Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 61549 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s (Pacific Council) 

Groundfish Subcommittee of the 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

(SSC) will hold a meeting to review 

rebuilding analyses for quillback 

rockfish in California and any remaining 

2023 stock assessment review requests 

from the September 2023 Council 

meeting. This meeting is open to the 

public. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

Monday, September 25, 2023 from 1 

p.m. until business for the day has been 

completed, and will continue through 

Friday, September 29, 2023, from 8:30 

a.m. until 5:30 p.m. (Pacific Daylight 

Time) or when business for the day has 

been completed. 

ADDRESSES: The SSC Groundfish 

Subcommittee meeting is tentatively 

scheduled to be held in person with a 

web broadcast at the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council office, Large 

Conference Room, 7700 NE Ambassador 

Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220. 

The meeting may be held online only 

based on the complexity of the agenda 

and in the event of Federal travel 

restrictions. An opportunity for remote 

public comment will be provided under 

either meeting format. 

Specific meeting information, 

materials, and instructions for how to 

connect to the meeting remotely will be 

provided in the meeting announcement 

on the Pacific Council’s website (see 

www.pcouncil.org). Please contact Kris 

Kleinschmidt (kris.kleinschmidt@

noaa.gov) or (503) 820–2412 for 

technical assistance. 

Council address: Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, 

OR 97220. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marlene A. Bellman, Staff Officer, 

Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820– 

2414, email: marlene.bellman@

noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SSC’s 

Groundfish Subcommittee will review 

any further analyses for 2023 stock 

assessments as requested by the Pacific 

Council at their September 2023 

meeting. The SSC’s Groundfish 

Subcommittee will also review new 

rebuilding analyses for quillback 

rockfish in California. This process 

follows the procedures outlined in the 

Pacific Council’s Terms of Reference for 

the Groundfish Stock Assessment 

Review Process for 2023–2024 (which 

can be found at https://

www.pcouncil.org/documents/2022/06/ 

terms-of-reference-for-the-groundfishstock-assessment-review-process-for2023-2024-june-2022.pdf/). The 

Groundfish Subcommittee will prepare 

their recommendations for SSC and 

Pacific Council consideration at their 

November 2023 meetings. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in the meeting agendas may 

be discussed, those issues may not be 

the subject of formal action during these 

meetings. Action will be restricted to 

those issues specifically listed in this 

document and any issues arising after 

publication of this document that 

require emergency action under section 

305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

provided the public has been notified of 

the intent to take final action to address 

the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Kris Kleinschmidt 

(kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov; (503) 820– 

2412) at least 10 days prior to the 

meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: September 1, 2023. 

Rey Israel Marquez, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19315 Filed 9–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD106] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Pier 

Maintenance and Bank Stabilization at 

U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Port 

Angeles, Port Angeles, Washington 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard 

or USCG) for authorization to take 

marine mammals incidental to pier 

maintenance and bank stabilization 

construction activities at USCG Air 

Station Port Angeles, Port Angeles, 

Washington. Pursuant to the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 

is requesting comments on its proposal 

to issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to incidentally take 

marine mammals during the specified 

activities. NMFS is also requesting 

comments on a possible one-time, oneyear renewal that could be issued under 

certain circumstances and if all 

requirements are met, as described in 

Request for Public Comments at the end 

of this notice. NMFS will consider 

public comments prior to making any 

final decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorization and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than October 10, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources (OPR), 

NMFS, and should be submitted via 

email to ITP.hotchkin@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. Electronic copies 

of the application and supporting 

documents, as well as a list of the 

references cited in this document, may 

be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

these documents, please call the contact 

listed below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara 

Hotchkin, OPR, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
61550 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 

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 

proposed or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA 

is 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. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On August 9, 2022, NMFS received a 

request from Coast Guard for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to 

construction during pier maintenance 

activities at USCG Air Station Port 

Angeles in Port Angeles, Washington. 

Following NMFS’ review of the 

application, Coast Guard submitted 

revised versions on May 11, 2023 and 

July 14, 2023. The application was 

deemed adequate and complete on July 

18, 2023. Coast Guard’s request is for 

take of five species of marine mammals 

by Level B harassment only. Neither 

Coast Guard nor NMFS expect serious 

injury or mortality to result from this 

activity and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The Coast Guard proposes to conduct 

pier maintenance and bank stabilization 

on a portion of the shoreline at USCG 

Air Station Port Angeles in Port 

Angeles, Washington. The proposed 

work may result in the incidental take 

of marine mammals by Level B 

harassment due to exposure to 

underwater sound produced during 

impact and vibratory pile driving. 

The purpose of this project is to repair 

existing facilities and to protect vital 

mission support infrastructure from 

continued tidal action erosion and 

storm events. This project will repair up 

to 372 feet (ft) (113.4 meters (m)) of 

eroded riprap shoreline, replace 37 

degraded timber piles with steel piles, 

repair up to 98 timber piles, 

permanently remove 11 abandoned 

timber piles and 3 steel camel barrier 

piles, and demolish 2 camels. 

Dates and Duration 

The proposed IHA would be effective 

from November 15, 2023 to November 

14, 2024. In-water work is expected to 

take approximately 15 days and will 

occur during daylight hours during the 

lowest possible tide conditions. The 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has 

designated an in-water work window 

between July 16 and February 15 to 

protect anadromous fishes. Work on this 

project may occur between November 

15, 2023 and February 15, 2024 and 

from July 16, 2024 to November 14, 

2024. In-water pile driving work would 

occur during daylight hours only at the 

lowest possible tide conditions. 

Specific Geographic Region 

This project is located at USCG Air 

Station Port Angeles, in Port Angeles, 

Washington. USCG Air Station Port 

Angeles is located on the south-facing 

side of Ediz Hook, a peninsula that 

extends into the Strait of Juan de Fuca, 

encompassing approximately 8.73 

square kilometers (km2) (3.37 square 

miles (mi2)), opening to the east (Figure 

1). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 61551 

Detailed Description of the Specified 

Activity 

The Coast Guard proposes to conduct 

construction activities related to pier 

maintenance and bank stabilization to 

protect critical infrastructure from tidal 

and storm erosion using methods 

including impact and vibratory pile 

installation and vibratory pile 

extraction. Activity details for the work 

under this proposed IHA are provided 

in Table 1. Pile driving activities would 

be barge-based. Impact and vibratory 

driving activities would occur on the 

same days. Simultaneous use of 

multiple hammers would not occur, and 

is therefore not discussed further in this 

notice. In-water pile driving work is 

expected to take approximately 15 days 

to complete, and would occur during 

daylight hours only, at the lowest 

possible tide conditions. 

Pile removal will be by direct-pull or 

by vibratory extraction. Vibratory 

extraction of timber piles may occur for 

up to 8 hours per day, at an estimated 

rate of 16 piles per day (estimated 30 

minutes required to extract each timber 

or steel pile). Vibratory extraction of 

timber piles is expected to take no more 

than seven days. Vibratory extraction of 

steel piles is expected to take 

approximately two hours over the 

course of two days. 

Pile installation will be by vibratory 

driving until refusal is encountered, 

with the potential for impact proofing of 

each installed pile depending on 

substrate conditions. Vibratory 

installation is expected to take 

approximately 30 minutes per pile, at an 

estimated average rate of approximately 

10 piles per day. Impact proofing of 

installed steel piles could occur on the 

same day as vibratory installation, and 

would involve approximately 100 

strikes per pile and a maximum of 5 

piles per day. 

TABLE 1—PILE INFORMATION

Pile type Install or 

extract Method Total piles 

Piles 

per day 

Hours or strikes 

per day 

Total 

days 1

12-inch (in) steel ........................................................... Install ............. Vibratory ........ 37 10 5 hours ............. 7 

18-in steel ..................................................................... Extract ............ Vibratory ........ 3 2 1 hour ............... 2 

12–14-in timber ............................................................ Extract ............ Vibratory ........ 48 16 8 hours ............. 6 

12–in steel .................................................................... Install ............. Impact ............ 37 5 100 strikes ........ 8 

1Approximately 14 days of in-water pile driving would be required for this project. Some activities would occur on the same day (i.e., vibratory 

and impact installation of steel piles, vibratory extraction of steel and timber piles). 

Other components of this project 

include both in-water and upland 

activities, which are not expected to 

result in take of marine mammals. Pile 

repair (i.e., power washing, jacketing, 

and anti-fouling coating), deck repair 

and replacement, utility installation, 

and shoreline stabilization (i.e., removal 

and replacement of riprap shoreline) are 

therefore not discussed further in this 

document. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1EN07SE23.013</GPH>
61552 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. NMFS fully considered 

all of this information, and we refer the 

reader to these descriptions, instead of 

reprinting the information. Additional 

information regarding population trends 

and threats may be found in NMFS’ 

Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’ 

website (https://

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

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for this activity, 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. PBR is defined by the 

MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’ SARs). While no 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or proposed to be authorized here, PBR 

and annual serious injury and mortality 

from anthropogenic sources are 

included here as gross indicators of the 

status of the species or stocks and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ U.S. Pacific SARs. All values 

presented in Table 2 are the most recent 

available at the time of publication 

(including from the final 2022 SARs) 

and are available online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

TABLE 2—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES 1

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 2

Stock 

abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance 

survey) 3

PBR Annual 

M/SI 4

Order Artiodactyla—Infraorder Cetacea—Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Humpback whale ..................... Megaptera novaeangliae ........ Hawai1i .................................... -, -, N 11,278 (0.56, 7,265, 2020) .... 127 27.09 

Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA T, D, Y 3,477 (0.101, 3,185, 2022) .... 43 22 

Central America/Southern 

Mexico-CA/OR/WA.

E, D, Y 1,496 (0.171, 1,284, 2022) .... 5.2 14.9 

Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Killer whale .............................. Orcinus orca ........................... Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident.E, D, Y 74 (N/A, 74, 2021) ................. 0.13 ≥0.4 

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

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise ...................... Phocoena phocoena .............. Washington Inland Waters ..... -, -, N 11,233 (0.37, 8,308, 2015) .... 66 ≥7.2 

Order Carnivora—Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

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

California sea lion .................... Zalophus californianus ........... U.S ......................................... -, -, N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 2014) 14,011 >321 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Harbor seal .............................. Phoca vitulina ......................... Washington Northern Inland 

Waters.

-, -, N UNK (UNK, UNK, 1999) ......... UND 9.8 

Northern elephant seal ............ Mirounga angustirostris .......... CA Breeding ........................... -, -, N 187,386 (N/A, 85,369, 2013) 5,122 13.7 

1 Information on the classification of marine mammal species can be found on the web page for The Society for Marine Mammalogy’s Committee on Taxonomy 

(https://marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/; Committee on Taxonomy (2022)). 2Endangered 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. 3 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock 

abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 4These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, vessel 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 7 species (with 

6 managed stocks) in Table 2 temporally 

and spatially co-occur with the activity 

to the degree that take is reasonably 

likely to occur. While gray whales 

(Eschrichtius robustus) and minke 

whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) 

have been documented in the project 

area, the temporal and/or spatial 

occurrence of these species is such that 

take is not expected to occur, and they 

are not discussed further beyond the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 61553 

explanation provided here. The project 

area (Port Angeles Harbor) is a relatively 

small embayment along the coast of the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca. While gray 

whales occasionally visit this area 

during their seasonal migrations, and 

approximately a dozen identified 

individuals are known to regularly 

return to Puget Sound (Calambokidis et 

al., 2018). However, it would be 

unusual for one to enter the enclosed 

harbor area. Minke whales have been 

reported in Washington inland waters 

year-round, although few are reported in 

the winter (i.e., during the anticipated 

in-water work window for this project; 

Calambokidis and Baird 1994). Given 

the limited timeframe of the project and 

the low likelihood of a gray or minke 

whale approaching the enclosed and 

highly-trafficked Port Angeles Harbor, 

no takes of these species are proposed 

for authorization. Additionally, the 

Coast Guard proposes to shut down pile 

driving work when any large whale for 

which take is not authorized approaches 

the Level B harassment isopleth. 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales are found in 

coastal waters of Washington as they 

migrate from feeding grounds in Alaska 

to California to winter breeding grounds 

in Mexico. Humpbacks used to be 

considered rare visitors to Puget Sound. 

In 1976 and 1978, two sightings were 

reported in Puget Sound and one 

sighting was reported in 1986 (Osborne 

et al., 1988; Calambokidis and Steiger 

1990; Calambokidis and Baird 1994). 

Humpback whale occurrence in Puget 

Sound has been steadily increasing 

since 2000, with some individuals 

remaining in the area through the winter 

(Calambokidis et al., 2018). Between 

1988 and 2015, 154 unique individual 

humpback whales were identified 

within Washington-British Columbia 

inside waters, with 500 or more sighting 

reports of humpback whales in the 

Salish Sea in both 2014 and 2015 

(Calambokidis et al. 2017). 

The 2022 Alaska and Pacific SARs 

described a revised stock structure for 

humpback whales which modifies the 

previous stocks designated under the 

MMPA to align more closely with the 

ESA-designated DPSs (Caretta et al., 

2023; Young et al., 2023). Specifically, 

the three previous North Pacific 

humpback whale stocks (Central and 

Western North Pacific stocks and a CA/ 

OR/WA stock) were replaced by five 

stocks, largely corresponding with the 

ESA-designated DPSs. These include 

Western North Pacific and Hawai1i 

stocks and a Central America/Southern 

Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock (which 

corresponds with the Central America 

DPS). The remaining two stocks, 

corresponding with the Mexico DPS, are 

the Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA and 

Mexico-North Pacific stocks (Caretta et 

al., 2023; Young et al., 2023). The 

former stock is expected to occur along 

the west coast from California to 

southern British Columbia, while the 

latter stock may occur across the Pacific, 

from northern British Columbia through 

the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands/ 

Bering Sea region to Russia. The stocks 

that may occur in the proposed project 

area are: Hawai1i, Mainland Mexico-CA/ 

OR/WA, and Central America/Southern 

Mexico-CA/OR/WA. 

The Hawai1i stock consists of one 

demographically independent 

population (DIP)—Hawai1i—Southeast 

Alaska/Northern British Columbia DIP 

and one unit—Hawai1i—North Pacific 

unit, which may or may not be 

composed of multiple DIPs (Wade et al., 

2021). The DIP and unit are managed as 

a single stock at this time, due to the 

lack of data available to separately 

assess them and lack of compelling 

conservation benefit to managing them 

separately (NMFS, 2023; NMFS, 2019; 

NMFS, 2022). The DIP is delineated 

based on two strong lines of evidence: 

genetics and movement data (Wade et 

al., 2021). Whales in the Hawai1i— 

Southeast Alaska/Northern British 

Columbia DIP winter off Hawai1i and 

largely summer in Southeast Alaska and 

Northern British Columbia (Wade et al., 

2021). The group of whales that migrate 

from Russia, western Alaska (Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands), and central 

Alaska (Gulf of Alaska excluding 

Southeast Alaska) to Hawai1i have been 

delineated as the Hawai1i-North Pacific 

unit (Wade et al., 2021). There are a 

small number of whales that migrate 

between Hawai1i and southern British 

Columbia/Washington, but current data 

and analyses do not provide a clear 

understanding of which unit these 

whales belong to (Wade et al., 2021) 

(Caretta et al., 2023; Young et al., 2023). 

The Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA 

stock consists of one DIP. Delineation of 

the Mainland Mexico-California/ 

Oregon/Washington DIP is based on two 

strong lines of evidence indicating 

demographic independence: genetics 

and movement data (Martien et al. 

2021). Whales in this stock winter off 

the mainland Mexico states of Nayarit 

and Jalisco, with some animals seen as 

far south as Colima and Michoaca ́n. 

Summer destinations for whales in the 

Mainland Mexico DPS include U.S. 

West Coast waters of California, Oregon, 

Washington (including the Salish Sea, 

Martien et al. 2021), Southern British 

Columbia, Alaska, and the Bering Sea. 

The Central America/Southern 

Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock consists of 

one DIP, for which delineation is based 

on two strong lines of evidence 

indicating demographic independence: 

genetics and movement data (Taylor et 

al. 2021). Whales in this stock winter off 

the Pacific coast of Nicaragua, 

Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, 

Panama, Costa Rica and likely southern 

coastal Mexico (Taylor et al. 2021). 

Summer destinations for whales in this 

DIP include the U.S. West Coast waters 

of California, Oregon, and Washington 

(including the Salish Sea, Calambokidis 

et al. 2017). 

According to Wade et al. (2021), the 

probability that humpback whales 

encountered in Washington and 

Southern British Columbia waters 

belong to various DPSs are as follows: 

Hawai’i DPS, 69 percent; Mexico DPS, 

25 percent; and Central America DPS, 6 

percent. We therefore assume that the 

numbers of humpback whales taken 

incidental to the Coast Guard’s 

proposed activities would fall under the 

same relative proportions. Critical 

habitat for Mexico and Central America 

DPS humpback whales has been 

established on the outer coast of 

Washington (86 FR 21082; April 21, 

2021) but does not overlap the project 

area. 

Humpback whales are most often 

spotted in the Port Angeles area from 

May to June and from September to 

October, during their migration (Patry, 

2022). During a 2016–2017 U.S. Navy 

Department of the Navy (U.S. Navy) Pier 

and Support Facilities for Transit 

Protection System (TPS) project in Port 

Angeles (U.S. Navy TPS Port Angeles 

Project), three ‘‘possible’’ whale 

sightings were recorded; however, 

species and confirmation could not be 

obtained (Northwest Environmental 

Consulting, LLC., 2018). 

Killer Whale 

There are three distinct ecotypes, or 

forms, of killer whales recognized in the 

north Pacific Ocean: resident, transient, 

and offshore. The three ecotypes differ 

morphologically, ecologically, 

behaviorally, and genetically. Resident 

killer whales exclusively prey upon 

fish, with a clear preference for salmon 

(Ford and Ellis 2006; Hanson et al., 

2010; Ford et al., 2016), while transient 

killer whales exclusively prey upon 

marine mammals (Caretta et al., 2023). 

Less is known about offshore killer 

whales, but they are believed to 

consume primarily fish, including 

several species of shark (Dahlheim et 

al., 2008). Currently, there are eight 

killer whale stocks recognized in the 

U.S. Pacific Ocean (Carretta et al., 2023; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
61554 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 

Young et al. 2023). Of those, individuals 

from the Southern Resident stock and 

West Coast Transient stocks could occur 

in the Port Angeles area and be taken 

incidental to the Coast Guard’s 

proposed activities. 

The Southern Resident killer whale 

(SRKW) population is comprised of 

three pods, J, K, and L pods, which 

typically travel independently of each 

other. The stock occurs for part of the 

year in the inland waterways of the 

Salish Sea, including Puget Sound, the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the southern 

Strait of Georgia mostly during the 

spring, summer, and fall. Their 

movement patterns appear related to the 

seasonal availability of prey, especially 

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha). They also move to coastal 

waters, primarily off Washington and 

British Columbia, and have been 

observed as far as central California and 

southeast Alaska (Caretta et al., 2023). 

During the fall, SRKW, especially J pod, 

expand their movements into Puget 

Sound (Hanson et al., 2021). 

The SRKW DPS was listed as 

endangered under the ESA in 2005 after 

a nearly 20 percent decline in 

abundance between 1996 and 2001 (70 

FR 69903; November 18, 2005). As 

compared to stable or growing 

populations, the DPS reflects lower 

fecundity and has demonstrated little to 

no growth in recent decades, and in fact 

has declined further since the date of 

listing (NMFS 2022b). The population 

abundance listed in the final 2022 SARs 

is 74 individuals, from the July 1, 2021 

annual census conducted by the Center 

for Whale Research (Carretta et al., 

2023). 

The West Coast Transient stock of 

killer whales occurs from California 

through southeast Alaska (Young et al. 

2023). The seasonal movements of 

transients are largely unpredictable, 

although there is a tendency to 

investigate harbor seal haulouts off 

Vancouver Island more frequently 

during the pupping season in August 

and September (Baird 1994; Ford 2014). 

Transient killer whales have been 

observed in the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

in all months and sightings in the Salish 

Sea have increased since 2000 

(Houghton et al., 2015). 

A previous construction monitoring 

project in Port Angeles Harbor 

documented no sightings of either 

SRKW or transient killer whales over 38 

days of monitoring, though two 

‘‘possible’’ whale sightings were 

recorded (Northwest Environmental 

Consulting, LLC., 2018). 

Harbor Porpoise 

In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, 

harbor porpoise are found in coastal and 

inland waters from Point Barrow, along 

the Alaskan coast, and down the west 

coast of North America to Point 

Conception, California (Gaskin 1984). 

Harbor porpoise are known to occur 

year-round in the inland trans-boundary 

waters of Washington and British 

Columbia, Canada (Osborne et al., 

1988), and along the Oregon/ 

Washington coast (Barlow 1988, Barlow 

et al., 1988, Green et al., 1992). There 

was a significant decline in harbor 

porpoise sightings within southern 

Puget Sound between the 1940s and 

1990s but sightings have increased 

seasonally in the last 10 years (Carretta 

et al., 2023). Annual winter aerial 

surveys conducted by the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife from 

1995 to 2015 revealed an increasing 

trend in harbor porpoise in Washington 

inland waters, including the return of 

harbor porpoise to Puget Sound. The 

data suggest that harbor porpoise were 

already present in Juan de Fuca, Georgia 

Straits, and the San Juan Islands from 

the mid-1990s to mid-2000s, and then 

expanded into Puget Sound and Hood 

Canal from the mid-2000s to 2015, areas 

they had used historically but 

abandoned. Changes in fishery-related 

entanglement was suspected as the 

cause of their previous decline and 

more recent recovery, including a return 

to Puget Sound (Evenson et al., 2016). 

Seasonal surveys conducted in spring, 

summer, and fall 2013–2015 in Puget 

Sound and Hood Canal documented 

substantial numbers of harbor porpoise 

in Puget Sound. Observed porpoise 

numbers were twice as high in spring as 

in fall or summer, indicating a seasonal 

shift in distribution of harbor porpoise 

(Smultea 2015). The reasons for the 

seasonal shift and for the increase in 

sightings is unknown. Monitoring from 

a previous construction project in Port 

Angeles Harbor sighted six harbor 

porpoise over 38 days of monitoring 

(Northwest Environmental Consulting, 

LLC., 2018). 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions range along the North 

Pacific Rim from northern Japan to 

California (Loughlin et al., 1984). There 

are two separate stocks of Steller sea 

lions, the eastern U.S. stock, which 

occurs east of Cape Suckling, Alaska 

(144° W), and the western U.S. stock, 

which occurs west of that point. Only 

the western stock of Steller sea lions, 

which is designated as the western DPS 

of Steller sea lions, is listed as 

endangered under the ESA (78 FR 

66139; November 4, 2013). Unlike the 

western U.S. stock of Steller sea lions, 

there has been a sustained and robust 

increase in abundance of the eastern 

U.S. stock throughout its breeding 

range. The eastern stock of Steller sea 

lions has historically bred on rookeries 

located in Southeast Alaska, British 

Columbia, Oregon, and California. 

However, within the last several years a 

new rookery has become established on 

the outer Washington coast (at the 

Carroll Island and Sea Lion Rock 

complex), with more than 100 pups 

born there in 2015 (Young et al., 2023). 

Steller sea lions use haulout locations 

in Puget Sound, and may occur at the 

same haulouts as California sea lions. 

The closest known haulout for Steller 

sea lions is approximately 15 mi (24.14 

km) away from Port Angeles on the 

Canadian side of the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca (Jefferies et al. 2000, Edgell & 

Demarchi, 2012). Thus, although Steller 

sea lions may occasionally use the 

waters around Port Angeles to pursue 

local prey, their presence in Port 

Angeles harbor is likely limited due to 

the long transit involved in returning to 

their haulout site. Observers reported 

sightings of two Steller sea lions during 

pile driving activities associated with 

the Navy TPS Port Angeles Project in 

2016–2017 over 38 days of monitoring 

(Northwest Environmental Consulting, 

LLC., 2018). 

California Sea Lion 

The California sea lion is the most 

frequently sighted pinniped found in 

Washington waters and uses haulout 

sites along the outer coast, Strait of Juan 

de Fuca, and in Puget Sound. Haulout 

sites are located on jetties, offshore 

rocks and islands, log booms, marina 

docks, and navigation buoys. This 

species also may be frequently seen 

resting in the water, rafted together in 

groups in Puget Sound. Only male 

California sea lions migrate into Pacific 

Northwest waters, with females 

remaining in waters near their breeding 

rookeries off the coast of California and 

Mexico. The California sea lion was 

considered rare in Washington waters 

prior to the 1950s, but prevalence has 

increased regularly since the passing of 

the MMPA. In the 1990s, Jeffries et al. 

(2000) documented peak numbers of 

3,000 to 5,000 animals moving into the 

Salish Sea during the fall and remaining 

until late spring, when most returned to 

breeding rookeries in California and 

Mexico (Jeffries et al., 2000). More 

recent research has indicated that 

California sea lions continue to use the 

Salish Sea and Strait of Juan de Fuca 

regularly, with a mean estimated 

abundance of 2,489 (95% confidence 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 61555 

interval of 253—24,491) animals in 

these regions in the spring (Jefferson et 

al. 2023), and up to 836 individuals 

counted during the month of October at 

a nearby Canadian haulout (Edgell & 

Demarchi, 2012). Additionally, satellite 

tagging data has tracked individual 

animals tagged at U.S. Navy facilities in 

southern Puget Sound passing close to 

remaining near Port Angeles Harbor for 

multiple days in 2015 and 2016 (DeLong 

et al. 2017). 

California sea lions are often observed 

in the area of potential effects and are 

known to be comfortable and seemingly 

curious around human activities. They 

regularly haul out on structures such as 

buoys, floats, and docks. In Port Angeles 

Harbor there are no known California 

sea lion haulouts; the nearest known 

haulout is across the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca at Race Rocks in British Columbia, 

Canada, approximately 19.5 km (12.1 

mi) from the proposed project site 

(Edgell & Demarchi, 2012). The nearest 

known haulout in U.S. waters is at 

Sombio Point, which is approximately 

45 mi (72.4 km) from Port Angeles 

(Jefferies et al. 2000). As a result, their 

use of Port Angeles Harbor is likely to 

be limited. However, occasional 

foraging forays may bring them into the 

area as surveys at Navy facilities 

indicate a few individuals are present in 

the area through mid-June to July with 

some arrivals in August (U.S. Navy 

2019). Observers reported sightings of 

21 California sea lions during pile 

driving activities associated with the 

Navy TPS Port Angeles Project in 2016 

and 2017 (Northwest Environmental 

Consulting, LLC 2018). 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and 

estuarine waters off Baja California, 

north along the western coasts of the 

continental United States, British 

Columbia, and Southeast Alaska, west 

through the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian 

Islands, and in the Bering Sea north to 

Cape Newenham and the Pribilof 

Islands (Carretta et al., 2023). They haul 

out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting 

glacial ice and feed in marine, estuarine, 

and occasionally fresh waters. Harbor 

seals generally are non-migratory, with 

local movements associated with such 

factors as tides, weather, season, food 

availability, and reproduction (Scheffer 

and Slipp 1944; Fisher 1952; Bigg 1969, 

1981). Within U.S. west coast waters, 

five stocks of harbor seals are 

recognized: (1) Southern Puget Sound 

(south of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge); 

(2) Washington Northern Inland Waters 

(including Puget Sound north of the 

Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the San Juan 

Islands, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca); 

(3) Hood Canal; (4) Oregon/Washington 

Coast; and (5) California. Harbor seals in 

the project areas would be from the 

Washington Northern Inland Waters 

stock. 

Harbor seals are the only pinniped 

species that occurs year-round and 

breeds in Washington waters (Jeffries et 

al., 2000). Pupping seasons vary by 

geographic region, with pups born in 

coastal estuaries (Columbia River, 

Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor) from 

mid-April through June; Olympic 

Peninsula coast from May through July; 

San Juan Islands and eastern bays of 

Puget Sound from June through August; 

southern Puget Sound from mid-July 

through September; and Hood Canal 

from August through January (Jeffries et 

al., 2000). Harbor seals have haulouts 

throughout Puget Sound and the Strait 

of Juan de Fuca and some of their 

haulouts are in close proximity to Air 

Station Port Angeles. They haul out 

year-round on log booms and beach 

areas. Known haulout locations are 

indicated in Figure 2 of the IHA 

Application. One is approximately 

11,572 ft (3,527 m) west and the other 

is approximately 7,877 ft (2,401 m) 

south of the project area. Haulout 

locations may change, and harbor seals 

may also use other undocumented 

haulout sites within or around Port 

Angeles harbor. 

Harbor seals are commonly sighted in 

and are expected to forage within Port 

Angeles Harbor year round. Observers 

reported sightings of 1,009 harbor seals 

during 38 days of pile driving associated 

with the Navy TPS Port Angeles Project 

in 2016–2017 (Northwest 

Environmental Consulting, LLC., 2018). 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Northern elephant seals breed and 

give birth in California (U.S.) and Baja 

California (Mexico), primarily on 

offshore islands (Stewart et al. 1994), 

from December to March. Males migrate 

to the Gulf of Alaska and western 

Aleutian Islands along the continental 

shelf to feed on benthic prey, while 

females migrate to pelagic areas in the 

Gulf of Alaska and the central North 

Pacific Ocean to feed on pelagic prey 

(Le Boeuf et al., 2000). Adults return to 

land between March and August to 

molt, with males returning later than 

females. Adults return to their feeding 

areas again between their spring/ 

summer molting and their winter 

breeding seasons (Carretta et al., 2023). 

Seasonal abundance estimates for 

northern elephant seals in the inland 

waters of Washington (Strait of Juan de 

Fuca) range from 3 animals in winter to 

12 animals in fall (U.S. Navy 2019). 

Haulouts for Northern elephant seals are 

located on offshore islands or islands 

and spits in the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

(Jefferies et al. 2000). Observers reported 

no sightings of northern elephant seals 

during pile driving activities associated 

with the Navy TPS Port Angeles Project 

in 2016 through 2017 (Northwest 

Environmental Consulting, LLC., 2018). 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. 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, 2019) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into hearing 

groups based on directly measured 

(behavioral or auditory evoked potential 

techniques) or estimated hearing ranges 

(behavioral response data, anatomical 

modeling, etc.). 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
61556 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

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

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

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

australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

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

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

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

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

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

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth et al., 2013). This 

division between phocid and otariid 

pinnipeds is now reflected in the 

updated hearing groups proposed in 

Southall et al. (2019). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section provides a discussion of 

the ways in which components of the 

specified activity may impact marine 

mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

section later in this document includes 

a quantitative analysis of the number of 

individuals that are expected to be taken 

by this activity. The Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination section 

considers the content of this section, the 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

section, and the Proposed Mitigation 

section, to draw conclusions regarding 

the likely impacts of these activities on 

the reproductive success or survivorship 

of individuals and whether those 

impacts are reasonably expected to, or 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Acoustic effects on marine mammals 

during the specified activity are 

expected to potentially occur from 

impact and vibratory pile installation 

and removal. The effects of underwater 

noise from Coast Guard’s proposed 

activities have the potential to result in 

Level B harassment of marine mammals 

in Port Angeles Harbor. 

Background on Sound 

This section contains a brief technical 

background on sound, on the 

characteristics of certain sound types, 

and on metrics used relevant to the 

specified activity and to a discussion of 

the potential effects of the specified 

activity on marine mammals found later 

in this document. For general 

information on sound and its interaction 

with the marine environment, please 

see, Erbe and Thomas (2022); Au and 

Hastings (2008); Richardson et al. 

(1995); Urick (1983); as well as the 

Discovery of Sound in the Sea (DOSITS) 

website at https://dosits.org/. 

Sound is a vibration that travels as an 

acoustic wave through a medium such 

as a gas, liquid or solid. Sound waves 

alternately compress and decompress 

the medium as the wave travels. In 

water, sound waves radiate in a manner 

similar to ripples on the surface of a 

pond and may be either directed in a 

beam (narrow beam or directional 

sources) or sound may radiate in all 

directions (omnidirectional sources), as 

is the case for sound produced by the 

construction activities considered here. 

The compressions and decompressions 

associated with sound waves are 

detected as changes in pressure by 

marine mammals and human-made 

sound receptors such as hydrophones. 

Sound travels more efficiently in 

water than almost any other form of 

energy, making the use of sound as a 

primary sensory modality ideal for 

inhabitants of the aquatic environment. 

In seawater, sound travels at roughly 

1,500 meters per second (m/s). In air, 

sound waves travel much more slowly, 

at about 340 m/s. However, the speed of 

sound in water can vary by a small 

amount based on characteristics of the 

transmission medium such as 

temperature and salinity. 

The basic characteristics of a sound 

wave are frequency, wavelength, 

velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is 

the number of pressure waves that pass 

by a reference point per unit of time and 

is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per 

second. Wavelength is the distance 

between two peaks or corresponding 

points of a sound wave (length of one 

cycle). Higher frequency sounds have 

shorter wavelengths than lower 

frequency sounds, and typically 

attenuate (decrease) more rapidly with 

distance, except in certain cases in 

shallower water. The amplitude of a 

sound pressure wave is related to the 

subjective ‘‘loudness’’ of a sound and is 

typically expressed in dB, which are a 

relative unit of measurement that is 

used to express the ratio of one value of 

a power or pressure to another. A sound 

pressure level (SPL) in dB is described 

as the ratio between a measured 

pressure and a reference pressure, and 

is a logarithmic unit that accounts for 

large variations in amplitude; therefore, 

a relatively small change in dB 

corresponds to large changes in sound 

pressure. For example, a 10-dB increase 

is a ten-fold increase in acoustic power. 

A 20-dB increase is then a 100-fold 

increase in power and a 30-dB increase 

is a 1,000-fold increase in power. 

However, a 10-fold increase in acoustic 

power does not mean that the sound is 

perceived as being 10 times louder. The 

dB is a relative unit comparing two 

pressures; therefore, a reference 

pressure must always be indicated. For 

underwater sound, this is 1 microPascal 

(mPa). For in-air sound, the reference 

pressure is 20 microPascal (mPa). The 

amplitude of a sound can be presented 

in various ways; however, NMFS 

typically considers three metrics: sound 

exposure level (SEL), root-mean-square 

(RMS) SPL, and peak SPL (defined 

below). The source level represents the 

SPL referenced at a standard distance 

from the source (Richardson et al., 1995; 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI), 2013)(typically 1 m) 

(Richardson et al., 1995; American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI), 

2013), while the received level is the 

SPL at the receiver’s position. For pile 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 61557 

driving activities, the SPL is typically 

referenced at 10 m. 

SEL (represented as dB referenced to 

1 micropascal squared second (re 1 

mPa2-s)) represents the total energy in a 

stated frequency band over a stated time 

interval or event, and considers both 

intensity and duration of exposure. The 

per-pulse SEL (e.g., single strike or 

single shot SEL) is calculated over the 

time window containing the entire 

pulse (i.e., 100 percent of the acoustic 

energy). SEL can also be a cumulative 

metric; it can be accumulated over a 

single pulse (for pile driving this is the 

same as single-strike SEL, above; SELss), 

or calculated over periods containing 

multiple pulses (SELcum). Cumulative 

SEL (SELcum) represents the total energy 

accumulated by a receiver over a 

defined time window or during an 

event. The SEL metric is useful because 

it allows sound exposures of different 

durations to be related to one another in 

terms of total acoustic energy. The 

duration of a sound event and the 

number of pulses, however, should be 

specified as there is no accepted 

standard duration over which the 

summation of energy is measured. 

RMS SPL is equal to ten times the 

logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of the 

mean-square sound pressure to the 

specified reference value, and given in 

units of dB (International Organization 

for Standardization (ISO), 2017). RMS is 

calculated by squaring all of the sound 

amplitudes, averaging the squares, and 

then taking the square root of the 

average (Urick, 1983). RMS accounts for 

both positive and negative values; 

squaring the pressures makes all values 

positive so that they may be accounted 

for in the summation of pressure levels 

(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This 

measurement is often used in the 

context of discussing behavioral effects, 

in part because behavioral effects, 

which often result from auditory cues, 

may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak SPL. For 

impulsive sounds, RMS is calculated by 

the portion of the waveform containing 

90 percent of the sound energy from the 

impulsive event (Madsen, 2005). 

Peak SPL (also referred to as zero-topeak sound pressure or 0-pk) is the 

maximum instantaneous sound pressure 

measurable in the water, which can 

arise from a positive or negative sound 

pressure, during a specified time, for a 

specific frequency range at a specified 

distance from the source, and is 

represented in the same units as the 

RMS sound pressure (ISO, 2017). Along 

with SEL, this metric is used in 

evaluating the potential for permanent 

threshold shift (PTS) and temporary 

threshold shift (TTS) associated with 

impulsive sound sources. 

Sounds may be either impulsive or 

non-impulsive (defined below). The 

distinction between these two sound 

types is important because they have 

differing potential to cause physical 

effects, particularly with regard to noiseinduced hearing loss (e.g., Ward, 1997 

in Southall et al., 2007). Please see 

NMFS (2018) and Southall et al. (2007; 

2019) for an in-depth discussion of 

these concepts. 

Impulsive sound sources (e.g., 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

seismic airgun shots, impact pile 

driving) produce signals that are brief 

(typically considered to be less than one 

second), broadband, atonal transients 

(ANSI, 1986; NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005) 

and occur either as isolated events or 

are repeated in some succession. 

Impulsive sounds are all characterized 

by a relatively rapid rise from ambient 

pressure to a maximal pressure value 

followed by a rapid decay period that 

may include a period of diminishing, 

oscillating maximal and minimal 

pressures, and generally have an 

increased capacity to induce physical 

injury as compared with sounds that 

lack these features. Impulsive sounds 

are intermittent in nature. The duration 

of such sounds, as received at a 

distance, can be greatly extended in a 

highly reverberant environment. 

Non-impulsive sounds can be tonal, 

narrowband, or broadband, brief or 

prolonged, and may be either 

continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 

1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these nonimpulsive sounds can be transient 

signals of short duration but without the 

essential properties of impulses (e.g., 

rapid rise time). Examples of nonimpulsive sounds include those 

produced by vessels, aircraft, machinery 

operations such as drilling (including 

DTH systems) or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is characterized by sounds 

from both natural and anthropogenic 

sound sources. Ambient sound is 

defined as a composite of naturallyoccurring (i.e., non-anthropogenic) 

sound from many sources both near and 

far (ANSI, 1995). Background sound is 

similar, but includes all sounds, 

including anthropogenic sounds, minus 

the sound produced by the proposed 

(NMFS, 2012; 2016). The sound level of 

a region is defined by the total 

acoustical energy being generated by 

known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

wind and waves, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic (e.g., vessels, dredging, 

construction) sound. A number of 

sources contribute to background and 

ambient sound, including wind and 

waves, which are a main source of 

naturally occurring ambient sound for 

frequencies between 200 Hz and 50 

kilohertz (kHz) (Mitson, 1995). In 

general, background and ambient sound 

levels tend to increase with increasing 

wind speed and wave height. 

Precipitation can become an important 

component of total sound at frequencies 

above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 

Hz during quiet times. Marine mammals 

can contribute significantly to 

background and ambient sound levels, 

as can some fish and snapping shrimp. 

The frequency band for biological 

contributions is from approximately 12 

Hz to over 100 kHz. Sources of 

background sound related to human 

activity include transportation (surface 

vessels), dredging and construction, oil 

and gas drilling and production, 

geophysical surveys, sonar, and 

explosions. Vessel noise typically 

dominates the total background sound 

for frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. 

In general, the frequencies of many 

anthropogenic sounds, particularly 

those produced by construction 

activities, are below 1 kHz (Richardson 

et al., 1995). When sounds at 

frequencies greater than 1 kHz are 

produced, they generally attenuate 

relatively rapidly (Richardson et al., 

1995), particularly above 20 kHz due to 

propagation losses and absorption 

(Urick, 1983). 

Transmission loss (TL) defines the 

degree to which underwater sound has 

spread in space and lost energy after 

having moved through the environment 

and reached a receiver. It is defined by 

the ISO as the reduction in a specified 

level between two specified points that 

are within an underwater acoustic field 

(ISO, 2017). Careful consideration of 

transmission loss and appropriate 

propagation modeling is a crucial step 

in determining the impacts of 

underwater sound, as it helps to define 

the ranges (isopleths) to which impacts 

are expected and depends significantly 

on local environmental parameters such 

as seabed type, water depth 

(bathymetry), and the local speed of 

sound. Geometric spreading laws are 

powerful tools which provide a simple 

means of estimating TL, based on the 

shape of the sound wave front in the 

water column. For a sound source that 

is equally loud in all directions and in 

deep water, the sound field takes the 

form of a sphere, as the sound extends 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
61558 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 

in every direction uniformly. In this 

case, the intensity of the sound is spread 

across the surface of the sphere, and 

thus we can relate intensity loss to the 

square of the range (as area = 4*pi*r2). 

When expressed logarithmically in dB 

as TL, we find that TL = 

20*Log10(range), this situation is known 

as spherical spreading. In shallow 

water, the sea surface and seafloor will 

bound the shape of the sound, leading 

to a more cylindrical shape, as the top 

and bottom of the sphere is truncated by 

the largely reflective boundaries. This 

situation is termed cylindrical 

spreading, and is given by TL = 

10*Log10(range) (Urick, 1983). An 

intermediate scenario may be defined by 

the equation TL = 15*Log10(range), and 

is referred to as practical spreading. 

Though these geometric spreading laws 

do not capture many often important 

details (scattering, absorption, etc.), they 

offer a reasonable and simple 

approximation of how sound decreases 

in intensity as it is transmitted. In the 

absence of measured data indicating the 

level of transmission loss at a given site 

for a specific activity, NMFS 

recommends practical spreading (i.e., 

15*Log10(range)) to model acoustic 

propagation for construction activities 

in most nearshore environments. 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time depends not 

only on the source levels, but also on 

the propagation of sound through the 

environment. Sound propagation is 

dependent on the spatially and 

temporally varying properties of the 

water column and sea floor, and is 

frequency-dependent. As a result of the 

dependence on a large number of 

varying factors, background and 

ambient sound levels can be expected to 

vary widely over both coarse and fine 

spatial and temporal scales. Sound 

levels at a given frequency and location 

can vary by 10–20 dB from day to day 

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

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

USCG Air Station Port Angeles is 

located at the end of Ediz Hook, close 

to the entrance to Port Angeles Harbor, 

a relatively active and industrialized 

deepwater port with high levels of 

commercial and recreational vessel 

traffic. The Port of Port Angeles is the 

first full-service port available to ships 

entering the Strait of Juan de Fuca from 

the Pacific Ocean. It includes three 

deepwater marine terminals used for 

commercial shipping, as well as ferry 

terminals and recreational boat 

launches. Within the larger harbor area, 

pilot boat services, yacht clubs, and a 

naval facility also contribute to 

background noise. Although no ambient 

noise recordings are available from Port 

Angeles Harbor, it is reasonable to 

assume that background noise 

conditions are similar to other 

industrialized ports with daily 

operations of many sizes of vessels. 

Vessel traffic contributes significant 

amounts of noise to the marine 

environment throughout the Salish Sea, 

with most sound coming from 

commercial vessels (Burnham et al. 

2021). 

Description of Sound Sources for the 

Specified Activities 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the project would 

include impact pile installation and 

vibratory pile installation and removal. 

Impact hammers operate by repeatedly 

dropping and/or pushing a heavy piston 

onto a pile to drive the pile into the 

substrate. Sound generated by impact 

hammers is impulsive, characterized by 

rapid rise times and high peak levels, a 

potentially injurious combination 

(Hastings and Popper, 2005). Vibratory 

hammers install piles by vibrating them 

and allowing the weight of the hammer 

to push them into the sediment. 

Vibratory hammers typically produce 

less sound (i.e., lower levels) than 

impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be 180 

dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 

dB lower than SPLs generated during 

impact pile driving of the same-sized 

pile (Oestman et al., 2009; CALTRANS, 

2015; 2020). Sounds produced by 

vibratory hammers are non-impulsive; 

the rise time is slower, reducing the 

probability and severity of injury, and 

the sound energy is distributed over a 

greater amount of time (Nedwell and 

Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al., 2005). 

The likely or possible impacts of the 

Coast Guard’s proposed activities on 

marine mammals could involve both 

non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. 

Potential non-acoustic stressors could 

result from the physical presence of the 

equipment and personnel; however, 

given that the closest pinniped haulout 

is approximately 2.5 mi or km from the 

site and located within the generalized 

area of a highly industrialized port area, 

the animals are likely to have habituated 

to the sight of construction personnel 

and activities. Therefore, visual and 

other non-acoustic stressors would be 

limited, and any impacts to marine 

mammals are expected to primarily be 

acoustic in nature. 

Acoustic Impacts 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile driving or drilling is the primary 

means by which marine mammals may 

be harassed from the Coast Guard’s 

specified activity. In general, animals 

exposed to natural or anthropogenic 

sound may experience physical and 

psychological effects, ranging in 

magnitude from none to severe 

(Southall et al., 2007; 2019). Exposure to 

pile driving noise has the potential to 

result in auditory threshold shifts and 

behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance, 

temporary cessation of foraging and 

vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). 

Exposure to anthropogenic noise can 

also lead to non-observable 

physiological responses, such an 

increase in stress hormones. Additional 

noise in a marine mammal’s habitat can 

mask acoustic cues used by marine 

mammals to carry out daily functions, 

such as communication and predator 

and prey detection. The effects of pile 

driving noise on marine mammals are 

dependent on several factors, including, 

but not limited to, sound type (e.g., 

impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the 

species, age and sex class (e.g., adult 

male vs. mom with calf), duration of 

exposure, the distance between the pile 

and the animal, received levels, 

behavior at time of exposure, and 

previous history with exposure 

(Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 

2007). Here we discuss physical 

auditory effects (threshold shifts) 

followed by behavioral effects and 

potential impacts on habitat. 

NMFS defines a noise-induced 

threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually 

an increase, in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS, 2018). The amount of 

threshold shift is customarily expressed 

in dB. A TS can be permanent or 

temporary. As described in NMFS, 

2018, there are numerous factors to 

consider when examining the 

consequence of TS, including, but not 

limited to, the signal temporal pattern 

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

likelihood an individual would be 

exposed for a long enough duration or 

to a high enough level to induce a TS, 

the magnitude of the TS, time to 

recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to 

days), the frequency range of the 

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

hearing frequency range of the exposed 

species relative to the signal’s frequency 

spectrum (i.e., how animal uses sound 

within the frequency band of the signal; 

e.g., Kastelein et al. (2014)), and the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 61559 

overlap between the animal and the 

source (e.g., spatial, temporal, and 

spectral). When considering auditory 

effects for the Coast Guard’s proposed 

activities, vibratory pile driving is 

considered a non-impulsive source, 

while impact pile driving is treated as 

an impulsive source. 

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)— 

NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 

irreversible increase in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS, 2018). PTS does not 

generally affect more than a limited 

frequency range, and an animal that has 

incurred PTS has incurred some level of 

hearing loss at the relevant frequencies; 

typically animals with PTS are not 

functionally deaf (Au and Hastings, 

2008; Finneran, 2016). Available data 

from humans and other terrestrial 

mammals indicate that a 40 dB 

threshold shift approximates PTS onset 

(see Ward et al. (1958; 1959); Ward, 

1960; Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; 

Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson et al., 

2008). PTS levels for marine mammals 

are estimates, as with the exception of 

a single study unintentionally inducing 

PTS in a harbor seal (Kastak et al., 

2008), there are no empirical data 

measuring PTS in marine mammals 

largely due to the fact that, for various 

ethical reasons, experiments involving 

anthropogenic noise exposure at levels 

inducing PTS are not typically pursued 

or authorized (NMFS, 2018). 

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)—A 

temporary, reversible increase in the 

threshold of audibility at a specified 

frequency or portion of an individual’s 

hearing range above a previously 

established reference level (NMFS, 

2018). Based on data from marine 

mammal TTS measurements (see 

Southall et al. (2007; 2019)), a TTS of 6 

dB is considered the minimum 

threshold shift clearly larger than any 

day-to-day or session-to-session 

variation in a subject’s normal hearing 

ability (Finneran et al., 2000; Schlundt 

et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002). As 

described in Finneran (2015), marine 

mammal studies have shown the 

amount of TTS increases with SELcum 

in an accelerating fashion: at low 

exposures with lower SELcum, the 

amount of TTS is typically small and 

the growth curves have shallow slopes. 

At exposures with higher SELcum, the 

growth curves become steeper and 

approach linear relationships with the 

noise SEL. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. We 

note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 

a simple function of aging has been 

observed in marine mammals, as well as 

humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 

2007), so we can infer that strategies 

exist for coping with this condition to 

some degree, though likely not without 

cost. 

Many studies have examined noiseinduced hearing loss in marine 

mammals (see Finneran (2015) and 

Southall et al. (2019) for summaries). 

TTS is the mildest form of hearing 

impairment that can occur during 

exposure to sound (Kryter, 2013). While 

experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold 

rises, and a sound must be at a higher 

level in order to be heard. In terrestrial 

and marine mammals, TTS can last from 

minutes or hours to days (in cases of 

strong TTS). In many cases, hearing 

sensitivity recovers rapidly after 

exposure to the sound ends. For 

cetaceans, published data on the onset 

of TTS are limited to captive bottlenose 

dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), beluga 

whale (Delphinapterus leucas), harbor 

porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise 

(Neophocoena asiaeorientalis) (Southall 

et al., 2019). For pinnipeds in water, 

measurements of TTS are limited to 

harbor seals, elephant seals, bearded 

seals (Erignathus barbatus) and 

California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999; 

2007; Kastelein et al., 2019b; 2019c; 

Reichmuth et al., 2019; Sills et al., 2020; 

Kastelein et al., 2021; 2022a; 2022b). 

TTS was not observed in spotted (Phoca 

largha) and ringed (Pusa hispida) seals 

exposed to single airgun impulse 

sounds at levels matching previous 

predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et 

al., 2016). These studies examine 

hearing thresholds measured in marine 

mammals before and after exposure to 

intense or long-duration sound 

exposures. The difference between the 

pre-exposure and post-exposure 

thresholds can be used to determine the 

amount of threshold shift at various 

post-exposure times. 

The amount and onset of TTS 

depends on the exposure frequency. 

Sounds at low frequencies, well below 

the region of best sensitivity for a 

species or hearing group, are less 

hazardous than those at higher 

frequencies, near the region of best 

sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 

2013). At low frequencies, onset-TTS 

exposure levels are higher compared to 

those in the region of best sensitivity 

(i.e., a low frequency noise would need 

to be louder to cause TTS onset when 

TTS exposure level is higher), as shown 

for harbor porpoises and harbor seals 

(Kastelein et al., 2019a; 2019c). Note 

that in general, harbor seals and harbor 

porpoises have a lower TTS onset than 

other measured pinniped or cetacean 

species (Finneran, 2015). In addition, 

TTS can accumulate across multiple 

exposures, but the resulting TTS will be 

less than the TTS from a single, 

continuous exposure with the same SEL 

(Mooney et al., 2009; Finneran et al., 

2010; Kastelein et al., 2014; 2015). This 

means that TTS predictions based on 

the total, cumulative SEL will 

overestimate the amount of TTS from 

intermittent exposures, such as sonars 

and impulsive sources. Nachtigall et al. 

(2018) describe measurements of 

hearing sensitivity of multiple 

odontocete species (bottlenose dolphin, 

harbor porpoise, beluga, and false killer 

whale (Pseudorca crassidens)) when a 

relatively loud sound was preceded by 

a warning sound. These captive animals 

were shown to reduce hearing 

sensitivity when warned of an 

impending intense sound. Based on 

these experimental observations of 

captive animals, the authors suggest that 

wild animals may dampen their hearing 

during prolonged exposures or if 

conditioned to anticipate intense 

sounds. Another study showed that 

echolocating animals (including 

odontocetes) might have anatomical 

specializations that might allow for 

conditioned hearing reduction and 

filtering of low-frequency ambient 

noise, including increased stiffness and 

control of middle ear structures and 

placement of inner ear structures 

(Ketten et al., 2021). Data available on 

noise-induced hearing loss for 

mysticetes are currently lacking (NMFS, 

2018). Additionally, the existing marine 

mammal TTS data come from a limited 

number of individuals within these 

species. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals, and there is no PTS 

data for cetaceans, but such 

relationships are assumed to be similar 

to those in humans and other terrestrial 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
61560 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 

mammals. PTS typically occurs at 

exposure levels at least several dB above 

that inducing mild TTS (e.g., a 40-dB 

threshold shift approximates PTS onset 

(Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974), while 

a 6-dB threshold shift approximates TTS 

onset (Southall et al., 2007; 2019). Based 

on data from terrestrial mammals, a 

precautionary assumption is that the 

PTS thresholds for impulsive sounds 

(such as impact pile driving pulses as 

received close to the source) are at least 

6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on 

a peak-pressure basis and PTS 

cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than 

TTS cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds (Southall et al., 2007; 2019). 

Given the higher level of sound or 

longer exposure duration necessary to 

cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is 

considerably less likely that PTS could 

occur. 

Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to 

noise also has the potential to 

behaviorally disturb marine mammals to 

a level that rises to the definition of 

harassment under the MMPA. Generally 

speaking, NMFS considers a behavioral 

disturbance that rises to the level of 

harassment under the MMPA a nonminor response—in other words, not 

every response qualifies as behavioral 

disturbance, and for responses that do, 

those of a higher level, or accrued across 

a longer duration, have the potential to 

affect foraging, reproduction, or 

survival. Behavioral disturbance may 

include a variety of effects, including 

subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor 

or brief avoidance of an area or changes 

in vocalizations), more conspicuous 

changes in similar behavioral activities, 

and more sustained and/or potentially 

severe reactions, such as displacement 

from or abandonment of high-quality 

habitat. Behavioral responses may 

include changing durations of surfacing 

and dives, changing direction and/or 

speed; reducing/increasing vocal 

activities; changing/cessation of certain 

behavioral activities (such as socializing 

or feeding); eliciting a visible startle 

response or aggressive behavior (such as 

tail/fin slapping or jaw clapping); 

avoidance of areas where sound sources 

are located. Pinnipeds may increase 

their haul out time, possibly to avoid inwater disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 

2006). Behavioral responses to sound 

are highly variable and context-specific 

and any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

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

al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 

2007; Archer et al., 2010; Southall et al., 

2019). Behavioral reactions can vary not 

only among individuals but also within 

an individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

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

depending on characteristics associated 

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

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). 

Please see Appendices B and C of 

Southall et al. (2007) and Gomez et al. 

(2016) for reviews of studies involving 

marine mammal behavioral responses to 

sound. 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

(Wartzok et al., 2004). Animals are most 

likely to habituate to sounds that are 

predictable and unvarying. It is 

important to note that habituation is 

appropriately considered as a 

‘‘progressive reduction in response to 

stimuli that are perceived as neither 

aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as, 

more generally, moderation in response 

to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 

2009). The opposite process is 

sensitization, when an unpleasant 

experience leads to subsequent 

responses, often in the form of 

avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. 

As noted above, behavioral state may 

affect the type of response. For example, 

animals that are resting may show 

greater behavioral change in response to 

disturbing sound levels than animals 

that are highly motivated to remain in 

an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 

1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; National 

Research Council (NRC), 2005). 

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals have showed 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud sound 

sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran 

et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild 

marine mammals to loud pulsed sound 

sources (typically seismic airguns or 

acoustic harassment devices) have been 

varied but often consist of avoidance 

behavior or other behavioral changes 

suggesting discomfort (Richardson et al., 

1995; Morton and Symonds, 2002; 

Nowacek et al., 2007). 

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 

2005). However, there are broad 

categories of potential response, which 

we describe in greater detail here, that 

include alteration of dive behavior, 

alteration of foraging behavior, effects to 

breathing, interference with or alteration 

of vocalization, avoidance, and flight. 

Changes in dive behavior can vary 

widely and may consist of increased or 

decreased dive times and surface 

intervals as well as changes in the rates 

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

Frankel and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 

2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et 

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

2013b). Variations in dive behavior may 

reflect interruptions in biologically 

significant activities (e.g., foraging) or 

they may be of little biological 

significance. The impact of an alteration 

to dive behavior resulting from an 

acoustic exposure depends on what the 

animal is doing at the time of the 

exposure and the type and magnitude of 

the response. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

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

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Respiration rates vary naturally with 

different behaviors and alterations to 

breathing rate as a function of acoustic 

exposure can be expected to co-occur 

with other behavioral reactions, such as 

a flight response or an alteration in 

diving. However, respiration rates in 

and of themselves may be representative 

of annoyance or an acute stress 

response. Various studies have shown 

that respiration rates may either be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 61561 

unaffected or could increase, depending 

on the species and signal characteristics, 

again highlighting the importance in 

understanding species differences in the 

tolerance of underwater noise when 

determining the potential for impacts 

resulting from anthropogenic sound 

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

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

Marine mammals vocalize for 

different purposes and across multiple 

modes, such as whistling, echolocation 

click production, calling, and singing. 

Changes in vocalization behavior in 

response to anthropogenic noise can 

occur for any of these modes and may 

result from a need to compete with an 

increase in background noise or may 

reflect increased vigilance or a startle 

response. For example, in the presence 

of potentially masking signals, 

humpback whales and killer whales 

have been observed to increase the 

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

Fristrup et al., 2003) or vocalizations 

(Foote et al., 2004), respectively, while 

North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena 

glacialis) have been observed to shift the 

frequency content of their calls upward 

while reducing the rate of calling in 

areas of increased anthropogenic noise 

(Parks et al., 2007). In some cases, 

animals may cease sound production 

during production of aversive signals 

(Bowles et al., 1994). 

Avoidance is the displacement of an 

individual from an area or migration 

path as a result of the presence of a 

sound or other stressors, and is one of 

the most obvious manifestations of 

disturbance in marine mammals 

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

gray whales are known to change 

direction—deflecting from customary 

migratory paths—in order to avoid noise 

from seismic surveys (Malme et al., 

1984). Avoidance may be short-term, 

with animals returning to the area once 

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

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

Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et 

al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is 

possible, however, which may lead to 

changes in abundance or distribution 

patterns of the affected species in the 

affected region if habituation to the 

presence of the sound does not occur 

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

2006; Teilmann et al., 2006). 

A flight response is a dramatic change 

in normal movement to a directed and 

rapid movement away from the 

perceived location of a sound source. 

The flight response differs from other 

avoidance responses in the intensity of 

the response (e.g., directed movement, 

rate of travel). Relatively little 

information on flight responses of 

marine mammals to anthropogenic 

signals exist, although observations of 

flight responses to the presence of 

predators have occurred (Connor and 

Heithaus, 1996; Bowers et al., 2018). 

The result of a flight response could 

range from brief, temporary exertion and 

displacement from the area where the 

signal provokes flight to, in extreme 

cases, marine mammal strandings 

(England et al., 2001). However, it 

should be noted that response to a 

perceived predator does not necessarily 

invoke flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), 

and whether individuals are solitary or 

in groups may influence the response. 

Behavioral disturbance can also 

impact marine mammals in more subtle 

ways. Increased vigilance may result in 

costs related to diversion of focus and 

attention (i.e., when a response consists 

of increased vigilance, it may come at 

the cost of decreased attention to other 

critical behaviors such as foraging or 

resting). These effects have generally not 

been demonstrated for marine 

mammals, but studies involving fishes 

and terrestrial animals have shown that 

increased vigilance may substantially 

reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp 

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

Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition, 

chronic disturbance can cause 

population declines through reduction 

of fitness (e.g., decline in body 

condition) and subsequent reduction in 

reproductive success, survival, or both 

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

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

However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported 

that increased vigilance in bottlenose 

dolphins exposed to sound over a 5-day 

period did not cause any sleep 

deprivation or stress effects. 

Many animals perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour 

cycle). Disruption of such functions 

resulting from reactions to stressors 

such as sound exposure are more likely 

to be significant if they last more than 

one diel cycle or recur on subsequent 

days (Southall et al., 2007). 

Consequently, a behavioral response 

lasting less than one day and not 

recurring on subsequent days is not 

considered particularly severe unless it 

could directly affect reproduction or 

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

there is a difference between multi-day 

substantive behavioral reactions and 

multi-day anthropogenic activities. For 

example, just because an activity lasts 

for multiple days does not necessarily 

mean that individual animals are either 

exposed to activity-related stressors for 

multiple days or, further, exposed in a 

manner resulting in sustained multi-day 

substantive behavioral responses. 

Stress responses—An animal’s 

perception of a threat may be sufficient 

to trigger stress responses consisting of 

some combination of behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

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

Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of energetic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor. Autonomic nervous 

system responses to stress typically 

involve changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 

These responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

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

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

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

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well-studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

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

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

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

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

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

and, more rarely, studied in wild 

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


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
61562 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 

For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. These and 

other studies lead to a reasonable 

expectation that some marine mammals 

will experience physiological stress 

responses upon exposure to acoustic 

stressors and that it is possible that 

some of these would be classified as 

‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal 

experiencing TTS would likely also 

experience stress responses (NRC, 

2005), however distress is an unlikely 

result of this project based on 

observations of marine mammals during 

previous, similar construction projects. 

Auditory Masking—Since many 

marine mammals rely on sound to find 

prey, moderate social interactions, and 

facilitate mating (Tyack, 2008), noise 

from anthropogenic sound sources can 

interfere with these functions, but only 

if the noise spectrum overlaps with the 

hearing sensitivity of the receiving 

marine mammal (Southall et al., 2007; 

Clark et al., 2009; Hatch et al., 2012). 

Chronic exposure to excessive, though 

not high-intensity, noise could cause 

masking at particular frequencies for 

marine mammals that utilize sound for 

vital biological functions (Clark et al., 

2009). Acoustic masking is when other 

noises such as from human sources 

interfere with an animal’s ability to 

detect, recognize, or discriminate 

between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., 

those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; 

Erbe et al., 2016). Therefore, under 

certain circumstances, marine mammals 

whose acoustical sensors or 

environment are being severely masked 

could also be impaired from maximizing 

their performance fitness in survival 

and reproduction. The ability of a noise 

source to mask biologically important 

sounds depends on the characteristics of 

both the noise source and the signal of 

interest (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, 

temporal variability, direction), in 

relation to each other and to an animal’s 

hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, 

frequency range, critical ratios, 

frequency discrimination, directional 

discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), 

and existing ambient noise and 

propagation conditions (Hotchkin and 

Parks, 2013). 

Under certain circumstances, marine 

mammals experiencing significant 

masking could also be impaired from 

maximizing their performance fitness in 

survival and reproduction. Therefore, 

when the coincident (masking) sound is 

human-made, it may be considered 

harassment when disrupting or altering 

critical behaviors. It is important to 

distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist 

after the sound exposure, from masking, 

which occurs during the sound 

exposure. Because masking (without 

resulting in TS) is not associated with 

abnormal physiological function, it is 

not considered a physiological effect, 

but rather a potential behavioral effect. 

The frequency range of the potentially 

masking sound is important in 

determining any potential behavioral 

impacts. For example, low-frequency 

signals may have less effect on highfrequency echolocation sounds 

produced by odontocetes but are more 

likely to affect detection of mysticete 

communication calls and other 

potentially important natural sounds 

such as those produced by surf and 

some prey species. The masking of 

communication signals by 

anthropogenic noise may be considered 

as a reduction in the communication 

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

and may result in energetic or other 

costs as animals change their 

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

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

2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2010; Holt et 

al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in 

situations where the signal and noise 

come from different directions 

(Richardson et al., 1995), through 

amplitude modulation of the signal, or 

through other compensatory behaviors 

(Hotchkin and Parks, 2013). Masking 

can be tested directly in captive species 

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

populations it must be either modeled 

or inferred from evidence of masking 

compensation. There are few studies 

addressing real-world masking sounds 

likely to be experienced by marine 

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

al., 2013). 

Marine mammals at or near USCG Air 

Station Port Angeles may be exposed to 

anthropogenic noise which may lead to 

some habituation, but is also a source of 

masking. Vocalization changes may 

result from a need to compete with an 

increase in background noise and 

include increasing the source level, 

modifying the frequency, increasing the 

call repetition rate of vocalizations, or 

ceasing to vocalize in the presence of 

increased noise (Hotchkin and Parks, 

2013). 

Masking is more likely to occur in the 

presence of broadband, relatively 

continuous noise sources. Energy 

distribution of pile driving covers a 

broad frequency spectrum, and sound 

from pile driving would be within the 

audible range of pinnipeds and 

cetaceans present in the proposed action 

area. While some construction activities 

during the proposed project may mask 

some acoustic signals that are relevant 

to the daily behavior of marine 

mammals, the short-term duration and 

limited areas affected make it very 

unlikely that any masking effects would 

interfere with critical life functions, and 

therefore masking from construction 

noise would be unlikely to have any 

impacts on survival or reproduction of 

individuals. 

Airborne Acoustic Effects—Pinnipeds 

that occur near the project site could be 

exposed to airborne sounds associated 

with construction activities that have 

the potential to cause behavioral 

harassment, depending on their distance 

from these activities. Airborne noise 

would primarily be an issue for 

pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled 

out near the project site within the range 

of noise levels elevated above airborne 

acoustic criteria. Although pinnipeds 

are known to haul out regularly on manmade objects, we believe that incidents 

of take resulting solely from airborne 

sound are unlikely due to the proximity 

between the proposed project area and 

the known haulout sites (e.g., the 

nearest harbor seal haulouts are 2.4 km 

and 3.5 km away (2.18 mi)). Cetaceans 

are not expected to be exposed to 

airborne sounds that would result in 

harassment as defined under the 

MMPA. 

We recognize that pinnipeds in the 

water could be exposed to airborne 

sound that may result in behavioral 

harassment when looking with their 

heads above water. Most likely, airborne 

sound would cause behavioral 

responses similar to those discussed 

above in relation to underwater sound. 

For instance, anthropogenic sound 

could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to 

exhibit changes in their normal 

behavior, such as reduction in 

vocalizations, or cause them to 

temporarily abandon the area and move 

further from the source. However, these 

animals would previously have been 

‘taken’ because of exposure to 

underwater sound above the behavioral 

harassment thresholds, which are in all 

cases larger than those associated with 

airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral 

harassment of these animals is already 

accounted for in these estimates of 

potential take. Therefore, we do not 

believe that authorization of incidental 

take resulting from airborne sound for 

pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne 

sound is not discussed further here. 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

The proposed project will occur 

within the same footprint as existing 

marine infrastructure. The nearshore 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 61563 

and intertidal habitat where the 

proposed project will occur is an area of 

relatively high marine vessel traffic. 

Most marine mammals do not generally 

use the area within the footprint of the 

project area. Temporary, intermittent, 

and short-term habitat alteration may 

result from increased noise levels 

within the Level A and Level B 

harassment zones. Effects on marine 

mammals will be limited to temporary 

displacement from pile installation and 

removal noise, and effects on prey 

species will be similarly limited in time 

and space. 

Water quality—Temporary and 

localized reduction in water quality will 

occur as a result of in-water 

construction activities. Most of this 

effect will occur during the installation 

and removal of piles when bottom 

sediments are disturbed. The 

installation and removal of piles may 

cause a temporary increase in 

suspended sediment in the project area. 

During pile extraction, sediment 

attached to the pile moves vertically 

through the water column until 

gravitational forces cause it to slough off 

under its own weight. The small 

resulting sediment plume is expected to 

settle out of the water column within a 

few hours. Studies of the effects of 

turbid water on fish (marine mammal 

prey) suggest that concentrations of 

suspended sediment can reach 

thousands of milligrams per liter before 

an acute toxic reaction is expected 

(Burton, 1993). 

Effects to turbidity and sedimentation 

are expected to be short-term, minor, 

and localized. Since the currents are so 

strong in the area, following the 

completion of sediment-disturbing 

activities, suspended sediments in the 

water column should dissipate and 

quickly return to background levels in 

all construction scenarios. Turbidity 

within the water column has the 

potential to reduce the level of oxygen 

in the water and irritate the gills of prey 

fish species in the proposed project 

area. However, turbidity plumes 

associated with the project would be 

temporary and localized, and fish in the 

proposed project area would be able to 

move away from and avoid the areas 

where plumes may occur. Therefore, it 

is expected that the impacts on prey fish 

species from turbidity, and therefore on 

marine mammals, would be minimal 

and temporary. In general, the area 

likely impacted by the proposed 

construction activities is relatively small 

compared to the available marine 

mammal habitat in Port Angeles Harbor 

and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 

Potential Effects on Prey—Sound may 

affect marine mammals through impacts 

on the abundance, behavior, or 

distribution of prey species (e.g., 

crustaceans, cephalopods, fishes, 

zooplankton). Marine mammal prey 

varies by species, season, and location 

and, for some, is not well documented. 

Studies regarding the effects of noise on 

known marine mammal prey are 

described here. 

Fishes utilize the soundscape and 

components of sound in their 

environment to perform important 

functions such as foraging, predator 

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

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

Depending on their hearing anatomy 

and peripheral sensory structures, 

which vary among species, fishes hear 

sounds using pressure and particle 

motion sensitivity capabilities and 

detect the motion of surrounding water 

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

of noise on fishes depends on the 

overlapping frequency range, distance 

from the sound source, water depth of 

exposure, and species-specific hearing 

sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. 

Key impacts to fishes may include 

behavioral responses, hearing damage, 

barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), 

and mortality. 

Fish react to sounds that are 

especially strong and/or intermittent 

low-frequency sounds. Short duration, 

sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle 

changes in fish behavior and local 

distribution. The reaction of fish to 

noise depends on the physiological state 

of the fish, past exposures, motivation 

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

other environmental factors. (Hastings 

and Popper, 2005) identified several 

studies that suggest fish may relocate to 

avoid certain areas of sound energy. 

Additional studies have documented 

effects of pile driving on fishes (e.g. 

Scholik and Yan, 2001; 2002; Popper 

and Hastings, 2009). Several studies 

have demonstrated that impulse sounds 

might affect the distribution and 

behavior of some fishes, potentially 

impacting foraging opportunities or 

increasing energetic costs (e.g., Fewtrell 

and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 

1992; Skalski et al., 1992; Santulli et al., 

1999; Paxton et al., 2017). However, 

some studies have shown no or slight 

reaction to impulse sounds (e.g., Pen ̃ a et 

al., 2013; Wardle et al., 2001; Jorgenson 

and Gyselman, 2009; Cott et al., 2012. 

More commonly, though, the impacts of 

noise on fishes are temporary. 

SPLs of sufficient strength have been 

known to cause injury to fishes and fish 

mortality (summarized in Popper et al. 

(2014)). However, in most fish species, 

hair cells in the ear continuously 

regenerate and loss of auditory function 

likely is restored when damaged cells 

are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen 

et al. (2012b) showed that a TTS of 4– 

6 dB was recoverable within 24 hours 

for one species. Impacts would be most 

severe when the individual fish is close 

to the source and when the duration of 

exposure is long. Injury caused by 

barotrauma can range from slight to 

severe and can cause death, and is most 

likely for fish with swim bladders. 

Barotrauma injuries have been 

documented during controlled exposure 

to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 

2012a; Casper et al., 2013; Casper et al., 

2017). 

Fish populations in the proposed 

project area that serve as marine 

mammal prey could be temporarily 

affected by noise from pile installation 

and removal. The frequency range in 

which fishes generally perceive 

underwater sounds is 50 to 2,000 Hz, 

with peak sensitivities below 800 Hz 

(Popper and Hastings, 2009). Fish 

behavior or distribution may change, 

especially with strong and/or 

intermittent sounds that could harm 

fishes. High underwater SPLs have been 

documented to alter behavior, cause 

hearing loss, and injure or kill 

individual fish by causing serious 

internal injury (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). 

The greatest potential impact to fishes 

during construction would occur during 

impact pile driving. However, the 

duration of impact pile driving would 

be limited to the final stage of 

installation (‘‘proofing’’) after the pile 

has been driven as close as practicable 

to the design depth with a vibratory 

driver. In-water construction activities 

would only occur during daylight hours, 

allowing fish to forage and transit the 

project area in the evening. Vibratory 

pile driving may elicit behavioral 

reactions from fishes such as temporary 

avoidance of the area but is unlikely to 

cause injuries to fishes or have 

persistent effects on local fish 

populations. In addition, it should be 

noted that the area in question is lowquality habitat since it is already highly 

developed and experiences a high level 

of anthropogenic noise from normal port 

operations and other vessel traffic. In 

general, impacts on marine mammal 

prey species are expected to be minor 

and temporary. 

In-Water Construction Effects on 

Potential Foraging Habitat 

The proposed activities would not 

result in permanent impacts to habitats 

used directly by marine mammals. The 

total seafloor area affected by pile 

installation and removal is a very small 

area compared to the vast foraging area 

available to marine mammals outside 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
61564 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 

this project area. Construction would 

have minimal permanent and temporary 

impacts on benthic invertebrate species, 

a marine mammal prey source. In 

addition, although the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca is valuable habitat for many 

marine mammal species, the area within 

Port Angeles Harbor is not particularly 

high-value foraging habitat due to the 

high level of anthropogenic activity 

associated with normal port operations. 

Therefore, impacts of the project are not 

likely to have adverse effects on marine 

mammal foraging habitat in the 

proposed project area. 

The area impacted by the project is 

relatively small compared to the 

available habitat just outside the project 

area, and there are no areas of particular 

importance that would be impacted by 

this project. Any behavioral avoidance 

by fish of the disturbed area would still 

leave significantly large areas of fish and 

marine mammal foraging habitat in the 

nearby vicinity. As described in the 

preceding, the potential for the Coast 

Guard’s construction to affect the 

availability of prey to marine mammals 

or to meaningfully impact the quality of 

physical or acoustic habitat is 

considered to be insignificant. 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers,’’ and 

the negligible impact determinations. 

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 be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns and/or 

TTS for individual marine mammals 

resulting from exposure to noise from 

impact and vibratory pile driving. Based 

on the nature of the activity and the 

anticipated effectiveness of the 

mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown 

zones implemented at no less than the 

distance to the Level A isopleths) 

discussed in detail below in the 

Proposed Mitigation section, Level A 

harassment is neither anticipated nor 

proposed to be authorized. 

As described previously, no serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

proposed to be authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

proposed take numbers are estimated. 

For acoustic impacts, 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) the number of days of activities. 

We note that while these factors can 

contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of potential 

takes, additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Below, we describe the factors 

considered here in more detail and 

present the proposed take estimates. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—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 or exposure 

context (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle, duration of the exposure, 

signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the 

source), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry, other noises in the area, 

predators in the area), and the receiving 

animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography, life stage, 

depth) and can be difficult to predict 

(e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021, Ellison 

et al., 2012). Based on what the 

available science indicates and the 

practical need to use a threshold based 

on a metric that is both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

typically uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS generally predicts 

that marine mammals are likely to be 

behaviorally harassed in a manner 

considered to be Level B harassment 

when exposed to underwater 

anthropogenic noise above root-meansquared pressure received levels (RMS 

SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 

micropascal (re 1 mPa)) for continuous 

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

above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 mPa for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., seismic 

airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. Generally speaking, 

Level B harassment take estimates based 

on these behavioral harassment 

thresholds are expected to include any 

likely takes by TTS as, in most cases, 

the likelihood of TTS occurs at 

distances from the source less than 

those at which behavioral harassment is 

likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can 

manifest as behavioral harassment, as 

reduced hearing sensitivity and the 

potential reduced opportunities to 

detect important signals (conspecific 

communication, predators, prey) may 

result in changes in behavior patterns 

that would not otherwise occur. 

Coast Guard’s proposed activity 

includes the use of continuous (e.g., 

vibratory pile installation and 

extraction) and impulsive (e.g, impact 

pile installation) sources, and therefore 

the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 

dB re 1 mPa are applicable. 

Level A Harassment—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). Coast Guard’s proposed 

construction activity includes the use of 

non-impulsive (e.g., vibratory pile 

installation and extraction) and 

impulsive (e.g, impact pile installation) 

sources. 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 4, below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS’ 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 61565 

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 are used in estimating the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, including source levels and 

transmission loss coefficient. 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

proposed project. Marine mammals are 

expected to be affected via sound 

generated by the primary components of 

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

vibratory pile installation and removal). 

Calculation of the area ensonified by the 

proposed action is dependent on source 

levels of the proposed activities and the 

estimated transmission loss coefficients 

for the proposed activities at the site. 

These factors are addressed below. 

Sound Source Levels of Proposed 

Activities—The intensity of pile driving 

sounds is greatly influenced by factors 

such as the type of piles (material and 

diameter), hammer type, and the 

physical environment (e.g., sediment 

type) in which the activity takes place. 

In order to calculate the distances to the 

Level A harassment and the Level B 

harassment thresholds for the methods 

and piles being used in this project, the 

Coast Guard used acoustic monitoring 

data from sound source verification 

studies to develop proxy source levels 

for the various pile types, sizes and 

methods (Table 5). 

TABLE 5—PILE INSTALLATION AND EXTRACTION PARAMETERS

Pile type Method Total 

number 

Number 

per day 

Strikes per pile OR 

hours per day 

Proxy levels 

(@10m) 

Reference dB re 

1 μPa 

peak 

dB re 

1 μPa 

RMS 

dB re 

1 μPa2s SELss

12-in steel ................................ Impact ...................................... 37 5 100 strikes ............ 192 177 166 CALTRANS 2020. 

12-in steel ................................ Vibratory installation ................ 37 10 5 hrs ..................... .............. 155 .............. Greenbusch 2018. 

18-in steel ................................ Vibratory installation ................ 3 2 1 hr ....................... .............. 158 .............. CALTRANS 2020. 

12—14-in timber ...................... Vibratory extraction ................. 48 16 8 hrs ..................... .............. 160 .............. Greenbusch 2018. 

Transmission Loss—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 

R1= the distance of the modeled SPL from the 

driven pile, and 

R2= the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement 

This formula neglects loss due to 

scattering and absorption, which is 

assumed to be zero here. The degree to 

which underwater sound propagates 

away from a sound source is dependent 

on a variety of factors, most notably the 

bathymetry and presence or absence of 

reflective or absorptive conditions 

including in-water structures and 

sediments. Spherical spreading occurs 

in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) 

environment not limited by depth or 

water surface, resulting in a 6 dB 

reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance from the source 

(20*log10[range]). Cylindrical spreading 

occurs in an environment in which 

sound propagation is bounded by the 

water surface and sea bottom, resulting 

in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for 

each doubling of distance from the 

source (10* log10[range]). A practical 

spreading value of 15 is often used 

under conditions where water increases 

with depth as the receiver moves away 

from the shoreline, resulting in an 

expected propagation environment that 

would lie between spherical and 

cylindrical spreading loss conditions. 

Site-specific transmission loss 

measurements are not available for Port 

Angeles Harbor. NMFS has therefore 

used the practical spreading loss model 

for both vibratory and impact pile 

driving in this analysis. 

Estimated Harassment Isopleths—All 

Level B harassment isopleths are 

reported in Table 6. Level B harassment 

isopleths from the proposed project will 

be limited by the coastline along and 

across from the project site. The 

maximum attainable isopleth distance is 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
61566 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 

4,642 m during vibratory extraction of 

timber piles (see Figure 1 in the IHA 

application for further detail). 

The ensonified area associated with 

Level A harassment is more technically 

challenging to predict due to the need 

to account for a duration component. 

Therefore, NMFS developed an optional 

User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 

Technical Guidance that can be used to 

relatively simply predict an isopleth 

distance for use in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to help predict potential takes. We note 

that because of some of the assumptions 

included in the methods underlying this 

optional tool, we anticipate that the 

resulting isopleth estimates are typically 

going to be overestimates of some 

degree, which may result in an 

overestimate of potential take by Level 

A harassment. However, this optional 

tool offers the best way to estimate 

isopleth distances when more 

sophisticated modeling methods are not 

available or practical. For stationary 

sources, including pile driving, the 

optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts 

the distance at which, if a marine 

mammal remained at that distance for 

the duration of the activity, it would be 

expected to incur PTS. Inputs used in 

the User Spreadsheet (e.g., number of 

piles per day, duration and/or strikes 

per pile, source levels) are presented in 

Table 1 and Table 5. The resulting 

isopleths and ensonified areas are 

reported in Table 6 and Table 7, 

respectively. 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED ISOPLETHS BY ACTIVITY

Activity Method 

Underwater Airborne Level B 

harassment 

isopleths 

[m] 

Level A harassment isopleths 

[m] Level B 

harassment 

isopleths 

[m] Harbor 

Seals 

Other 

Pinnipeds LF MF HF PW OW 

12-in steel ........................................... Impact ................................................ 46.0 1.6 55.0 25.0 2.0 136.0 150 47 

12-in steel ........................................... Vibratory installation ........................... 8.0 0.7 11.8 4.8 0.3 2,154 19 6 

18-in steel ........................................... Vibratory installation ........................... 4.3 0.4 6.4 2.6 0.2 3,415 

12–14-in timber ................................... Vibratory extraction ............................ 23.4 2.1 34.6 14.2 1.0 4,642 

TABLE 7—AREAS ENSONIFIED

Activity Method 

Level A harassment 

[km2] Level B 

harassment 

[km2] LF MF HF PW OW 

12-in steel ................................... Impact ......................................... 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 <0.01 0.07 

12-in steel ................................... Vibratory installation ................... <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 7.74 

18-in steel ................................... Vibratory installation ................... <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 14.52 

12–14-in timber ........................... Vibratory extraction .................... 0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 17.59 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide information 

about the occurrence of marine 

mammals, including density or other 

relevant information which will inform 

the take calculations. 

For marine mammal density 

information in the Port Angeles area we 

used data from the Pacific Navy Marine 

Species Density Database (U.S. Navy, 

2019) to estimate take for marine 

mammals. The Marine Species Density 

Database incorporates analyzed 

literature and research for marine 

mammal density estimates per season 

for the Gulf of Alaska and the West 

Coast of the United States. Density 

estimates specific to the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca are not available for any of the 

species addressed in this application, 

and therefore takes were estimated 

based on the nearest available and most 

appropriate density estimates, plus sitespecific knowledge and professional 

judgement. Table 8 density estimates are 

calculated based on the in-water work 

window (July—February) and based on 

the highest seasonal density estimates 

for the relevant area. 

TABLE 8—SEASONAL DENSITY OF SPECIES IN THE PROJECT AREA

Species Densities 

(animals/km2) 

Humpback whale ...................................................................................... 0.0027 (summer/fall). 

Killer whale—Southern Resident .............................................................. 0.0012 (summer). 

Killer whale—Transient ............................................................................. 0.0208 (fall). 

Harbor porpoise ........................................................................................ 2.16 (annual). 

Harbor seal ............................................................................................... 0.76 (summer/fall). 

Northern elephant seal ............................................................................. 0.0029 (fall). 

Steller sea lion .......................................................................................... 0.0027 (fall/winter).

California sea lion ..................................................................................... 0.300 (September). 

Take Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is synthesized to 

produce a quantitative estimate of the 

take that is reasonably likely to occur 

and proposed for authorization. 

Using the overall area of disturbance 

generated by pile removal and 

installation given calculated distances 

to attenuation below disturbance (Level 

B harassment) thresholds, incidental 

take for each activity is estimated by the 

following equation: Incidental take 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 61567 

estimate = species density * ensonified 

area * days of pile-related activity. 

This equation is a reasonable 

extrapolation for take estimates, which 

relies on the likelihood that a species is 

present within the ensonified area on a 

day where the proposed activity is 

occurring. Take estimates were 

calculated with the conservative 

assumption that each activity (i.e., 

vibratory extraction of steel piles, 

vibratory extraction of timber piles, 

vibratory installation, and impact 

installation) would occur on separate 

days, using a maximum of 23 days of inwater work. However, the Coast Guard 

would perform some activities on the 

same day, resulting in reduced numbers 

of overall take during the proposed 15 

days of pile driving. 

No take by Level A harassment is 

proposed for any species of marine 

mammal due to the small zones, in 

conjunction with Coast Guard’s 

proposed shutdown mitigation measure. 

Shutdown zones would be enforced at 

the extent of the estimated Level A 

harassment isopleth for all species 

groups except for large whales (i.e., 

baleen whales, including humpbacks, 

and killer whales). The Coast Guard has 

proposed to shut down for killer whales 

upon observation regardless of location 

in order to prevent potential take of 

members of the Southern Resident 

stock, and shutdown zones for other 

large whale species would be enforced 

at the extent of the Level B harassment 

isopleths. Given the remote likelihood 

of large whale species entering Port 

Angeles Harbor during the 15 days of 

pile driving work (see calculated take 

estimates for humpback and killer 

whales in Table 9) and the locations of 

Protected Species Observers (PSOs) 

described in the Proposed Monitoring 

and Reporting section, NMFS agrees 

that monitoring and shutdown measures 

are likely to be successful at avoiding 

take of these species. Therefore, no take 

of large whale species (including but not 

limited to humpback and killer whales) 

has been requested and none is 

proposed for authorization. 

Based on sightings reported during 

the 2016–2017 Navy TPS Port Angeles 

project (Northwest Environmental 

Consulting, LLC 2018), Coast Guard 

anticipates the number of harbor seals 

present in the project area during the 

proposed in-water activities may exceed 

calculated exposure estimates. During 

the 2016–2017 Navy TPS Port Angeles 

project, 275 harbor seals were observed 

in the estimated Level B harassment 

zone over approximately 45 days during 

which pile driving occurred (Northwest 

Environmental Consulting, LLC., 2018). 

The Coast Guard project will have only 

15 days of in-water pile driving. 

Therefore, Coast Guard has requested, 

and NMFS proposes to authorize, 210 

incidents of Level B harassment for 

harbor seals, approximately half the 

difference in sightings between the 

2016–2017 Navy TPS Port Angeles 

project and the exposure estimate for 

this project. 

TABLE 9—CALCULATED AND PROPOSED AUTHORIZED AMOUNT OF TAKING AND PERCENT OF STOCKS

Species Stock 

Take by Level A 

harassment 

Take by Level B 

harassment Total take Percent of 

stock 

Calculated Proposed Calculated Proposed 

Humpback whale ............................... Hawai’i ............................................... 0 0 0.51 0 0 0 

Mainland Mexico—CA/OR/WA.

Central America/Southern Mexico— 

CA/OR/WA.

Killer whale ........................................ Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident.0 0 0.23 0 0 0 

West Coast Transient ....................... 0 0 3.94 0 0 0 

Harbor porpoise ................................. Washington Inland Waters ................ 0.73 0 408.9 409 409 4.92 

Harbor seal ........................................ Washington Northern Inland Waters 0.13 0 143.9 210 210 1 NA 

Northern Elephant Seal ..................... CA Breeding ...................................... 0 0 0.55 1 1 <0.01 

Steller Sea Lion ................................. Eastern .............................................. 0 0 0.51 1 1 <0.01 

California Sea lion ............................. U.S .................................................... 0.1 0 56.8 57 57 0.02 

1Stock size for the Washington Northern Inland Waters stock of harbor seals is not available from the most recent SARs due to a lack of recent data. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, NMFS considers two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost and 

impact on operations. 

Shutdown Zones—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). 

Construction supervisors and crews, 

Protected Species Observers (PSO), and 

relevant Coast Guard staff must avoid 

direct physical interaction with marine 

mammals during construction activities, 

which could include (but are not 

limited to) the following: (1) barge 

movement to the pile location; (2) pile 

positioning on the substrate via a crane 

(i.e., stabbing the pile); and (3) pile 

removal from the water column/ 

substrate via a crane (i.e., deadpull). If 

a marine mammal comes within 10 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
61568 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 

meters of such activity, operations must 

cease and vessels must reduce speed to 

the minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions, as 

necessary to avoid direct physical 

interaction. 

Further, Coast Guard must implement 

activity-specific shutdown zones as 

described in Table 10. The shutdown 

zone for humpback whales or other nonauthorized marine mammal species 

(except killer whales) would be the 

predicted Level B harassment isopleth. 

For these species, project activity may 

resume after the animal has not been 

observed for 15 minutes, or has been 

observed leaving the shutdown zone 

(i.e., the Level B harassment zone). As 

proposed by the Coast Guard, killer 

whales will require a shutdown upon 

observation no matter location in order 

to prevent take of members of the 

Southern Resident stock. If killer whales 

are sighted, the project activity would 

resume only after the killer whale is not 

observed for 15 minutes. 

TABLE 10—REQUIRED SHUTDOWN ZONES

Pile type Pile driving method 

Shutdown zone (m) Monitoring zone 

(m)—all 

species Killer whales LF MF HF PW OW 

Steel ........................................ Vibratory ................................ Any sighting at any distance 3,415 12 3,415 

Impact .................................... 136 55 136 

Timber ..................................... Vibratory ................................ 4,642 35 4,642 

Protected Species Observers—The 

placement of PSOs during all 

construction activities (described in the 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

section) would ensure that the entire 

shutdown zone is visible. Coast Guard 

would employ three PSOs for vibratory 

installation and extraction of steel and 

timber piles. Two PSOs would be landbased, while one would be positioned 

on a vessel to ensure full monitoring 

coverage to the estimated Level B 

harassment isopleth. For impact pile 

driving activities, Coast Guard would 

employ one PSO. 

Pre and Post-Activity MonitoringMonitoring—must take place from 30 

minutes prior to initiation of pile 

driving activity (i.e., pre-start clearance 

monitoring) through 30 minutes postcompletion of pile driving activity. Prestart clearance monitoring must be 

conducted during periods of visibility 

sufficient for the lead PSO to determine 

that the shutdown zones indicated in 

Table 10 are clear of marine mammals. 

Pile driving may commence following 

30 minutes of observation when the 

determination is made that the 

shutdown zones are clear of marine 

mammals. If a marine mammal is 

observed entering or within the 

shutdown zones, pile driving activity 

must be delayed or halted. If pile 

driving is delayed or halted due to the 

presence of a marine mammal, the 

activity may not commence or resume 

until either the animal has voluntarily 

exited and been visually confirmed 

beyond the shutdown zone or 15 

minutes have passed without redetection of the animal. If a marine 

mammal for which take by Level B 

harassment is authorized is present in 

the Level B harassment zone, activities 

would begin and Level B harassment 

take would be recorded. 

Monitoring for Level B Harassment— 

PSOs would monitor the shutdown 

zones and beyond to the extent that 

PSOs can see. For this activity, the 

monitoring zone is defined as the largest 

predicted Level B harassment isopleth 

for a given activity (Table 10). 

Monitoring beyond the shutdown zones 

enables observers to be aware of and 

communicate the presence of marine 

mammals in the project areas outside 

the shutdown zones and thus prepare 

for a potential cessation of activity 

should the animal enter the shutdown 

zone. If weather or sea conditions 

restrict the observer’s ability to observe 

the monitoring zone, pile driving 

activities must cease until conditions 

are favorable for observations to resume. 

Soft Start—Soft-start procedures are 

used 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, soft start requires 

contractors to provide an initial set of 

three strikes at reduced energy, followed 

by a 30-second waiting period, then two 

subsequent reduced-energy strike sets. 

A soft start must be implemented at the 

start of each day’s impact pile driving 

and at any time following cessation of 

impact pile driving for a period of 30 

minutes or longer. 

If unsafe working conditions during 

ramp ups are reported (e.g., crane failure 

from excess wear due to the ramp up 

procedure) by the contractor and 

verified by an independent safety 

inspection, the Coast Guard may elect to 

discontinue impact driver ramp ups. 

The Coast Guard will inform NMFS if 

the ramp up procedure is discontinued. 

If use of a variable moment driver is 

infeasible and the model of impact 

driver was not specifically designed for 

ramp up procedures, then the Coast 

Guard will not employ impact ramp up 

procedures due to personnel safety 

concerns. 

In-water Work Window—To reduce 

impacts to marine fishes, the Coast 

Guard will follow the in-water work 

window designated for the Strait of Juan 

de Fuca and associated bays and inlets 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

The work window extends from July 16 

to February 15; no in-water work will be 

conducted outside of that date range 

unless a modification is negotiated with 

the relevant regulatory agencies, 

including the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. 

NMFS and Coast Guard considered 

the use of bubble curtains as a 

mitigation measure during this project. 

However, based on the limited amount 

of impact driving expected, the 

relatively small estimated Level A 

harassment isopleths, and the potential 

for increased turbidity during bubble 

curtain use, NMFS has determined that 

use of a bubble curtain would not 

further reduce take of marine mammals 

during this project and they are not 

included in the proposed mitigation 

methods. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the proposed mitigation measures 

provide the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 61569 

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 while conducting the activities. 

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 

activity; 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 

Marine mammal monitoring must be 

conducted in accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, dated 

July 2023, available online at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. Marine mammal monitoring 

during pile driving and removal must be 

conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs in 

a manner consistent with the following: 

• PSOs must be independent of the 

activity contractor (for example, 

employed by a subcontractor) and have 

no other assigned tasks during 

monitoring periods; 

• 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 other 

relevant experience, education (degree 

in biological science or related field) or 

training for experience performing the 

duties of a PSO during construction 

activities pursuant to a NMFS-issued 

incidental take authorization; 

• Where a team of three or more PSOs 

is required, a lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator must be 

designated. The lead observer must have 

prior experience performing the duties 

of a PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; and 

• PSOs must be approved by NMFS 

prior to beginning any activity subject to 

this IHA. 

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 team of one to two land based PSOs 

would be deployed to observe the 

monitoring zones for vibratory and 

impact pile driving during this project. 

PSOs will be located at the best vantage 

points to see the entirety of the active 

zone. One PSO will have an 

unobstructed view of all water within 

the shutdown zones, and will be 

stationed at or near the project activity. 

While the exact monitoring stations 

have not yet been determined, Coast 

Guard provided potential locations in 

Figure 1 of its Marine Mammal 

Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. 

Additionally, a PSO will be stationed 

for monitoring on an observation vessel 

in order to ensure the entire monitoring 

zone to the extent of the relevant 

predicted Level B harassment isopleth 

can be observed during vibratory pile 

installation and removal. 

Monitoring would be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after all in water construction activities. 

In addition, PSOs would record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and would 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 

Coast Guard would submit a draft 

report to NMFS within 90 calendar days 

of the completion of monitoring or 60 

calendar days prior to the requested 

issuance of any subsequent IHA for 

construction activity at the same 

location, whichever comes first. The 

marine mammal monitoring report 

would include an overall description of 

work completed, a narrative regarding 

marine mammal sightings, and 

associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, 

the report would include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including: (1) The number and type of 

piles that were driven and the method 

(e.g., impact or vibratory); and (2) Total 

duration of driving time for each pile 

(vibratory driving) and number of 

strikes for each pile (impact driving); 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; 

• Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance; 

• Upon observation of a marine 

mammal, the following information: (1) 

Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) 

and PSO location and activity at time of 

sighting; (2) Time of sighting; (3) 

Identification of the animal(s) (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO 

confidence in identification, and the 

composition of the group if there is a 

mix of species; (4) Distance and location 

of each observed marine mammal 

relative to the pile being driven for each 

sighting; (5) Estimated number of 

animals (min/max/best estimate); (6) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
61570 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 

Estimated number of animals by cohort 

(adults, juveniles, neonates, group 

composition, etc.); (7) Animal’s closest 

point of approach and estimated time 

spent within the harassment zone; (8) 

Description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses thought to have resulted from 

the activity (e.g., no response or changes 

in behavioral state such as ceasing 

feeding, changing direction, flushing, or 

breaching); 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected within the harassment zones, 

by species; and 

• Detailed information about 

implementation of any mitigation (e.g., 

shutdowns and delays), a description of 

specific actions that ensued, and 

resulting changes in behavior of the 

animal(s), if any. 

A final report must be prepared and 

submitted within 30 calendar days 

following receipt of any NMFS 

comments on the draft report. If no 

comments are received from NMFS 

within 30 calendar days of receipt of the 

draft report, the report shall be 

considered final. 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

Holder must report the incident to the 

OPR, NMFS 

(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov 

and itp.hotchkin@noaa.gov) and to the 

West Coast regional stranding network 

(866–767–6114) as soon as feasible. If 

the death or injury was clearly caused 

by the specified activity, the Holder 

must immediately cease the activities 

until NMFS OPR is able to review the 

circumstances of the incident and 

determine what, if any, additional 

measures are appropriate to ensure 

compliance with the terms of this IHA. 

The Holder must not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS. 

The report must include the following 

information: 

D Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

D Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

D Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

D Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

D If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

D General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any impacts or responses (e.g., 

intensity, duration), the context of any 

impacts or responses (e.g., critical 

reproductive time or location, foraging 

impacts affecting energetics), as well as 

effects on habitat, and the likely 

effectiveness of the mitigation. We also 

assess the number, intensity, and 

context of estimated takes by evaluating 

this information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the regulatory status of the 

species, population size and growth rate 

where known, ongoing sources of 

human-caused mortality, or ambient 

noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, the majority of 

our analysis applies to all the species 

listed in Table 9, given that many of the 

anticipated effects of this project on 

different marine mammal stocks are 

expected to be relatively similar in 

nature. Where there are meaningful 

differences between species or stocks, or 

groups of species, in anticipated 

individual responses to activities, 

impact of expected take on the 

population due to differences in 

population status, or impacts on habitat, 

they are described independently in the 

analysis below. 

Pile driving and removal activities 

associated with the project, as outlined 

previously, have the potential to disturb 

or displace marine mammals. 

Specifically, the specified activities may 

result in take, in the form of Level B 

harassment, from underwater sounds 

generated from pile driving and 

removal. Potential takes could occur if 

individuals of these species are present 

in zones ensonified above the 

thresholds for Level B harassment, 

identified above, when these activities 

are underway. 

The takes by Level B harassment 

would be due to potential behavioral 

disturbance. No mortality or serious 

injury is anticipated given the nature of 

the activity, and no Level A harassment 

is anticipated due to Coast Guard’s 

construction method and proposed 

mitigation measures (see Proposed 

Mitigation section). 

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, 

would likely be limited to reactions 

such as increased swimming speeds, 

increased surfacing time, or decreased 

foraging (if such activity were occurring; 

e.g., Thorson and Reyff 2006; HDR, Inc. 

2012; Lerma 2014; ABR 2016). Most 

likely, individuals would simply move 

away from the sound source and be 

temporarily displaced from the areas of 

pile driving and removal, although even 

this reaction has been observed 

primarily only in association with 

impact pile driving, which Coast Guard 

anticipates using for only 10 percent of 

pile driving. If sound produced by 

project activities is sufficiently 

disturbing, animals are likely to simply 

avoid the area while the activity is 

occurring, particularly as the project is 

expected to occur over just 15 in-water 

pile driving days. 

The project is also not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitats. The 

project activities would not modify 

existing marine mammal habitat for a 

significant amount of time. The 

activities may cause some fish to leave 

the area of disturbance, thus temporarily 

impacting marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities in a limited portion of the 

foraging range. Given the short duration 

of the activities and the relatively small 

area of the habitat that may be affected, 

the impacts to marine mammal habitat, 

including fish, are not expected to cause 

significant or long-term negative 

consequences. 

There are two known harbor seal 

haulouts close to the project site. The 

first haulout site is directly across Port 

Angeles Harbor from the USCG Air 

Station, approximately 2.4 km away. 

Seals swimming to and from this 

haulout have the potential to experience 

Level B harassment due to underwater 

sound exposure during vibratory or 

impact pile driving activities. However, 

the project activities are not expected to 

occur during any particularly sensitive 

time (e.g., molting or pupping season), 

and the project duration is short, with 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 61571 

approximately 15 days of in-water work. 

Given the availability of a second 

haulout close by (3.5 km (2.17 mi) from 

the project site on the opposite side of 

Ediz Hook) which is not expected to be 

exposed to noise from pile driving and 

the short duration of the project, there 

are no anticipated significant or longterm negative consequences to harbor 

seals in the project area. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect any of 

the species or stocks through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• The anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment would consist of, at worst, 

temporary modifications in behavior 

that would not result in fitness impacts 

to individuals; 

• Take estimates were calculated 

assuming that no activities would occur 

on the same day. However, in reality, 

vibratory and impact driving are likely 

to occur on the same day, reducing the 

overall impact to marine mammal 

species; 

• The area impacted by the specified 

activity is very small relative to the 

overall habitat ranges of all species; 

• While impacts would occur within 

areas that are important for feeding or 

resting for multiple stocks, because of 

the small footprint of the activity 

relative to the area of these important 

use areas, and the scope and nature of 

the anticipated impacts of pile driving 

exposure, we do not expect impacts to 

the reproduction or survival of any 

individuals. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted previously, only take of 

small numbers of marine mammals may 

be authorized under sections 

101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for 

specified activities other than military 

readiness activities. The MMPA does 

not define small numbers and so, in 

practice, where estimated numbers are 

available, NMFS compares the number 

of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one-third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The number of instances of take for 

each species or stock proposed 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 stock could be taken by 

harassment. The number of animals 

proposed to be taken for all stocks 

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. 

A lack of an accepted stock 

abundance value for the Washington 

Northern Inland Waters stock of harbor 

seal 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 7,513 seals (CV = 11.5%) 

(Jefferson et al. 2021). Given 210 

proposed takes by Level B harassment 

for the stock, comparison to the best 

estimate of stock abundance shows, at 

most, 2.8 percent of the stock would be 

expected to be impacted. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals would be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each 

Federal agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is proposed for authorization or 

expected to result from this activity. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

formal consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA is not required for this action. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to the Coast Guard for 

conducting Pier Maintenance and Bank 

Stabilization at USCG Air Station Port 

Angeles, in Port Angeles, Washington, 

between November 15, 2023 and 

November 14, 2024 provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. A draft of the 

proposed IHA can be found at: https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHA for the proposed Pier Maintenance 

and Bank Stabilization. We also request 

comment on the potential renewal of 

this proposed IHA as described in the 

paragraph below. Please include with 

your comments any supporting data or 

literature citations to help inform 

decisions on the request for this IHA or 

a subsequent renewal IHA. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, one-year renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Description of 

Proposed Activity section of this notice 

is planned or (2) the activities as 

described in the Description of 

Proposed Activity section of this notice 

would not be completed by the time the 

IHA expires and a renewal would allow 

for completion of the activities beyond 

that described in the Dates and Duration 

section of this notice, provided all of the 

following conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to the needed 

renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that the renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond one year from 

expiration of the initial IHA); and 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
61572 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted under the requested 

renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take); and 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: September 1, 2023. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19327 Filed 9–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD321] 

Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and 

South Atlantic; Southeast Data, 

Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); 

Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of SEDAR 79 Post-Data 

Workshop webinar for Gulf of Mexico 

and South Atlantic Mutton Snapper. 

SUMMARY: The SEDAR 79 assessment 

process for Gulf of Mexico and South 

Atlantic mutton snapper will consist of 

a Data Workshop, and a series of 

assessment webinars, and a Review 

Workshop. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

DATES: The SEDAR 79 Post-Data 

Workshop webinar will be held 

September 25, 2023, from 1 p.m. to 3 

p.m., Eastern Time. The established 

times may be adjusted as necessary to 

accommodate the timely completion of 

discussion relevant to the assessment 

process. Such adjustments may result in 

the meeting being extended from or 

completed prior to the time established 

by this notice. 

ADDRESSES: 

Meeting address: The meeting will be 

held via webinar. The webinar is open 

to members of the public. Those 

interested in participating should 

contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below) to 

request an invitation providing webinar 

access information. Please request 

webinar invitations at least 24 hours in 

advance of each webinar. 

SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place 

Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 

29405. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571– 

4366; email: Julie.neer@safmc.net. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf 

of Mexico, South Atlantic, and 

Caribbean Fishery Management 

Councils, in conjunction with NOAA 

Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf 

States Marine Fisheries Commissions 

have implemented the Southeast Data, 

Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 

process, a multi-step method for 

determining the status of fish stocks in 

the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multistep process including: (1) Data 

Workshop, (2) a series of assessment 

webinars, and (3) a Review Workshop. 

The product of the Data Workshop is a 

report that compiles and evaluates 

potential datasets and recommends 

which datasets are appropriate for 

assessment analyses. The assessment 

webinars produce a report that describes 

the fisheries, evaluates the status of the 

stock, estimates biological benchmarks, 

projects future population conditions, 

and recommends research and 

monitoring needs. The product of the 

Review Workshop is an Assessment 

Summary documenting panel opinions 

regarding the strengths and weaknesses 

of the stock assessment and input data. 

Participants for SEDAR Workshops are 

appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South 

Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery 

Management Councils and NOAA 

Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, 

HMS Management Division, and 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center. 

Participants include data collectors and 

database managers; stock assessment 

scientists, biologists, and researchers; 

constituency representatives including 

fishermen, environmentalists, and 

NGO’s; International experts; and staff 

of Councils, Commissions, and state and 

federal agencies. 

The items of discussion during the 

Post-Data Workshop webinar are as 

follows: 

Panelists will review the data sets 

being considered for the assessment. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

identified in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the intent to take final action 

to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

The meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to the 

Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 

business days prior to each workshop. 

Note: The times and sequence specified in 

this agenda are subject to change. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: September 1, 2023. 

Rey Israel Marquez, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19314 Filed 9–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD336] 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council, NEFMC) 

will hold a four-day hybrid meeting 

with both in-person and remote 

participation to consider actions 

affecting New England fisheries in the 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Monday, September 25, 2023 through 

Thursday, September 28, 2023. The 

meetings will begin at 12 p.m. on 

Monday, and 9 a.m. on Tuesday, 

Wednesday, and Thursday. 

ADDRESSES: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1