Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 / Notices 66393 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Hilton New Orleans Riverside Hotel, 

located at Two Poydras Street, New 

Orleans, LA 70130; (504) 561–0500. 

Please visit the Gulf Council website 

(www.gulfcouncil.org) for agenda and 

meeting materials information. 

Council address: Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council, 4107 W 

Spruce Street, Suite 200, Tampa, FL 

33607; telephone: (813) 348–1630. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

John Froeschke, Deputy Director, Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council; 

john.froescke@gulfcouncil.org, 

telephone: (813) 348–1630, and Mr. 

Steve VanderKooy, Inter-jurisdictional 

Fisheries (IJF) Coordinator, Gulf States 

Marine Fisheries Commission; 

svanderkooy@gsmfc.org, telephone: 

(228) 875–5912. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following items of discussion are on the 

agenda, though agenda items may be 

addressed out of order and any changes 

will be noted on the Council’s website 

when possible. 

Joint Gulf Council’s Law Enforcement 

Technical Committee (LETC) and Gulf 

States Marine Fisheries Commission’s 

Law Enforcement Committee (LEC) 

Meeting Agenda, Wednesday, October 

18, 2023; Beginning at 8:30 a.m.–12 

p.m., CDT 

The joint meeting will begin in a 

CLOSED SESSION from 7:30 a.m.–8:15 

a.m. with introductions, case work 

discussions and any other business. 

General session will begin at 

approximately 8:30 a.m. with 

introductions and adoption of agenda, 

and approval of minutes from the Joint 

LEC/LETC virtual meeting from March 

2023 and election of Joint Committee 

Chair and Vice Chair. 

The Gulf Council LETC will hold a 

discussion on Red Snapper Individual 

Fishing Quota (IFQ) advanced landing 

notifications from 2022 including a 

review of the Proportion of Inspected to 

Non-Inspected Red Snapper IFQ 

landings and Sale of Recreationally 

Caught Fish; and will review the 

Nomination Process for the 2023 

Officer/Team of the Year Award. 

The GSMFC LEC will review the IJF 

Program Activity for Gray (Mangrove) 

Snapper Profile Status and Commission 

Pubs. 

The committee will present the State 

Report Highlights from Florida, 

Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), NOAA Office 

of Law Enforcement (OLE), and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); and 

will discuss any Other Business items. 

— Meeting Adjourns 

The Agenda is subject to change, and 

the latest version along with other 

meeting materials will be posted on 

www.gulfcouncil.org. 

The Law Enforcement Technical 

Committee consists of principal law 

enforcement officers in each of the Gulf 

States, as well as the NOAA OLE, 

USFWS, the USCG, and the NOAA 

Office of General Counsel for Law 

Enforcement. 

Although other non-emergency issues 

not on the agenda may come before this 

group for discussion, in accordance 

with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

those issues may not be the subject of 

formal action during this meeting. 

Actions will be restricted to those issues 

specifically identified in the agenda 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 Council’s intent to take action to 

address the emergency. 

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

Dated: September 22, 2023. 

Rey Israel Marquez, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–21057 Filed 9–26–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XC044] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to U.S. Coast 

Guard Construction in Astoria, Oregon 

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 United States Coast Guard 

(USCG) for authorization to take marine 

mammals incidental to the East Tongue 

Point (ETP) construction project in 

Astoria, Oregon. 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, 1- 

year renewal that could be issued under 

certain circumstances and if all 

requirements are met, as described in 

Request for Public Comments at the end 

of this notice. NMFS will consider 

public comments prior to making any 

final decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA 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 27, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service and should be 

submitted via email to ITP.harlacher@

noaa.gov. 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-mammalprotection/incidental-takeauthorizations-construction-activities. 

In case of problems accessing these 

documents, please call the contact listed 

below. 

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 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected 

Resources, 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 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
66394 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 / Notices 

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 NAO 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 April 22, 2022, NMFS received a 

request from the USCG for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to pile 

driving activity associated with the ETP 

construction in Astoria, Oregon. 

Following NMFS’ review of the 

application, we received a revised 

version of the application on June 27, 

2022. After finalizing construction 

details, the USCG submitted another 

revised version on May 26, 2023, 

followed by a final revised version on 

July 24, 2023, which was deemed 

adequate and complete on August 1, 

2023. USCG’s request is for take of 

harbor seal, California sea lion, Steller 

sea lion and harbor porpoise by Level B 

harassment and, for harbor seal and 

harbor porpoise, Level A harassment. 

Neither USCG nor NMFS expect serious 

injury or mortality to result from this 

activity and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The USCG requested an IHA to 

homeport multiple new Fast Response 

Cutters (FRC) to support USCG District 

13 at ETP in Astoria, OR (Figure 1). This 

three-phased project entails both 

onshore and in-water construction 

activities to remove old piles, construct 

and improve facilities necessary for the 

long-term support of the FRC’s and 

USCG mission. Phase 1 includes pile 

removal and demolition, dredging and 

shoreline rock improvements, phase 2 

includes all pile driving and in water 

construction, and phase 3 includes all 

overwater and upland construction. The 

USCG completed a Homeport feasibility 

study in 2015 to determine the best site 

for FRC and determined ETP was the 

most suitable site due to favorable 

currents and low exposure to wave 

action. 

This overall project is needed to 

improve or construct waterside and 

landslide facilities that will meet 

homeporting requirements of the FRCs. 

This includes the availability of logistics 

and support amenities for personnel, the 

ability of the new FRC docks/floats to 

accommodate the FRCs with all 

necessary operations on the boat while 

it is stationary at the dock, and the 

ability of the facility to provide for a 

long-term USCG presence for the 

economic life of its assets. Facilities at 

ETP are aged, outdated, and will require 

improvements to meet homeporting 

requirements. 

Of the stages of this project, the only 

part that may result in Level A and 

Level B harassment, and further 

analyzed in this notice is the in-water 

construction activities associated with 

impact pile driving (Phase 2). The USCG 

proposes installation of 30-inch (in) and 

36-in steel pipe piles for their new 

facilities with an estimated 52 total days 

of impact pile driving. Pile driving will 

only occur within the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) approved in-water working 

window, however the proposed IHA 

will have a 1-year period of 

effectiveness. Phase 1 which includes 

dredging, pile removal and shoreline 

improvements and phase 3 involving 

only landside or over-water 

improvements, do not result in take 

based on the noise analysis and 

implementation of mitigation measures 

by the USCG and therefore will not be 

discussed further. 

Dates and Duration 

The ETP project is planned in a 3- 

phase approach with only phase 2 

covered under this IHA. The IHA would 

be valid from November 1, 2023 to 

October 31, 2024; however, pile driving 

would only occur in the ODFW in-water 

work window from November 1, 2023 to 

February 29, 2024. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The project location is on the east side 

of the Tongue Point peninsula 

protruding into the Columbia River at 

approximately river mile 18. It lies in 

the northern portion of an industrial 

concrete pier area, formerly associated 

with a World War II-era U.S. Navy 

installation, just north of Highway 30 

approximately 3 miles east of Astoria 

(Figure 1). The proposed project area is 

located within the Tongue Point 

Department of Labor Jobs Corps Center, 

which falls inside the urban growth 

boundary for Astoria. Various industrial 

and commercial uses, mostly for the 

marine industry, occur on the southern 

portion of the ETP site. To the northnortheast of the developed industrial 

area, the forested Tongue Point 

peninsula remains a designated natural 

area. 

The project area is bound by the main 

stem of the Columbia River to the north 

and west and by Cathlamet Bay to the 

south and east. Mott Island is located 

approximately 0.5 miles east of the 

project area and Mill Creek flows into 

the Columbia River immediately south 

of the capped landfill. Further south 

and east up the John Day channel, Lois 

Island lies across from the John Day 

River mouth and a protected deep-water 

anchorage area is found. Moss and Lois 

Islands are part of the Lewis and Clark 

National Wildlife Refuge, which 

encompasses all islands approximately 

27 miles upstream from the mouth of 

the Columbia River (USFWS 2020). 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 / Notices 66395 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Detailed Description of the Specified 

Activity 

Equipment and most materials needed 

to perform pier demolition and disposal, 

dredging, pile driving, pier, and floating 

dock construction will be mobilized via 

barges. It is anticipated that multiple 

barges may be present in the project or 

project staging areas at any time. The 

selected design-build contractor will 

mobilize equipment and materials based 

on the project phasing and task 

schedule to be determined once the 

project has been contracted. The overall 

project includes landslide 

improvements, waterside 

improvements, in-water construction, 

over-water construction, and upland 

construction. However, as previously 

stated this IHA only covers in-water 

construction associated with pile 

installation activities that could result 

in take of marine mammals. 

Piles will be installed during the inwater work window from November 1, 

2023, through February 29, 2024, using 

impact hammers, per Table 1–1 and 

Table 1–2 in USCG’s application. USCG 

estimates up to three piles will be 

driven each 8 hour workday, and the 

actual driving time for each pile could 

be as high as approximately 30 minutes. 

An estimated 52 total days of pile 

driving (not all consecutive) will occur 

during the in-water work window from 

November through February. 

Impact pile driving associated with 

the project is the only activity that could 

result in incidental take of marine 

mammals. Underwater noise generated 

during pile driving is dependent upon 

the impact energy produced by the pile 

driving hammer, the type and size of 

pile, water depth, and the substrate into 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1EN27SE23.006</GPH>
66396 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 / Notices 

which the pile is being driven. Modeled 

pile driving scenarios accounted for the 

energy needed to drive the piles and 

utilized the two largest diameter pile 

sizes for the model as determined from 

engineering plans. A water depth of 

three meters was used, which is 

representative of the project area depths 

(Table 1). 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED PILE DRIVING

Pile size and type Method 

Maximum 

piles per 

day 

Activity duration 

Estimated 

days of 

work 

36-inch steel pipe ..................... impact install .. 3 40–45 blows per minute for 9 minutes .................................... 52 

30-inch steel pipe ..................... impact install .. 3 40–45 blows per minute for 9 minutes .................................... ....................

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. 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; 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments) 

and more general information about 

these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’ 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 and Alaska SARs. 

All values presented in Table 2 are the 

most recent available at the time of 

publication and are available online at: 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments. 

TABLE 2—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor Porpoise ................. Phocoena phocoena ................. Northern Oregon/Washington 

Coast.

-,-,N 21,487 (0.44, 15,123, 

2011).

151 ≥3.0 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

California Sea Lion ............. Zalophus californianus .............. US ............................................. -,-,N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 

2014).

14,011 >321 

Steller Sea Lion .................. Eumetopias jubatus .................. Eastern ...................................... -,-,N 43,201 (N/A, 43,201, 

2017).

2,592 112 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor Seal ........................ Phoca vitulina ........................... Oregon/Washington Coast ....... -,-,N UNK ................................ UND 10.6 

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

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

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

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://h https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated 

mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 

As indicated above, all four species in 

Table 2 temporally and spatially cooccur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. While 

killer whales (Orcinus orca), humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 / Notices 66397 

gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) 

have been sighted off the Oregon coast, 

the USCG’s project is located 23 km into 

the mouth of the Columbia River. 

Therefor 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 

explanation provided here and in the 

USCG’s application. 

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. 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

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

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

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

australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

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

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

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

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

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

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. 

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 can occur 

from impact pile driving. The effects of 

underwater noise from USCG’s 

proposed activities have the potential to 

result in Level A or Level B harassment 

of marine mammals in the action area. 

Description of Sound Source 

The marine soundscape is comprised 

of both ambient and anthropogenic 

sounds. Ambient sound is defined as 

the all-encompassing sound in a given 

place and is usually a composite of 

sound from many sources both near and 

far. The sound level of an area is 

defined by the total acoustical energy 

being generated by known and 

unknown sources. These sources may 

include physical (e.g., waves, wind, 

precipitation, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, 

dredging, aircraft, construction). 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’ 

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and shipping activity) but 

also on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 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. 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the project would 

include vibratory pile removal, and 

impact and vibratory pile driving. The 

sounds produced by these activities fall 

into one of two general sound types: 

impulsive and non-impulsive. 

Impulsive sounds (e.g., explosions, 

gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile 

driving) are typically transient, brief 

(less than 1 second), broadband, and 

consist of high peak sound pressure 

with rapid rise time and rapid decay 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
66398 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 / Notices 

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

NMFS, 2018a). Non-impulsive sounds 

(e.g., aircraft, machinery operations 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems) 

can be broadband, narrowband or tonal, 

brief or prolonged (continuous or 

intermittent), and typically do not have 

the high peak sound pressure with raid 

rise/decay time that impulsive sounds 

do (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998; NMFS, 

2018a). The distinction between these 

two sound types is important because 

they have differing potential to cause 

physical effects, particularly with regard 

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

et al., 2007). 

USCG propose to use impact pile 

driving to install new steel pipe piles 

associated with the ETP project. Impact 

hammers operate by repeatedly 

dropping a heavy piston onto a pile to 

drive the pile into the substrate. Sound 

generated by impact hammers is 

characterized by rapid rise times and 

high peak levels, a potentially injurious 

combination (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). Peak sound pressure levels 

(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). Rise time is slower, reducing the 

probability and severity of injury, and 

sound energy is distributed over a 

greater amount of time (Nedwell and 

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

The likely or possible impacts of 

USCG’s proposed activity on marine 

mammals could involve both nonacoustic and acoustic stressors. 

Potential non-acoustic stressors could 

result from the physical presence of 

equipment and personnel; however, any 

impacts to marine mammals are 

expected to be primarily acoustic in 

nature. Acoustic stressors include 

effects of heavy equipment operation 

during pile driving. 

Acoustic Impacts 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile driving is the primary means by 

which marine mammals may be 

harassed from the USCG’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). In 

general, 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 as 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. nonimpulsive), 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 TS 

is customarily expressed in dB. 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 nonimpulsive), 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 and vocalization frequency 

range of the exposed species relative to 

the signal’s frequency spectrum (i.e., 

how an animal uses sound within the 

frequency band of the signal; (e.g., 

Kastelein et al., 2014), and the overlap 

between the animal and the source (e.g., 

spatial, temporal, and spectral). 

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). 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)— 

TTS is 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 

cetacean TTS measurements (see 

Southall et al., 2007), 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 

(Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 

2000, 2002). As described in Finneran 

(2015), marine mammal studies have 

shown the amount of TTS increases 

with cumulative sound exposure level 

(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 

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 

a 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). 

For cetaceans, published data on the 

onset of TTS are limited to the captive 

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), 

beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), 

harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 / Notices 66399 

porpoise (Neophocoena asiaeorientalis), 

and for pinnipeds in water, 

measurements of TTS are limited to 

harbor seals, elephant seals (Mirounga 

angustirostris), and California sea lions. 

These studies examine hearing 

thresholds measured in marine 

mammals before and after exposure to 

intense sounds. 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, 

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, 2019b, 2020a, 

2020b). 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 (Finneran 

et al., 2010; Kastelein et al., 2014; 

Kastelein et al., 2015a; Mooney et al., 

2009). 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) and Finneran (2018) describe the 

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). 

Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to 

noise from pile driving and removal also 

has the potential to behaviorally disturb 

marine mammals. 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). 

Disturbance may result in changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); and, 

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

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

(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). In 

general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant 

of, or at least habituate more quickly to, 

potentially disturbing underwater sound 

than do cetaceans, and generally seem 

to be less responsive to exposure to 

industrial sound than most cetaceans. 

Please see Appendices B–C of Southall 

et al., (2007) for a review of studies 

involving marine mammal behavioral 

responses to sound. 

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. 

Stress responses—An animal’s 

perception of a threat may be sufficient 

to trigger stress responses consisting of 

some combination of behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

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

Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of energetic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor. Autonomic nervous 

system responses to stress typically 

involve changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 

These responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

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

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

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

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
66400 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 / Notices 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

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

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

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

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

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

and, more rarely, studied in wild 

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

For example, Rolland et al., (2012) 

found that noise reduction from reduced 

ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. These and 

other studies lead to a reasonable 

expectation that some marine mammals 

will experience physiological stress 

responses upon exposure to acoustic 

stressors and that it is possible that 

some of these would be classified as 

‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal 

experiencing TTS would likely also 

experience stress responses (NRC, 

2003), however distress is an unlikely 

result of this project based on 

observations of marine mammals during 

previous, similar projects in the area. 

Masking—Sound can disrupt behavior 

through masking, or interfering with, an 

animal’s ability to detect, recognize, or 

discriminate between acoustic signals of 

interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Masking occurs when the receipt of a 

sound is interfered with by another 

coincident sound at similar frequencies 

and at similar or higher intensity, and 

may occur whether the sound is natural 

(e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, 

precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 

pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic 

exploration) in origin. The ability of a 

noise source to mask biologically 

important sounds depends on the 

characteristics of both the noise source 

and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-tonoise 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. 

Masking of natural sounds can result 

when human activities produce high 

levels of background sound at 

frequencies important to marine 

mammals. Conversely, if the 

background level of underwater sound 

is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind 

and high waves), an anthropogenic 

sound source would not be detectable as 

far away as would be possible under 

quieter conditions and would itself be 

masked. 

Airborne Acoustic Effects—Although 

pinnipeds are known to haul out 

regularly near Astoria, we believe that 

incidents of take resulting solely from 

airborne sound are unlikely due to the 

sheltered proximity between the 

proposed project area and these haulout sites which are at least 3 miles (4.8 

kilometers) away and not in the acoustic 

zones that could be directly affect by 

noise disturbance. There is a possibility 

that an animal could surface in-water, 

but with head out, within the area in 

which airborne sound exceeds relevant 

thresholds and thereby be exposed to 

levels of airborne sound that we 

associate with harassment, but any such 

occurrence would likely be accounted 

for in our estimation of incidental take 

from underwater sound. Therefore, 

authorization of incidental take 

resulting from airborne sound for 

pinnipeds is not warranted, and 

airborne sound is not discussed further 

here. Cetaceans are not expected to be 

exposed to airborne sounds that would 

result in harassment as defined under 

the MMPA. 

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects 

The USCG’s construction activities 

could have localized, temporary impacts 

on marine mammal habitat and their 

prey by increasing in-water sound 

pressure levels and slightly decreasing 

water quality. However, the proposed 

location is not heavily used by marine 

mammals and is in close proximity to a 

heavily trafficked industrial area. 

Construction activities are of short 

duration and would likely have 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat through increases in underwater 

and airborne sound. Increased noise 

levels may affect acoustic habitat (see 

Masking discussion above) and 

adversely affect marine mammal prey in 

the vicinity of the project area (see 

discussion below). During impact and 

vibratory pile driving, elevated levels of 

underwater noise would ensonify the 

project area where both fish and 

mammals occur and could affect 

foraging success. 

Temporary and localized increase in 

turbidity near the seafloor would occur 

in the immediate area surrounding the 

area where piles are installed. In 

general, turbidity associated with pile 

installation is localized to about a 25 

feet (ft) (7.6 meter) radius around the 

pile (Everitt et al., 1980). The sediments 

of the project site will settle out rapidly 

when disturbed. Cetaceans are not 

expected to be close enough to the pile 

driving areas to experience effects of 

turbidity, and any pinnipeds could 

avoid localized areas of turbidity. Local 

strong currents are anticipated to 

disburse any additional suspended 

sediments produced by project activities 

at moderate to rapid rates depending on 

tidal stage. Therefore, we expect the 

impact from increased turbidity levels 

to be discountable to marine mammals 

and do not discuss it further. 

In-Water Construction Effects on 

Potential Foraging Habitat 

The proposed activities would result 

in a minor loss of habitat and 

potentially change underwater features 

for fish, but these changes are 

insignificant and limited to the area of 

redevelopment. The total seafloor area 

likely impacted by the project is 

relatively small compared to the 

available habitat in the Columbia River 

Gorge and on the Pacific Coast and does 

not include any Biologically Important 

Areas (BIA) or other habitat of known 

importance. The area is highly 

influenced by anthropogenic activities. 

Additionally, the total seafloor area 

affected by pile installation and removal 

is a small area compared to the vast 

foraging area available to marine 

mammals in the area. At best, the 

impact area provides marginal foraging 

habitat for marine mammals and fishes. 

Furthermore, pile driving at the project 

site would not obstruct movements or 

migration of marine mammals. 

Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish) 

of the immediate area due to the 

temporary loss of this foraging habitat is 

also possible. The duration of fish 

avoidance of this area after pile driving 

stops is unknown, but a rapid return to 

normal recruitment, distribution and 

behavior is anticipated. 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. 

Effects on Potential Prey 

Sound may affect marine mammals 

through impacts on the abundance, 

behavior, or distribution of prey species 

(e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, 

zooplankton, etc.). Marine mammal prey 

varies by species, season, and location. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 / Notices 66401 

However, impacts to prey will be 

limited to the construction window of 

November 1, 2023 through February 29, 

2024 to reduce impacts to fish species 

in the area. Here, we describe studies 

regarding the effects of noise on known 

marine mammal prey. 

Fish utilize the soundscape and 

components of sound in their 

environment to perform important 

functions such as foraging, predator 

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

Zelick and Mann, 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, and behavioral 

responses, such as flight or avoidance, 

are the most likely effects. Short 

duration, sharp sounds can cause overt 

or subtle changes in fish behavior and 

local distribution. The reaction of fish to 

noise depends on the physiological state 

of the fish, past exposures, motivation 

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

other environmental factors. Hastings 

and Popper (2005) identified several 

studies that suggest fish may relocate to 

avoid certain areas of sound energy. 

Additional studies have documented 

effects of pile driving on fish, although 

several are based on studies in support 

of large, multiyear bridge construction 

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

2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). 

Several studies have demonstrated that 

impulse sounds might affect the 

distribution and behavior of some 

fishes, potentially impacting foraging 

opportunities or increasing energetic 

costs (e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley, 

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

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

2017). However, some studies have 

shown no or slight reaction to impulse 

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

et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 

2009; Popper et al., 2015). 

SPLs of sufficient strength have been 

known to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality. However, in most fish 

species, hair cells in the ear 

continuously regenerate and loss of 

auditory function likely is restored 

when damaged cells are replaced with 

new cells. Halvorsen et al., (2012a) 

showed that a TTS of 4–6 dB was 

recoverable within 24 hours for one 

species. Impacts would be most severe 

when the individual fish is close to the 

source and when the duration of 

exposure is long. Injury caused by 

barotrauma can range from slight to 

severe and can cause death, and is most 

likely for fish with swim bladders. 

Barotrauma injuries have been 

documented during controlled exposure 

to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 

2012b; Casper et al., 2013). 

The most likely impact to fish from 

pile driving activities at the project 

areas would be temporary behavioral 

avoidance of the area. The duration of 

fish avoidance of an area after pile 

driving stops is unknown, but a rapid 

return to normal recruitment, 

distribution and behavior is anticipated. 

Construction activities, in the form of 

increased turbidity, have the potential 

to adversely affect forage fish in the 

project area. Forage fish form a 

significant prey base for many marine 

mammal species that occur in the 

project area. Increased turbidity is 

expected to occur in the immediate 

vicinity (on the order of 10 ft (3 meters 

(m)) or less) of construction activities. 

However, suspended sediments and 

particulates are expected to dissipate 

quickly within a single tidal cycle. 

Given the limited area affected and high 

tidal dilution rates, any effects on forage 

fish are expected to be minor or 

negligible. Finally, exposure to turbid 

waters from construction activities is 

not expected to be different from the 

current exposure; fish and marine 

mammals in the Columbia River are 

routinely exposed to substantial levels 

of suspended sediment from natural and 

anthropogenic sources. 

In summary, given the short-term and 

limited duration of sound associated 

with pile driving events and the 

relatively small areas being affected, 

pile driving activities associated with 

the proposed action are not likely to 

have a permanent adverse effect on any 

fish habitat, or populations of fish 

species. Any behavioral avoidance by 

fish of the disturbed area would be 

temporary and would still leave 

significantly large areas of fish and 

marine mammal foraging habitat in the 

nearby vicinity. Additionally, all inwater work will occur during the 

winter, when marine resident fish 

species are only present in limited 

numbers. Thus, we conclude that 

impacts of the specified activity are not 

likely to have more than short-term 

adverse effects on any prey habitat or 

populations of prey species. Further, 

any impacts to marine mammal habitat 

are not expected to result in significant 

or long-term consequences for 

individual marine mammals, or to 

contribute to adverse impacts on their 

populations. 

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 primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as use of the 

acoustic sources (i.e., impact pile 

driving) has the potential to result in 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals. There is 

also some potential for auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to result. The 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures are expected to minimize the 

severity of the taking to the extent 

practicable. 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
66402 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 / Notices 

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. 

USCG’s proposed activity includes 

the use impulsive (impact pile driving) 

sources, and therefore the RMS SPL 

threshold of 160 dB re 1 mPa is 

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). USCG’s proposed activity 

includes the use of impulsive (impact 

pile driving) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS’ 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at: 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 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; LEOW,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. 

Underwater sound propagation 

modeling was completed by USCG 

using dBSea, a software developed by 

Marshall Day Acoustics for the 

modeling of underwater sound 

propagation in a variety of 

environments. The model was built by 

importing bathymetry data and placing 

noise sources in the environment. Each 

source can consist of equipment chosen 

from either the standard or the userdefined databases. Noise mitigation 

methods may also be included. The user 

has control over the seabed and water 

properties including sound speed 

profile, temperature, salinity, and 

current. Noise levels were calculated to 

the extent of the bathymetry area. To 

examine results in more detail, levels 

may be plotted in cross sections, or a 

detailed spectrum may be extracted at 

any point in the calculation area. Levels 

were calculated in third octave bands 

from 12.5 (hertz) Hz to 20 kHz. Please 

refer to Acoustic Assessment included 

in USCG’s application for additional 

details on the modeling principles and 

assumptions. 

The representative acoustic modeling 

scenarios were derived from 

descriptions of the expected 

construction activities through 

consultations between the USCG project 

design and engineering teams. The 

scenarios modeled were ones where 

potential underwater noise impacts of 

marine species were anticipated and 

included impact pile driving associated 

with pier installation. All modeling 

scenarios occur at a representative 

location. This location was selected so 

that the effects of sound propagation at 

the range of water column depths 

occurring within the project area could 

be evaluated. 

The USCG opted to perform their own 

acoustic modeling for the Level A and 

Level B harassment isopleths as they 

had site specific information to input 

into the model, which may assist in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 / Notices 66403 

providing more accurate results Than, 

for example, use of NMFS’ User 

Spreadsheet tool, which is a relatively 

simple tool that cannot incorporate sitespecific environmental information. The 

modeling used by USCG takes into 

account bathymetry, geo-acoustic 

properties of sub-bottom sediments, and 

sound speed profile. NMFS has 

reviewed USCG’s modeling and 

determined that it is acceptable for use 

here. 

A summary of construction and 

operational scenarios included in the 

underwater acoustic modeling analysis 

is provided in the Acoustic Assessment 

and summarized in Table 5 below. The 

pile diameters selected for the impact 

pile driving modeling scenarios were 

based on maximum project design 

considerations approximated by USCG. 

The Level A and Level B harassment 

isopleths for the proposed activities are 

shown in Table 6. 

TABLE 5—SOURCE LEVELS FOR IMPACT PILE INSTALLATION

Pile size Peak SPLs 

(dB) 

RMS SPLs 

(dB) 

SELss 

(dB) Source 

36-in pile .................................................................................................. 208 190 180 Caltrans 2020. 

30-in pile .................................................................................................. 210 190 177 Caltrans 2020. 

TABLE 6—LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS FOR IMPACT PILE DRIVING

Activity 

Level A harassment zones 

(m) Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(m) HF 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

36-in pile .......................................................................................................... 287 197 0 602 

30-in pile .......................................................................................................... 213 130 0 602 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Calculation and Estimation 

In this section, we provide 

information about the occurrence of 

marine mammals, including density or 

other relevant information which will 

inform the take calculations and 

describe how the information provided 

is synthesized to produce a quantitative 

estimate of the take that is reasonably 

likely to occur and proposed for 

authorization. The USCG proposed 

using marine mammal species densities 

from the Pacific Navy Marine Species 

Density Database to estimate take for 

marine mammals. This database 

incorporates analyzed literature and 

research for marine mammal density 

estimates per season for regions 

throughout the U.S. and the USCG 

based their take estimates on regionally 

available population density estimates 

and site-specific knowledge. Although 

this database provides densities for all 

species present in the action area, the 

densities are based on offshore 

abundance and not directly relevant to 

occurrence within in the Columbia 

River. Following careful review of the 

analysis presented by the USCG in its 

application, including marine mammal 

occurrence data, NMFS has determined 

that different information inputs than 

those selected by the USCG represent 

the best available scientific information 

for marine mammal abundance in the 

action area. These selections are 

discussed in greater detail below. 

Steller Sea Lion, California Sea Lion 

and Harbor Seal 

For Steller sea lions, California sea 

lions, and harbor seals, the numbers of 

individuals were referenced from 

Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife’s (WDFW) surveys from 2000– 

2014 at the South Jetty for the months 

of in water work (November through 

February) and averaged to get an 

estimated daily count (Table 7). While 

animals were surveyed at the prominent 

haul out site along the South Jetty, since 

the ETP site is close to the mouth of the 

river and the South Jetty, we assumed 

each of these estimates represents a 

good proxy for the total number of 

individuals that could be present in the 

project vicinity. We derived potential 

take estimates from the average 

abundance recorded over the specified 

period. 

TABLE 7—PINNIPED COUNTS FROM THE SOUTH JETTY FROM 2000–2014 

[WDFW 2014] 

Steller sea 

lion 

(monthly) 

Steller sea lion 

(daily) 

California 

Sea lion 

(monthly) 

California 

sea lion 

(daily) 

Harbor 

seal 

(monthly) 

Harbor 

seal 

(daily) 

November ................................................................. 1,663 55 1,214 40 0 0 

December ................................................................. 1,112 36 725 23 57 2 

January .................................................................... 249 8 10 0.3 0 0 

February ................................................................... 259 9 28 1 1 0.04 

Average (all months) ................................................ 821 27 494 16 15 0.5 

To calculate the total estimated takes, 

we multiplied the estimated days of 

activity by the associated average daily 

pinniped counts (monthly count/days of 

the month and averaged across all 

months) for each species (Table 8). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
66404 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 / Notices 

TABLE 8—ESTIMATED TAKE OF STELLER SEA LIONS, CALIFORNIA SEA LIONS, AND HARBOR SEALS

Pile type and method Days of 

activity 

Steller 

sea lion 

average 

count 

Steller 

sea lion 

calculated 

take 

California 

sea lion 

average 

count 

California 

sea lion 

calculated 

take 

Harbor 

seal 

average 

count 

Harbor 

seal 

calculate 

take 

36-in Steel Pile Impact Installation .......... 52 27 1,404 16 832 0.5 26 

30-in Steel Pile Impact Installation 

There is some potential for take by 

Level A harassment of harbor seals due 

to the largest zone being approximately 

200 m and because of the cryptic nature 

and assumed lower detectability of 

harbor seals at this distance. Based on 

the relative proportion of the area 

expected to be ensonified above the 

Level A harassment threshold for 

phocid pinnipeds from impact pile 

driving (approximately 0.36 square 

kilometers (km2)) to the area ensonified 

above the Level B harassment threshold 

(1.1 km2 for impact pile driving), we 

estimated that of the total number of 

harbor seals that may be located within 

the greater Level B harassment zone, 

approximately 33 percent would 

approach the pile driving activities 

closer and enter the smaller Level A 

harassment zone (197 m). Thus, we 

assume that 33 percent of the total 

estimated takes of harbor seals (26 

individuals; see Table 9) would be by 

Level A harassment. Therefore, we are 

proposing to authorize 9 takes of harbor 

seals by Level A harassment and 17 

takes by Level B harassment (Table 10). 

The Level A harassment zone for 

otariid pinnipeds is 0 m. The USCG 

would be required to enforce a 

minimum shutdown zone of 10 m for 

these species. At that close range, the 

USCG would be able to detect California 

sea lions and Steller sea lions and 

implement the required shutdown 

measures before any sea lions could 

enter the Level A harassment zone. 

Therefore, no takes of California sea 

lions or Steller sea lions by Level A 

harassment are requested or proposed to 

be authorized. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises are regularly 

observed in the coastal waters near the 

mouth of the Columbia River and are 

known to occur year-round, although 

this project occurs farther upstream in 

the Columbia River. Their nearshore 

abundance peaks with anchovy 

presence, which is generally June 

through October. However, there was 

one recorded sighting of a harbor 

porpoise in the project area east of the 

jetties in the September–November 

timeframe (OBIS–SEAMAP 2019). 

During monitoring for pile driving at the 

Columbia River Jetty System which is at 

the mouth of the Columbia River 

approximately 23 km from the USCG’s 

proposed action area, over the course of 

a 5 day monitoring period, observers 

detected 5 harbor porpoises (Grette 

Associates 2016). Additionally we 

reviewed monitoring reports from four 

recent projects in the nearby area (Army 

Corps of Engineers King Pile Markers 

and Sand Island Pile Dike Test Piles, 

and Phase 1 and 2 of the City of Astoria 

Bridge Replacement which can be found 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities#activeauthorizations). Only one project with 

activities occurring over 15 days had 

eight sightings of harbor porpoise at 

Sand Island Dike. 

Given that, there is some potential for 

harbor porpoise to be present near the 

project area, and based on the 

previously mentioned monitoring 

reports sighting data, we calculated that 

harbor porpoise could enter the Level B 

harassment zone every other day of pile 

driving (or 0.5/day). To calculate the 

total estimated takes by Level B 

harassment, we multiplied the 

estimated days of activity by the 

associated daily harbor porpoise rate 

(Table 10). 

There is also some potential for take 

by Level A harassment of harbor 

porpoise due to the largest zone being 

approximately 300 m and because of the 

cryptic nature and assumed lower 

detectability of harbor porpoise at this 

distance. The USCG anticipates that 12 

harbor porpoises during impact driving 

could be taken by Level A harassment. 

Take by Level A harassment for harbor 

porpoise was calculated in the same 

way it was for harbor seals. In total, we 

are proposing to authorize take of 26 

harbor porpoises (Table 10). 

TABLE 10—PROPOSED TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY SPECIES, STOCK AND

PERCENT OF TAKE BY STOCK

Species Stock 

Proposed 

take by 

Level A 

harassment 

Proposed 

take by 

Level B 

harassment 

Total 

proposed 

take 

Stock 

abundance 

Percent 

of stock 

Harbor Porpoise ...... Northern Oregon/Washington Coast ......... 12 14 26 21,487 0.1 

California sea lion .... U.S ............................................................. 0 832 832 257,606 0.3 

Steller sea lion ......... Eastern ...................................................... 0 1,404 1,404 43,201 3.2 

Harbor seal .............. Oregon/Washington Coast ........................ 9 17 26 24,732 0.1 

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)). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 / Notices 66405 

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. 

Time Restrictions 

The USCG has proposed in its 

description of the project that pile 

driving would occur only during 

daylight hours (no sooner than 30 

minutes after sunrise through no later 

than 30 minutes before sunset), when 

visual monitoring of marine mammals 

can be conducted. In addition, ODFW 

requires all in-water construction be 

limited to the months of November 

through February to minimize impacts 

to ESA listed fish species. 

Mitigation Measures 

USCG must follow mitigation 

measures as specified below: 

• Ensure that construction 

supervisors and crews, the monitoring 

team, and relevant USCG staff are 

trained prior to the start of all pile 

driving activity, so that responsibilities, 

communication procedures, monitoring 

protocols, and operational procedures 

are clearly understood. New personnel 

joining during the project must be 

trained prior to commencing work; 

• Employ Protected Species 

Observers (PSOs) and establish 

monitoring locations as described in the 

application and the IHA. USCG must 

monitor the project area to the 

maximum extent possible based on the 

required number of PSOs, required 

monitoring locations, and 

environmental conditions. For all pile 

driving, at least one PSO must be used. 

The PSO will be stationed as close to 

the activity as possible; 

• The placement of the PSOs during 

all pile driving activity will ensure that 

the entire shutdown zone, see Table 11, 

is visible during pile driving activities. 

Should environmental conditions 

deteriorate such that marine mammals 

within the entire shutdown zone will 

not be visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile 

driving and removal must be delayed 

until the PSO is confident marine 

mammals within the shutdown zone 

could be detected; 

• Monitoring must take place from 30 

minutes prior to initiation of pile 

driving activity (i.e., pre-clearance 

monitoring) through 30 minutes postcompletion of pile driving activity; 

• Pre-start clearance monitoring must 

be conducted during periods of 

visibility sufficient for the lead PSO to 

determine that the shutdown zones 

indicated in Table 11 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; 

• USCG must use soft start techniques 

when impact pile driving. Soft start 

requires contractors to provide an initial 

set of three strikes at reduced energy, 

followed by a 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; and 

• If a marine mammal is observed 

entering or within the shutdown zones 

indicated in Table 11, pile driving 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 (Table 11) or 15 minutes 

have passed without re-detection of the 

animal. 

Shutdown Zones 

USCG will establish shutdown zones 

for all pile driving activities. The 

purpose of a shutdown zone is generally 

to define an area within which 

shutdown of the activity would occur 

upon sighting of a marine mammal (or 

in anticipation of an animal entering the 

defined area). Shutdown zones would 

be based upon the Level A harassment 

zone for each pile size/type where 

applicable, as shown in Table 11. 

For in-water heavy machinery 

activities other than pile driving, if a 

marine mammal comes within 10 m, 

work will stop and vessels will reduce 

speed to the minimum level required to 

maintain steerage and safe working 

conditions. A 10 m shutdown zone 

would also serve to protect marine 

mammals from physical interactions 

with project vessels during pile driving 

and other construction activities, such 

as barge positioning or drilling. If an 

activity 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 indicated in 

Table 11 or 15 minutes have passed 

without re-detection of the animal. 

Construction activities must be halted 

upon observation of a species for which 

incidental take is not authorized or a 

species for which incidental take has 

been authorized but the authorized 

number of takes has been met entering 

or within the harassment zone. 

All marine mammals will be 

monitored in the Level B harassment 

zones and throughout the area as far as 

visual monitoring can take place. If a 

marine mammal enters the Level B 

harassment zone, in-water activities will 

continue and the animal’s presence 

within the estimated harassment zone 

will be documented. 

USCG will also establish shutdown 

zones for all marine mammals for which 

take has not been authorized or for 

which incidental take has been 

authorized but the authorized number of 

takes has been met. These zones are 

equivalent to the Level B harassment 

zones for each activity. If a marine 

mammal species not covered under this 

IHA enters the shutdown zone, all inwater activities will cease until the 

animal leaves the zone or has not been 

observed for at least 15 minutes, and 

NMFS will be notified about species 

and precautions taken. Pile driving will 

proceed if the non-IHA species is 

observed to leave the Level B 

harassment zone or if 15 minutes have 

passed since the last observation. 

If shutdown and/or clearance 

procedures would result in an imminent 

safety concern, as determined by USCG 

or its designated officials, the in-water 

activity will be allowed to continue 

until the safety concern has been 

addressed, and the animal will be 

continuously monitored. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
66406 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 / Notices 

TABLE 11—SHUTDOWN ZONES AND MONITORING ZONES

Activity 

Minimum shutdown zone (m) Harassment 

zone 

HF cetaceans Phocid Otariid (m) 

36-in Impact Installation ......................................................................................... 300 50 10 610

30-in Impact Installation ......................................................................................... 220 50 10 610

Protected Species Observers 

The placement of PSOs during all 

construction activities (described in the 

Monitoring and Reporting section) will 

ensure that the entire shutdown zone is 

visible. Should environmental 

conditions deteriorate such that the 

entire shutdown zone would not be 

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

driving would be delayed until the PSO 

is confident marine mammals within 

the shutdown zone could be detected. 

PSOs will monitor the full shutdown 

zones and the Level B harassment zones 

to the extent practicable. Monitoring 

zones provide utility for observing by 

establishing monitoring protocols for 

areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. 

Monitoring zones enable 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. 

Based on our evaluation of USCG’s 

planned measures, as well as other 

measures considered by NMFS, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

mitigation measures provide the means 

effecting the least practicable impact on 

the affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present 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 

conditions in this section and the IHA. 

Marine mammal monitoring during pile 

driving activities will be conducted by 

PSOs meeting the following 

requirements: 

• 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 will have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; 

• Other PSOs may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience; and 

• Where a team of three or more PSOs 

is required, a lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator will be 

designated. The lead observer will be 

required to have prior experience 

working as a marine mammal observer 

during construction. 

PSOs must 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. 

• USCG must employ three PSOs 

during all pile driving activities 

depending on the size of the monitoring 

and shutdown zones. A minimum of 

one PSO must be assigned to monitor 

waters surrounding the active pile 

driving location. 

• USCG must establish the following 

monitoring locations with the best 

views of monitoring zones as described 

below, in the IHA, and USCG’s 

application. 

• PSOs would be deployed in 

strategic locations around the 

harassment zone at all times during inwater pile driving. PSOs will be 

positioned at locations that provide full 

views of the impact hammering 

monitoring zones and the shutdown 

zones. PSOs will be stationed on the 

staging barges, on shore at the project 

site, and at the entrance to the 

commercial dock area at ETP. All PSOs 

will have access to high-quality 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 / Notices 66407 

binoculars, range finders to monitor 

distances, and a compass to record 

bearing to animals as well as radios or 

cells phones for maintaining contact 

with work crews. 

Monitoring will be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after all in water construction activities. 

In addition, PSOs will record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and will 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. 

USCG shall conduct briefings between 

construction supervisors and crews, 

PSOs, USCG staff prior to the start of all 

pile driving activities and when new 

personnel join the work. These briefings 

will explain responsibilities, 

communication procedures, marine 

mammal monitoring protocol, and 

operational procedures. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal activities, or 

60 days prior to a requested date of 

issuance from any future IHAs for 

projects at the same location, whichever 

comes first. The report will include an 

overall description of work completed, 

a narrative regarding marine mammal 

sightings, and associated PSO data 

sheets. Specifically, the report must 

include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including the number and type of piles 

driven or removed and by what method 

(i.e., impact) and the total equipment 

duration for vibratory removal for each 

pile or total 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: 

• Name of PSO who sighted the 

animal(s) and PSO location and activity 

at the time of sighting; 

• Time of sighting; 

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

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentifiable), PSO 

confidence in identification, and the 

composition of the group if there is a 

mix of species; 

• Distance and bearing of each marine 

mammal observed relative to the pile 

being driven for each sightings (if pile 

driving was occurring at time of 

sighting); 

• Estimated number of animals (min/ 

max/best estimate); 

• Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, 

group composition, sex class, etc.); 

• Animal’s closest point of approach 

and estimated time spent within the 

harassment zone; 

• 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 

and shutdown zones; by species; 

• Detailed information about any 

implementation of any mitigation 

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

description of specific actions that 

ensured, and resulting changes in 

behavior of the animal(s), if any; and 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft final 

report will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

USCG must immediately cease the 

specified activities and report the 

incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR) 

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

NMFS and to the West Coast Regional 

Stranding Coordinator as soon as 

feasible. If the death or injury was 

clearly caused by the specified activity, 

USCG must immediately cease the 

specified activities until NMFS is able 

to review the circumstances of the 

incident and determine what, if any, 

additional measures are appropriate to 

ensure compliance with the terms of the 

IHA. The USCG must not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS. The 

report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

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, our analysis 

applies to all species listed in Table 2 

for which take could occur, given that 

NMFS expects the anticipated effects of 

the proposed pile driving/removal on 

different marine mammal stocks to be 

similar in nature. Where there are 

meaningful differences between species 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
66408 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 / Notices 

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, 

NMFS has identified species-specific 

factors to inform the analysis. 

Pile driving activities associated with 

the USCG construction project have the 

potential to disturb or displace marine 

mammals. Specifically, the project 

activities may result in take, in the form 

of Level A and Level B harassment, from 

underwater sounds generated from pile 

driving. Potential takes could occur if 

individuals are present in the ensonified 

zone when these activities are 

underway. 

No serious injury or mortality would 

be expected, even in the absence of 

required mitigation measures, given the 

nature of the activities. Further, limited 

take by Level A harassment is proposed 

for two species, but the potential for 

harassment would be minimized 

through the construction method and 

the implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures (see Proposed 

Mitigation section). 

Take by Level A harassment is 

proposed for harbor seals and harbor 

porpoise to account for the possibility 

that an animal could enter a Level A 

harassment zone prior to detection, and 

remain within that zone for a duration 

long enough to incur PTS before being 

observed and the USCG shutting down 

pile driving activity. Any take by Level 

A harassment is expected to arise from, 

at most, a small degree of PTS, i.e., 

minor degradation of hearing 

capabilities within regions of hearing 

that align most completely with the 

energy produced by impact pile driving 

(i.e., the low-frequency region below 2 

kHz), not severe hearing impairment or 

impairment within the ranges of greatest 

hearing sensitivity. Animals would need 

to be exposed to higher levels and/or 

longer duration than are expected to 

occur here in order to incur any more 

than a small degree of PTS. 

Further, the amount of authorized 

take by Level A harassment is very low 

for both marine mammal species. If 

hearing impairment occurs, it is most 

likely that the affected animal would 

lose only a few decibels in its hearing 

sensitivity. Due to the small degree 

anticipated, any PTS potential incurred 

would not be expected to affect the 

reproductive success or survival of any 

individuals, much less result in adverse 

impacts on the species or stock. 

Additionally, some subset of the 

individuals that are behaviorally 

harassed could also simultaneously 

incur some small degree of TTS for a 

short duration of time. However, since 

the hearing sensitivity of individuals 

that incur TTS is expected to recover 

completely within minutes to hours, it 

is unlikely that the brief hearing 

impairment would affect the 

individual’s long-term ability to forage 

and communicate with conspecifics, 

and would therefore not likely impact 

reproduction or survival of any 

individual marine mammal, let alone 

adversely affect rates of recruitment or 

survival of the species or stock. 

The Level A harassment zones 

identified in Table 5 are based upon an 

animal’s exposure to pile driving of up 

to three steel piles per day. Given the 

short duration to impact drive each pile 

and break between pile installations (to 

reset equipment and move piles into 

place), an animal would have to remain 

within the area estimated to be 

ensonified above the Level A 

harassment threshold for multiple 

hours. This is highly unlikely given 

marine mammal movement in the area. 

If an animal was exposed to 

accumulated sound energy, the resulting 

PTS would likely be small (e.g., PTS 

onset) at lower frequencies where pile 

driving energy is concentrated, and 

unlikely to result in impacts to 

individual fitness, reproduction, or 

survival. 

The nature of the pile driving project 

precludes the likelihood of serious 

injury or mortality. For all species and 

stocks, take would occur within a 

limited, confined area (adjacent to the 

project site) of the stock’s range. Level 

A and Level B harassment will be 

reduced to the level of least practicable 

adverse impact through use of 

mitigation measures described herein. 

Further, the amount of take proposed to 

be authorized is small when compared 

to stock abundance. 

Behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to pile driving in the 

Columbia River are expected to be mild, 

short term, and temporary. Marine 

mammals within the Level B 

harassment zones may not show any 

visual cues they are disturbed by 

activities or they could become alert, 

avoid the area, leave the area, or display 

other mild responses that are not 

observable, such as changes in 

vocalization patterns. Given that pile 

driving would occur for only a portion 

of the project’s duration, any 

harassment occurring would be 

temporary. Additionally, many of the 

species present in region would only be 

present temporarily based on seasonal 

patterns or during transit between other 

habitats. These temporarily present 

species would be exposed to even 

smaller periods of noise-generating 

activity, further decreasing the impacts. 

For all species, there are no known 

BIA near the project area that would be 

impacted by USCG’s planned activities. 

While California sea lions and harbor 

seals are the species most likely to occur 

within the immediate project area the 

nearest haul out for both species is 

approximately 3 miles (4.8 km) away. 

There are three known haul out sites for 

both species near the project area 

including Tongue Point Sands, Taylor 

Sands, and Green Island/Sanborn 

Slough, the closest being Tongue Point 

Sands 3 miles (4.8 km) from the project 

area. Additionally, there is a Steller sea 

lion haul out in the Columbia River; it 

is approximately 15 miles (24.1 km) 

away from the project site at the south 

jetty off the western shoreline of Fort 

Stevens State Park. None of these haul 

outs are in the immediate project 

vicinity. 

In addition, it is unlikely that minor 

noise effects in a small, localized area of 

habitat would have any effect on each 

stock’s continued survival. In 

combination, we believe that these 

factors, as well as the available body of 

evidence from other similar activities, 

demonstrate that the potential effects of 

the specified activities will have only 

minor, short-term effects on individuals. 

The specified activities are not expected 

to impact rates of recruitment or 

survival and will therefore not result in 

population-level impacts. 

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 proposed to be 

authorized; 

• Authorized Level A harassment 

would be very small amounts and of 

low degree; 

• For all species, the mouth of the 

Columbia River is a very small and 

peripheral part of their range; 

• The intensity of anticipated takes 

by Level B harassment is relatively low 

for all stocks. Level B harassment would 

be primarily in the form of behavioral 

disturbance, resulting in avoidance of 

the project areas around where impact 

or vibratory pile driving is occurring, 

with some low-level TTS that may limit 

the detection of acoustic cues for 

relatively brief amounts of time in 

relatively confined footprints of the 

activities; 

• Effects on species that serve as prey 

for marine mammals from the activities 

are expected to be short-term and, 

therefore, any associated impacts on 

marine mammal feeding are not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 / Notices 66409 

expected to result in significant or longterm consequences for individuals, or to 

accrue to adverse impacts on their 

populations; 

• The ensonified areas are very small 

relative to the overall habitat ranges of 

all species and stocks; 

• The lack of anticipated significant 

or long-term negative effects to marine 

mammal habitat; and 

• USCG would implement mitigation 

measures including soft starts and 

shutdown zones to minimize the 

numbers of marine mammals exposed to 

injurious levels of sound, and to ensure 

that take by Level A harassment is, at 

most, a small degree of PTS. 

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 activities 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. For all species, the proposed 

take is below one third of the 

population for all marine mammal 

stocks (Table 10). 

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 Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

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 USCG for conducting 

impact pile driving associated with the 

ETP project in Astoria, Oregon, 

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/ 

incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities. 

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 construction 

project. 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, 1 year renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical or nearly identical 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 1 year from 

expiration of the initial IHA). 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted under the requested 

renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take). 

(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 18, 2023. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20534 Filed 9–26–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD193] 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Geophysical Surveys 

Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the 

Gulf of Mexico 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1