426 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 

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. 

The number of instances of take for 

each species or stock authorized to be 

taken as a result of this project is 

included in Table 9. Our analysis shows 

that less than one-third of the best 

available population abundance 

estimate of each species or stock could 

be taken by harassment. The number of 

animals authorized to be taken for each 

authorized stock would be considered 

small relative to the relevant stock’s 

abundances even if each estimated 

taking occurred to a new individual, 

which is an unlikely scenario. 

The west coast transient stock of killer 

whales represents the highest 

percentage of a single stock (<17 

percent) that is authorized take. This 

take percentage also assumes that all 

authorized killer whale takes would be 

from this stock, which is highly unlikely 

given the expansive range of the stock. 

A lack of an accepted stock 

abundance value for the Alaska stock of 

minke whale did not allow for the 

calculation of an expected percentage of 

the population that would be affected. 

The most relevant estimate of partial 

stock abundance is 1,232 minke whales 

in coastal waters of the Alaska 

Peninsula and Aleutian Islands (Zerbini 

et al., 2006). Given that two takes by 

Level B harassment are authorized for 

the stock, comparison to the best 

estimate of stock abundance shows less 

than 0.2 percent of the stock is expected 

to be impacted. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the planned activity (including 

the required mitigation and monitoring 

measures) and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the population size 

of the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

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. 

Alaska Native hunters in the 

Ketchikan vicinity do not traditionally 

harvest cetaceans (Muto et al. 2020). 

Harbor seals are the most commonly 

targeted marine mammal that is hunted 

by Alaska Native subsistence hunters 

within the Ketchikan area. In 2012 an 

estimated 595 harbor seals were taken 

for subsistence uses, with 22 of those 

occurring in Ketchikan (Wolfe et al. 

2012). This is the most recent data 

available. The harbor seal harvest per 

capita in both communities was low, at 

0.02 for Ketchikan. ADF&G subsistence 

data for Southeast Alaska shows that 

from 1992 through 2008, plus 2012, 

from zero to 19 Steller sea lions were 

taken by Alaska Native hunters per year 

with typical harvest years ranging from 

zero to five animals (Wolfe et al. 2013) 

In 2012, it is estimated nine sea lions 

were taken in all of Southeast Alaska 

and only from Hoonah and Sitka. There 

are no known haulout locations in the 

project area. Both the harbor seal and 

the Steller sea lion may be temporarily 

displaced from the action area. 

However, neither the local population 

nor any individual pinnipeds are likely 

to be adversely impacted by the planned 

action beyond noise-induced 

harassment or slight injury. The 

planned project is anticipated to have 

no long-term impact on Steller sea lion 

or harbor seal populations, or their 

habitat no long term impacts on the 

availability of marine mammals for 

subsistence uses is anticipated. 

Based on the description of the 

specified activity, the measures 

described to minimize adverse effects 

on the availability of marine mammals 

for subsistence purposes, and the 

required mitigation and monitoring 

measures, NMFS has determined that 

there will not be an unmitigable adverse 

impact on subsistence uses from COK’s 

planned activities. 

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 action 

(i.e., the issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization) with respect 

to potential impacts on the human 

environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental 

harassment authorizations with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

determined that the issuance of the IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

Endangered Species Act 

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 Office of Protected 

Resources consults internally whenever 

we propose to authorize take for 

endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with the NMFS Alaska 

Regional Office. 

There is one marine mammal species 

(Mexico DPS humpback whale) with 

confirmed occurrence in the project area 

that is listed as endangered under the 

ESA. The NMFS Alaska Regional Office 

Protected Resources Division issued a 

Biological Opinion under section 7 of 

the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to 

the City of Ketchikan under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the NMFS 

Permits and Conservation Division. The 

Biological Opinion concluded that the 

issuance of an IHA to COK is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

Mexico DPS humpback whales or 

adversely modify critical habitat 

because none exists in the area. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to the City 

of Ketchikan for in-water construction 

activities associated with the Berth III 

Expansion Project in Ketchikan, Alaska 

between October 1, 2021 and September 

30, 2022, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: February 26, 2021. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04368 Filed 3–2–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES