Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 65953 

collection requirements and minimize 

the public’s reporting burden. Public 

comments were previously requested 

via the Federal Register on April 7, 

2023, during a 60-day comment period. 

This notice allows for an additional 30 

days for public comments. 

Agency: National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST), 

Commerce. 

Title: Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership (MEP) Client Impact 

Survey. 

OMB Control Number 0693–0021. 

Form Number(s): None. 

Type of Request: Extension of current 

information collection. 

Number of Respondents: 14,500. 

Average Hours per Response: 12 

minutes. 

Burden Hours: 2,900 hours. 

Needs and Uses: The objective of the 

NIST Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership Program (MEP) is to 

enhance productivity, technological 

performance, and strengthen the global 

competitiveness of small-and mediumsized U.S.-based manufacturing firms. 

Through this client impact survey, the 

MEP will collect data necessary for 

program accountability; analysis and 

research into the effectiveness of the 

MEP program; reports to stakeholders; 

GPRA; continuous improvement efforts; 

knowledge sharing across the MEP 

system; and identification of best 

practices. Collection of this data is 

needed in order to comply with the 

MEP charter, as mandated by Congress. 

Affected Public: Private Sector. 

Frequency: Annually. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

This information collection request 

may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. 

Follow the instructions to view the 

Department of Commerce collections 

currently under review by OMB. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be 

submitted within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice on the 

following website www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain. Find this 

particular information collection by 

selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day 

Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or 

by using the search function and 

entering either the title of the collection 

or the OMB Control Number 0693–0021. 

Sheleen Dumas, 

Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of 

the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, 

Commerce Department. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20933 Filed 9–25–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD278] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the 

Maintenance and Rehabilitation of the 

Bellingham Shipping Terminal 

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 Port of Bellingham for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to the maintenance and 

rehabilitation of the Bellingham 

Shipping Terminal in Bellingham, WA. 

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 26, 

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.cockrell@

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

these documents, please call the contact 

listed above. 

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: 

Craig Cockrell, 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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
65954 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 

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 May 5, 2023, NMFS received a 

request from the Port of Bellingham for 

an IHA to take marine mammals 

incidental to pile driving and removal. 

Following NMFS’ review of the 

application, the Port of Bellingham 

submitted a two revised versions on 

June 16, 2023 and August 28, 2023. The 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on September 6, 2023. The 

Port of Bellingham’s request is for take 

of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), 

California sea lions (Zalophus 

californianus), Steller sea lions 

(Eumetopias jubatus), and harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) by Level 

B harassment and, for harbor seals, 

Level A harassment. Neither the Port of 

Bellingham nor NMFS expect serious 

injury or mortality to result from this 

activity and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The Port of Bellingham would 

conduct construction activities to repair 

the wharf and pier structure of the 

Bellingham Shipping Terminal. The 

activity includes removal of existing 

piles and the installation of both 

temporary and permanent piles of 

various sizes. Takes of marine mammals 

by Level A and Level B harassment 

would occur due to both impact and 

vibratory pile driving and removal. The 

project would occur in Bellingham Bay 

in Northwest Washington within the 

city of Bellingham. The construction 

would occur for 87 non-consecutive 

days. 

The Bellingham Shipping Terminal is 

located on the western shore of 

Bellingham Bay and is a major port that 

connects the Burlington Northern Santa 

Fe railway and Interstate 5 to 

commercial ships. The terminal is 

bordered by Port and heavy industrial 

properties, berths and industry, and 

Bellingham Bay. This project would 

replace aging components of the 

terminal to current maritime safety 

standards to handle cargo demands, 

including up-to-standards for modern 

electrical infrastructure. 

Dates and Duration 

This IHA would be valid from one 

year of the date of issuance. It is 

expected to take up to 87 nonconsecutive days of in water work over 

a 4-month work window to complete 

the pile driving and removal activities. 

Pile driving would be completed 

intermittently throughout the daylight 

hours. All pile driving is expected to be 

completed during one phase of 

construction. 

Specific Geographic Region 

Bellingham bay is located in the 

northeast corner of the Salish Sea in 

northwest Washington. The bay is 

relatively shallow with the deepest 

depths around 30 meters (m) (100 feet 

(ft)). Bellingham bay is dominated by a 

sandy gravely bottom. The city of 

Bellingham adjacent to the bay is 

heavily industrialized. Floating log 

booms are located near the project site 

in an adjacent industrial pond (Farrer 

and Acevedo-Gutierrez 2010). Although 

the port is industrialized the mean 

ambient sound pressure levels Pile 

driving at the Bellingham Shipping 

Terminal would occur in waters less 

than 9 m (30 ft). 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 65955 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Detailed Description of the Specified 

Activity 

The Bellingham Shipping Terminal 

rehabilitation project includes the 

removal of 36 existing 24-inch (in) 

diameter (61 centimeter (cm)) steel 

piles, 15 existing 14-in to 16-in (36 cm 

to 41 cm) timber fender piles, and 2 

existing 18-in to 20-in (46 cm to 51 cm) 

timber piles. Fifty-six 24-in steel piles 

would be installed to support the main 

deck of the shipping terminal and in 

addition 14, 24-in steel piles would be 

installed behind the existing bulkhead. 

The existing fender piles would be 

replaced by 13 16-in steel H-piles. Two 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1EN26SE23.008</GPH>
65956 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 

18-in to 20-in timber piles would be 

installed on the south portion of the 

terminal. Vibratory and impact 

hammers would be used for the 

installation and removal of all piles 

(Table 1). Removal of piles would be 

conducted using a straight pull method 

or vibratory hammers. After new piles 

are set with a vibratory hammer, 

installed piles would be proofed with an 

impact hammer to verify the structural 

capacity of the pile embedment. The 

work would be completed at the 

existing Bellingham Shipping Terminal 

in Bellingham, Washington. Work on 

the terminal would be completed within 

1-year. 

TABLE 1—NUMBER AND TYPES OF PILES TO BE INSTALLED AND REMOVED

Pile diameter/type Number 

of piles 

Strikes 

per pile 

(impact) 

Vibratory 

duration 

per pile 

(mins) 

Piles 

per day 

Days of 

Activity 

Pile Installation 

24-in Steel Piles ................................................................... 56 1,725 90 1–2 67 

16-in Steel Piles H-Piles ...................................................... 13 150 30 6 3 

18 to 20-in Timber piles ....................................................... 2 800 N/A 2 2 

Pile Removal 

24-in Steel Piles ................................................................... 36 ........................ 30 6 10 

14 to 16-in Timber Fender Piles .......................................... 15 ........................ 15 8 3 

18 to 20-in Timber piles ....................................................... 2 ........................ 15 2 2 

Total .............................................................................. 124 ........................ ........................ ........................ 87 

Dredging work is expected to take 

place in berths one and two of the 

shipping terminal to ensure sufficient 

draft for ships to use the berths in a safe 

manner. The expected depth at each 

berth after dredging is 35 ft (11 m) 

during mean lower low water. The 

dredging work proposed is not expected 

to produce in water noise that would 

cause take by Level A or Level B 

harassment, and therefore is not 

considered further in this document. 

Above water construction would 

include replacement of the decking on 

the terminal, upgrading the utility 

systems to meet current standards, and 

addition of fill to the existing bulkhead 

of the terminal. This above-water work 

is not expected to result in any take. 

Noise generated above the water would 

not be transmitted into the water to the 

degree that resulting underwater noise 

would be expected to cause disturbance 

and, none of the pinniped haulouts are 

located close enough to the project area 

to cause disturbance, therefore airborne 

noise is not considered further in this 

document. 

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 4 and 5 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. 2022 SARs. All values 

presented in Table 2 are the most recent 

available at the time of publication 

(including from the final 2022 SARs) 

and are available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 65957 

TABLE 2—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES 1

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 2

Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, 

most recent abundance 

survey) 3

PBR Annual 

M/SI 4

Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

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

Order Carnivora—Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

California Sea Lion ......... Zalophus californianus ........... U.S ......................................... -,-; 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 ......................... Washington Northern Inland 

Waters.

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

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

(https://www.marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/; Committee on Taxonomy (2022)). 2ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be 

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

as depleted and as a strategic stock. 3 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of 

stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 4These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, vessel strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 

As indicated above, all four species 

(with four managed stocks) in Table 2 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur. All species 

that could potentially occur in the 

proposed project area are included in 

Table 1 of the IHA application. While 

killer whales (Orcincus orca), 

humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangilae), gray whales 

(Eschrichtius robustus), and minke 

whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrada) 

have been sighted in the area, the 

temporal and/or spatial occurrence of 

these species is such that take is not 

expected to occur, and they are not 

discussed further beyond the 

explanation provided here. The 

applicant and NMFS expect the 

occurrence of these species is infrequent 

for Bellingham Bay based on sightings 

data from Orca Network (2021). 

Furthermore, if these species are sighted 

approaching the Level B harassment 

zone construction activities would be 

shut down in order to avoid harassment. 

Therefore, take is not expected for killer 

whales, humpback whales, gray whales, 

or minke whales and are not discussed 

further in this document. 

Harbor Porpoise 

In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, 

harbor porpoise are found in coastal and 

inland waters from Point Barrow, along 

the Alaskan coast, and down the west 

coast of North America to Point 

Conception, California (Gaskin 1984). 

Harbor porpoise are known to occur 

year-round in the inland trans-boundary 

waters of Washington and British 

Columbia, Canada (Osborne et al.,1988), 

and along the Oregon/Washington coast 

(Barlow 1988; Barlow et al.; 1988, Green 

et al. 1992). There was a significant 

decline in harbor porpoise sightings 

within southern Puget Sound between 

the 1940s and 1990s but sightings have 

increased seasonally in the last 10 years 

(Carretta et al., 2019). 

Annual winter aerial surveys 

conducted by the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife from 

1995 to 2015 revealed an increasing 

trend in harbor porpoise in Washington 

inland waters, including the return of 

harbor porpoise to Puget Sound. The 

data suggest that harbor porpoise were 

already present in Juan de Fuca, Georgia 

Straits, and the San Juan Islands from 

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

expanded into Puget Sound and Hood 

Canal from the mid-2000s to 2015, areas 

they had used historically but 

abandoned. Changes in fishery-related 

entanglement was suspected as the 

cause of their previous decline and 

more recent recovery, including a return 

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

Seasonal surveys conducted in spring, 

summer, and fall 2013–2015 in Puget 

Sound and Hood Canal documented 

substantial numbers of harbor porpoise. 

Observed porpoise numbers were twice 

as high in spring as in fall or summer, 

indicating a seasonal shift in 

distribution of harbor porpoise 

(Smultea, 2015). The reasons for the 

seasonal shift and for the increase in 

sightings is unknown. 

Monitors during a 2017 U.S. Navy 

construction project at the Coast Guard 

Air Station in Port Angeles, Washington 

(roughly 60 mi (97 km)) observed a total 

of six individual harbor porpoises 

within the Level B harassment zone 

during the project. No take observations 

of harbor porpoises within the Level A 

harassment zone occurred during the 

project. 

California Sea Lions 

The California sea lion is the most 

frequently sighted pinniped found in 

Washington waters and uses haul-out 

sites along the outer coast, Strait of Juan 

de Fuca, and in Puget Sound. Haul-out 

sites are located on jetties, offshore 

rocks and islands, log booms, marina 

docks, and navigation buoys. Only male 

California sea lions migrate into Pacific 

Northwest waters, with females 

remaining in waters near their breeding 

rookeries off the coast of California and 

Mexico. The California sea lion was 

considered rare in Washington waters 

prior to the 1950s. More recently, peak 

numbers of 3,000 to 5,000 animals move 

into the Salish Sea during the fall and 

remain until late spring, when most 

return to breeding rookeries in 

California and Mexico. There are no 

known haulouts in Bellingham Bay 

(Jeffries et al., 2000). Infrequent 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
65958 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 

sightings of California sea lions by port 

staff have occurred in the fall and 

winter when prey is available in 

Bellingham Bay. 

California sea lions feed primarily in 

coastal waters. They are opportunistic 

predators and eat a variety of prey 

including squid, anchovies, mackerel, 

rockfish and sardines (NMFS, 2019). 

California sea lion breeding areas are 

mostly in southern California and are 

not expected to spatially overlap with 

the project area. One California sea lion 

per day was seen in the vicinity of this 

project site by port staff. 

Steller Sea Lions 

Steller sea lions range along the North 

Pacific Rim from northern Japan to 

California (Loughlin et al.,1984). There 

are two separate stocks of Steller sea 

lions, the eastern U.S. stock, which 

occurs east of Cape Suckling, Alaska 

(long. 144° W), and the western U.S. 

stock, which occurs west of that point. 

Only the western stock of Steller sea 

lions, which is designated as the 

western distinct population segment 

(DPS) of Steller sea lions, is listed as 

endangered under the ESA (78 FR 

66139; November 4, 2013). Unlike the 

western U.S. stock of Steller sea lions, 

there has been a sustained and robust 

increase in abundance of the eastern 

U.S. stock throughout its breeding 

range. The eastern stock of Steller sea 

lions has historically bred on rookeries 

located in Southeast Alaska, British 

Columbia, Oregon, and California. 

However, within the last several years a 

new rookery has become established on 

the outer Washington coast (at the 

Carroll Island and Sea Lion Rock 

complex), with more than 100 pups 

born there in 2015 (Muto et al., 2020). 

Steller sea lions use haul-out 

locations in Puget Sound, and may 

occur at the same haul-outs as California 

sea lions. Similar to California sea lions, 

there are no known Steller sea lion 

haulouts in Bellingham Bay. Sighting of 

Steller sea lions are infrequent by port 

staff in the fall and winter when prey is 

available in Bellingham Bay. One Steller 

sea lion per day was seen in the vicinity 

of this project site by port staff. 

Steller sea lions are opportunistic 

predators, feeding primarily on a wide 

variety of fishes and cephalopods, 

including Pacific herring (Clupea 

pallasi), walleye pollock (Gadus 

chalogramma), capelin (Mallotus 

villosus), Pacific sand lance 

(Ammodytes exapterus), Pacific cod 

(Gadus machrocephalus), salmon 

(Oncorhynchus spp.), and squid 

(Teuthida spp.) (Jefferson et al., 2008; 

Wynne et al., 2011). 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and 

estuarine waters off Baja California, 

north along the western coasts of the 

continental U.S., British Columbia, and 

Southeast Alaska, west through the Gulf 

of Alaska and Aleutian Islands, and in 

the Bering Sea north to Cape Newenham 

and the Pribilof Islands (Carretta et al., 

2014). They haul out on rocks, reefs, 

beaches, and drifting glacial ice and 

feed in marine, estuarine, and 

occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals 

generally are non-migratory, with local 

movements associated with such factors 

as tides, weather, season, food 

availability, and reproduction (Scheffer 

and Slipp 1944; Fisher, 1952; Bigg 1969, 

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

five stocks of harbor seals are 

recognized: (1) Southern Puget Sound 

(south of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge); 

(2) Washington Northern Inland Waters 

(including Puget Sound north of the 

Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the San Juan 

Islands, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca); 

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

Coast; and (5) California. Harbor seals in 

the project areas would be from the 

Washington Northern Inland Waters 

stock. 

Harbor seals are the only pinniped 

species that occurs year-round and 

breeds in Washington waters. Pupping 

seasons vary by geographic region, with 

pups born in coastal estuaries 

(Columbia River, Willapa Bay, and 

Grays Harbor) from mid-April through 

June; Olympic Peninsula coast from 

May through July; San Juan Islands and 

eastern bays of Puget Sound from June 

through August; southern Puget Sound 

from mid-July through September; and 

Hood Canal from August through 

January (Jeffries et al., 2000). Recent line 

transect surveys have estimated the 

harbor seal stock size at 7,513 

individuals for Washington Northern 

Inland Waters stock (Jefferson et al., 

2021). Pupping by harbor seals on 

haulouts located in Bellingham Bay has 

not been observed. 

There are three document haulouts in 

Bellingham Bay that range from 0.10 

mile (mi) (0.16 kilometer (km)) to 1.75 

mi (2.82 km) from the project area. 

Counts of harbor seals at the closest 

haulout (log pond and pier) to this 

project area were completed by Western 

Washington University students from 

2017 to 2021. During that period an 

average of 7.7 seals per day were on the 

haulout during the month of August. 

August was the month with the highest 

average daily count of harbor seals 

compared to the rest of the year. 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 65959 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS—Continued 

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

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. 

Description of Sounds Sources 

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 to 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 impact pile driving, vibratory 

pile driving, and vibratory pile removal. 

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 

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

NMFS, 2018). 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, 

2018). 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 and 

Southall, et al. 2007). 

Two types of pile hammers would be 

used on this project: impact and 

vibratory. 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). Vibratory hammers install piles 

by vibrating them and allowing the 

weight of the hammer to push them into 

the sediment. Vibratory hammers 

produce significantly less sound than 

impact hammers. 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 the 

Port of Bellingham’s proposed activity 

on marine mammals could involve both 

non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. 

Potential non-acoustic stressors include 

the physical presence of the equipment 

and personnel; however, any impacts to 

marine mammals are expected to 

primarily be acoustic in nature. 

Auditory Effects 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile driving and removal is the primary 

means by which marine mammals may 

be harassed from the Port of 

Bellingham’s specified activity. In 

general, animals exposed to natural or 

anthropogenic sound may experience 

physical and behavioral effects, ranging 

in magnitude from none to severe 

(Southall et al., 2007 and Southall et al. 

2021). 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
65960 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 

non-observable physiological responses 

such an increase in stress hormones. 

Additional noise in a marine mammal’s 

habitat can mask acoustic cues used by 

marine mammals to carry out daily 

functions such as communication and 

predator and prey detection. The effects 

of pile driving noise on marine 

mammals are dependent on several 

factors, including, but not limited to, 

sound type (e.g., impulsive vs. 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 

threshold shift is customarily expressed 

in dB. A TS can be permanent or 

temporary. As described in NMFS 

(2018), there are numerous factors to 

consider when examining the 

consequence of TS, including, but not 

limited to, the signal temporal pattern 

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

likelihood an individual would be 

exposed for a long enough duration or 

to a high enough level to induce a TS, 

the magnitude of the TS, time to 

recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to 

days), the frequency range of the 

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

hearing and vocalization frequency 

range of the exposed species relative to 

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

how animal uses sound within the 

frequency band of the signal; e.g., 

Kastelein et al., 2014), and the 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 (Ward et al., 

1958, 1959; Ward, 1960; Kryter et al., 

1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; 

Henderson et al., 2008). PTS levels for 

marine mammals are estimates, as with 

the exception of a single study 

unintentionally inducing PTS in a 

harbor seal (Kastak et al., 2008), there 

are no empirical data measuring PTS in 

marine mammals largely due to the fact 

that, for various ethical reasons, 

experiments involving anthropogenic 

noise exposure at levels inducing PTS 

are not typically pursued or authorized 

(NMFS, 2018). 

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)—A 

temporary, reversible increase in the 

threshold of audibility at a specified 

frequency or portion of an individual’s 

hearing range above a previously 

established reference level (NMFS, 

2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS 

measurements (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 higher SELcum, the growth 

curves become steeper and approach 

linear relationships with the noise SEL. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. We 

note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 

a simple function of aging has been 

observed in marine mammals, as well as 

humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 

2007), so we can infer that strategies 

exist for coping with this condition to 

some degree, though likely not without 

cost. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas), harbor 

porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise 

(Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) and five 

species of pinnipeds exposed to a 

limited number of sound sources (i.e., 

mostly tones and octave-band noise) in 

laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). 

TTS was not observed in trained spotted 

(Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa 

hispida) seals exposed to impulsive 

noise at levels matching previous 

predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et 

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

harbor porpoises have a lower TTS 

onset than other measured pinniped or 

cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). 

Additionally, the existing marine 

mammal TTS data come from a limited 

number of individuals within these 

species. No data are available on noiseinduced hearing loss for mysticetes. For 

summaries of data on TTS in marine 

mammals or for further discussion of 

TTS onset thresholds, please see 

Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and 

Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and 

Table 5 in NMFS (2018). 

Installing piles requires a combination 

of impact pile driving and vibratory pile 

driving. For the project, these activities 

would not occur at the same time and 

there would likely be pauses in 

activities producing the sound during 

each day. Given these pauses and that 

many marine mammals are likely 

moving through the action area and not 

remaining for extended periods of time, 

the potential for TS declines. 

Behavioral Effects 

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, 

Southall et al., 2021). 

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); avoidance of 

areas where sound sources are located. 

Pinnipeds may increase their haul out 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 65961 

time, possibly to avoid in-water 

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, 2021; 

Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). 

Behavioral reactions can vary not only 

among individuals but also within 

exposures of an individual, depending 

on previous experience with a sound 

source, context, and numerous other 

factors (Ellison et al., 2012, Southall et 

al., 2021), 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. 

For a review of studies involving marine 

mammal behavioral responses to sound, 

see Southall et al., 2007; Gomez et al., 

2016; and Southall et al., 2021 reviews. 

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. 

The area likely impacted by the 

project is relatively small compared to 

the available habitat in the surrounding 

waters of the Salish Sea. 

In 2017, the U.S. Navy documented 

observations of marine mammals during 

construction activities (i.e., pile driving) 

at the U.S. Coast Guard Air Station 

Sector Field Office, Port Angeles, 

Washington (81 FR 67985, October 3, 

2016). This project was roughly 60 mi 

from the proposed project cite and 

features that are very similar (i.e. a 

shallow bay of the Salish Sea). In the 

marine mammal monitoring report for 

that project (Northwest Environmental 

Consulting, 2018), 261 harbor seals were 

observed within the behavioral 

disturbance zone during pile driving or 

drilling (i.e., documented as Level B 

harassment take). Twelve California sea 

lions and 2 Steller sea lions were 

observed within the disturbance zone 

during pile driving activities. Six harbor 

porpoise were sighted in the Level B 

harassment zone during construction. 

No visible signs of disturbance were 

noted for any of these species that were 

present in the harassment zones. Given 

the similarities in activities and habitat 

and the fact the same species are 

involved, we expect similar behavioral 

responses of marine mammals to the 

specified activity. That is, disturbance, 

if any, is likely to be temporary and 

localized (e.g., small area movements). 

Monitoring reports from other recent 

pile driving projects have observed 

similar behaviors. 

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. Bellingham Bay is home to a 

busy industrial ports as well as large 

numbers small private vessels that 

transit the area on a regular basis; 

therefore, background sound levels in 

the bay are already elevated. 

Airborne Acoustic Effects—Pinnipeds 

that occur near the project site could be 

exposed to airborne sounds associated 

with pile driving and removal that have 

the potential to cause behavioral 

harassment, depending on their distance 

from pile driving activities. Cetaceans 

are not expected to be exposed to 

airborne sounds that would result in 

harassment as defined under the 

MMPA. 

Airborne noise would primarily be an 

issue for pinnipeds that are swimming 

or hauled out near the project site 

within the range of noise levels 

exceeding the acoustic thresholds. We 

recognize that pinnipeds in the water 

could be exposed to airborne sound that 

may result in behavioral harassment 

when looking with their heads above 

water. Most likely, airborne sound 

would cause behavioral responses 

similar to those discussed above in 

relation to underwater sound. For 

instance, anthropogenic sound could 

cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit 

changes in their normal behavior, such 

as reduction in vocalizations, or cause 

them to temporarily abandon the area 

and move further from the source. 

However, these animals would 

previously have been ‘‘taken’’ because 

of exposure to underwater sound above 

the behavioral harassment thresholds, 

which are in all cases larger than those 

associated with airborne sound. Thus, 

the behavioral harassment of these 

animals is already accounted for in 

these estimates of potential take. 

Therefore, we do not believe that 

authorization of incidental take 

resulting from airborne sound for 

pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne 

sound is not discussed further here. 

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects 

The Port of Bellingham’s construction 

activities could have localized, 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat by increasing in-water sound 

pressure levels and slightly decreasing 

water quality. Construction activities are 

of short duration and would likely have 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat through increases in underwater 

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 pile driving, elevated levels of 

underwater noise would ensonifi 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
65962 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 

Bellingham Bay where both fish and 

mammals may occur and could affect 

foraging success. 

In-water pile driving and pile removal 

would also cause short-term effects on 

water quality due to increased turbidity. 

Local currents are anticipated to 

disburse suspended sediments 

produced by project activities at 

moderate to rapid rates depending on 

tidal stage. The Port of Bellingham 

would employ standard construction 

best management practices (except for 

reduced Level A shutdown zones), 

thereby reducing any impacts. 

Considering the nature and duration of 

the effects, combined with the measures 

to reduce turbidity, the impact from 

increased turbidity levels is expected to 

be discountable. 

Pile installation and removal may 

temporarily increase turbidity resulting 

from suspended sediments. Any 

increases would be temporary, 

localized, and minimal. The Port of 

Bellingham must comply with state 

water quality standards during these 

operations by limiting the extent of 

turbidity to the immediate project area. 

In general, turbidity associated with pile 

installation is localized to about a 25-ft 

radius around the pile (Everitt et al., 

1980). Cetaceans are not expected to 

enter the harbor and be close enough to 

the project pile driving areas to 

experience effects of turbidity, and any 

pinnipeds would likely be transiting the 

area and could avoid localized areas of 

turbidity. Therefore, the impact from 

increased turbidity levels is expected to 

be discountable to marine mammals. 

Furthermore, pile driving and removal 

at the project site would not obstruct 

movements or migration of marine 

mammals. 

Effects on Prey 

Construction activities would produce 

continuous (i.e., vibratory pile driving) 

and impulsive (i.e. impact driving) 

sounds. Fish react to sounds that are 

especially strong and/or intermittent 

low-frequency sounds. Short duration, 

sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle 

changes in fish behavior and local 

distribution. 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). Sound pulses at 

received levels may cause noticeable 

changes in behavior (Pearson et al., 

1992; Skalski et al., 1992). SPLs of 

sufficient strength have been known to 

cause injury to fish and fish mortality. 

Impacts on marine mammal prey (i.e., 

fish or invertebrates) of the immediate 

area due to the acoustic disturbance are 

possible. The duration of fish or 

invertebrate avoidance or other 

disruption of behavioral patterns in this 

area after pile driving stops is unknown, 

but a rapid return to normal 

recruitment, distribution and behavior 

is anticipated. Further, significantly 

large areas of fish and marine mammal 

foraging habitat are available in the 

nearby vicinity in the Salish Sea. 

The duration of the construction 

activities is relatively short, with pile 

driving and removal activities expected 

to take only 87 days. Each day, 

construction would occur for no more 

than 12 hours during the day and pile 

driving activities would be restricted to 

daylight hours. The most likely impact 

to fish from pile driving activities at the 

project area would be temporary 

behavioral avoidance of the area. In 

general, impacts to marine mammal 

prey species are expected to be minor 

and temporary due to the short 

timeframe for the project. 

Construction activities, in the form of 

increased turbidity, have the potential 

to adversely affect fish in the project 

area. Increased turbidity is expected to 

occur in the immediate vicinity (on the 

order of 10 ft (3 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 fish are expected to 

be minor or negligible. In addition, best 

management practices would be in 

effect, which would limit the extent of 

turbidity to the immediate project area. 

In summary, given the relatively short 

daily duration of sound associated with 

individual pile driving and 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. 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 

construction (i.e., 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, primarily for 

phocids. Auditory injury is unlikely to 

occur for other authorized species. 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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 65963 

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 microPascal mPa)) for 

continuous (e.g., vibratory pile driving) 

and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 mPa for 

non-explosive impulsive (e.g., impact 

pile driving) or intermittent (e.g., 

scientific sonar) sources. Generally 

speaking, Level B harassment take 

estimates based on these behavioral 

harassment thresholds are expected to 

include any likely takes by TTS as, in 

most cases, the likelihood of TTS occurs 

at distances from the source less than 

those at which behavioral harassment is 

likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can 

manifest as behavioral harassment, as 

reduced hearing sensitivity and the 

potential reduced opportunities to 

detect important signals (conspecific 

communication, predators, prey) may 

result in changes in behavior patterns 

that would not otherwise occur. 

The Port of Bellingham’s proposed 

activity includes the use of continuous 

(vibratory driving and removal) and 

impulsive (impact pile driving), and 

therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 

and 160 dB re 1 mPa are applicable. 

Originally the applicant had 

recommended a RMS SPL thresholds of 

130 1 mPa to predict take by Level B 

harassment, based on ambient sound 

measurements in Bassett et al. (2010). 

After further review of measurements in 

the area, the mean underwater noise 

levels was 117 re 1 mPa and, therefore, 

NMFS determined the 120 RMS SPL 

threshold was more appropriate for 

calculating the level B harassment zone. 

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). The Port of Bellingham’s 

proposed activity includes the use of 

(impact pile driving) and non-impulsive 

(vibratory pile driving and removal) 

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 LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ........................ Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

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

also be considered. 

Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 

In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure 

is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being 

included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated 

with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF 

cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for 

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

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that are used in estimating the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, including source levels and 

transmission loss coefficient. 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

proposed project. Marine mammals are 

expected to be affected via sound 

generated by the primary components of 

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

vibratory pile driving and removal). The 

maximum (underwater) area ensonified 

above the thresholds for behavioral 

harassment referenced above is 11.66 

km2 (7.25 mi2), and would consist of the 

majority of Bellingham Bay (see Figure 

10 in the IHA application). 

Additionally, vessel traffic and other 

commercial and industrial activities in 

the project area may contribute to 

elevated background noise levels which 

may mask sounds produced by the 

project. 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
65964 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2), 

Where: 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement 

This formula neglects loss due to 

scattering and absorption, which is 

assumed to be zero here. The degree to 

which underwater sound propagates 

away from a sound source is dependent 

on a variety of factors, most notably the 

water bathymetry and presence or 

absence of reflective or absorptive 

conditions including in-water structures 

and sediments. Spherical spreading 

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

or water surface, resulting in a 6-dB 

reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance from the source (20 

* log[range]). Cylindrical spreading 

occurs in an environment in which 

sound propagation is bounded by the 

water surface and sea bottom, resulting 

in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for 

each doubling of distance from the 

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

spreading value of 15 is often used 

under conditions, such as the project 

site, where water increases with depth 

as the receiver moves away from the 

shoreline, resulting in an expected 

propagation environment that would lie 

between spherical and cylindrical 

spreading loss conditions. Practical 

spreading loss is assumed here. 

The intensity of pile driving sounds is 

greatly influenced by factors such as the 

type of piles, hammers, and the physical 

environment in which the activity takes 

place. In order to calculate the distances 

to the Level A harassment and the Level 

B harassment sound thresholds for the 

methods and piles being used in this 

project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring 

data from other locations to develop 

proxy source levels for the various pile 

types, sizes and methods. The project 

includes vibratory and impact pile 

installation of steel and timber piles and 

vibratory removal of steel and timber 

piles. Pile sizes range from 14-in to 24- 

in, and the applicant has decided to 

implement mitigation and monitoring 

measures and take estimates associated 

with 24-in. piles for all pile types and 

sizes. Source levels for the 24-in. pile 

size and driving methods are presented 

in Table 5. The source levels for 

vibratory and impact installation of 24- 

in. steel piles are based on the averaged 

source level of the same type of pile 

reported by California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans) in pile driving 

source level compendium documents 

(Caltrans, 2015, 2020). 

TABLE 5—PROXY SOUND SOURCE LEVELS FOR PILE SIZES AND DRIVING METHODS

Pile size Method 

Proxy source level 

Literature 

dB RMS source 

re 1μPa 

dB SEL re 

1μPa 2sec 

dB peak re 

1μPa 

24 in ................................................. Vibratory .......................................... 166 N/A N/A Caltrans 2020. 

24 in ................................................. Impact ............................................. 190 174 203 Caltrans 2015. 

The ensonified area associated with 

Level A harassment is more technically 

challenging to predict due to the need 

to account for a duration component. 

Therefore, NMFS developed an optional 

User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 

Technical Guidance that can be used to 

relatively simply predict an isopleth 

distance for use in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to help predict potential takes. We note 

that because of some of the assumptions 

included in the methods underlying this 

optional tool, we anticipate that the 

resulting isopleth estimates are typically 

going to be overestimates of some 

degree, which may result in an 

overestimate of potential take by Level 

A harassment. However, this optional 

tool offers the best way to estimate 

isopleth distances when more 

sophisticated modeling methods are not 

available or practical. For stationary 

sources such as impact or vibratory pile 

driving and removal, the optional User 

Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at 

which, if a marine mammal remained at 

that distance for the duration of the 

activity, it would be expected to incur 

PTS. Inputs used in the optional User 

Spreadsheet tool, and the resulting 

estimated isopleths, are reported below. 

Although many different pile types 

and sizes are proposed to be used 

during the construction project, the Port 

of Bellingham is implementing 

mitigation and reporting measures and 

take estimates for the 24-in. steel pipe 

piles. Use of this pile size results in the 

largest Level A and Level B harassment 

zones and most conservative mitigation 

measures. Therefore the only 

calculations the applicant ran were 

using the 24-in. piles. The applicant 

also plans to limit the number of impact 

strikes per day for all piles to 1,725 and 

the vibratory install of all piles to 90 

minutes per day and the vibratory 

removal of all piles to 30 minutes per 

day. 

TABLE 6—USER SPREADSHEET INPUT PARAMETERS USED FOR CALCULATING LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS

Pile size and installation method Spreadsheet tab used 

Weighting 

factor 

adjustment 

(kHz) 

Number 

of strikes 

per pile 

Number 

of piles 

per day 

Activity 

duration 

(minutes) 

24-in vibratory installation ................. A.1 Vibratory pile driving .................. 2.5 N/A 1 90 

24-in vibratory removal ..................... A.1 Vibratory pile driving .................. 2.5 N/A 1 30 

24-in impact installation .................... E.1 Impact pile driving ..................... 2 1,725 1 N/A 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 65965 

TABLE 7—CALCULATED LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS

Activity 

Level A harassment zone 

(m) Level B 

harassment zone 

(m) HF-cetaceans Phocids Otariids 

24-in vibratory installation ........................................................ 29 12 1 11,659 

24-in vibratory removal (temporary) ........................................ 14 6 1 

24-in impact installation (1 pile per day; 1,725 strikes per 

pile) ....................................................................................... 430 193 14 25 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide information 

about the occurrence of marine 

mammals, including density or other 

relevant information which will inform 

the take calculations. 

When available, peer-reviewed 

scientific publications were used to 

estimate marine mammal abundance in 

the project area. Some data from 

monitoring reports from previous 

projects near Bellingham Bay were used. 

However, scientific surveys and 

resulting data, such as population 

estimates, densities, and other 

quantitative information, are lacking for 

some marine mammal populations. 

Therefore, the applicant gathered 

qualitative information from discussions 

with knowledgeable local people in the 

Bellingham Bay area. 

Here we 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. Since reliable 

densities are not available, the applicant 

requests take based on the maximum 

number of animals that may occur in the 

harbor in a specified measure of time 

multiplied by the total duration of the 

activity. 

Harbor Porpoise 

The applicant did not initially request 

take of harbor porpoise for this project. 

Harbor porpoises are known to be an 

inconspicuous species and are 

challenging for protected species 

observers (PSOs) to sight, making any 

approach to a specific area potentially 

difficult to detect. Because harbor 

porpoises move quickly and elusively, it 

is possible that they may enter the Level 

B harassment zone during vibratory pile 

driving and removal. NMFS reviewed 

monitoring data from the 2017 U.S. 

Navy construction project at the Coast 

Guard Air Station in Port Angeles, 

Washington in order to determine a take 

estimate for harbor porpoise. 

During that project the Level B 

harassment zone was 13.6 km (8.6 mi) 

which could only partially be observed 

by monitors during the project. 

Therefore, take estimates were 

extrapolated from the observations to 

account for unobserved area where take 

may have occurred. It was assumed that 

87 takes by Level B harassment may 

have occurred in the unobserved area, 

for a total of 93 takes during the project. 

Given 93 total takes it was expected that 

3 harbor porpoise were taken per day 

during the construction project 

(Northwest Environmental Consulting, 

2018). Thus, NMFS recommended 3 

animals per day for a total of 261 takes 

by Level B harassment. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

results from impact driving of 24-in 

piles, and extends 430 m from the 

source for high frequency cetaceans 

(Table 7). The Port of Bellingham would 

implement a shutdown zone for harbor 

porpoises that encompasses the largest 

Level A harassment zone (see Proposed 

Mitigation section). Although harbor 

porpoises can be challenging to observe, 

given the relatively confined and 

observable ensonified area combined 

with the fact that harbor porpoises are 

generally considered more likely than 

some other species to avoid louder areas 

of higher activity, takes by Level A 

harassment has not been proposed to be 

authorized. 

California Sea Lion 

California sea lions are infrequent 

visitors to Bellingham Bay. It is 

expected that the occasional presence of 

California sea lions would occur during 

the fall and winter following forage (fish 

runs) into the bay. Based on anecdotal 

evidence from port staff sightings, the 

applicants estimated that one California 

sea lion per day may enter the Level B 

harassment zone during vibratory pile 

driving and removal. The total number 

of takes by Level B harassment would be 

87 California sea lions. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for otariid pinnipeds extends 14 m from 

the source (Table 7). The Port of 

Bellingham is planning to implement 

larger shutdown zones than the Level A 

harassment zones during all pile 

installation and removal activities (see 

Proposed Mitigation section), which is 

expected to eliminate the potential for 

take by Level A harassment of California 

sea lions. Therefore, no takes of 

California sea lions by Level A 

harassment were requested or are 

proposed to be authorized. 

Steller Sea Lions 

Steller sea lions from the eastern DPS, 

are also rare visitors to Bellingham Bay 

that typically occur during the fall and 

winter following prey into the bay. 

Based on anecdotal evidence from port 

staff sightings, the applicants estimated 

that one Steller sea lion per day may 

enter the Level B harassment zone 

during vibratory pile driving and 

removal. The total number of takes by 

Level B harassment would be 87 Steller 

sea lions. 

Similar to California sea lions, the 

largest Level A harassment zone for 

otariid pinnipeds extends 14 m from the 

source (Table 7). The Port of Bellingham 

is planning to implement larger 

shutdown zones than the Level A 

harassment zones during all pile 

installation and removal activities (see 

Proposed Mitigation section), which is 

expected to eliminate the potential for 

take by Level A harassment of Steller 

sea lions. Therefore, no takes of Steller 

sea lions by Level A harassment were 

requested or are proposed to be 

authorized. 

Harbor Seal 

The applicant originally estimated 

that up to 15 harbor seals per day could 

be taken by Level A harassment during 

impact driving and 20 harbor seals per 

day could be taken by Level B 

harassment during vibratory pile driving 

and removal. The applicant expected to 

take 275 harbor seals by Level A 

harassment and 2,000 seals by Level B 

harassment. 

After further analysis of the survey 

data provided by the applicant the 

NMFS recommended a daily rate of 7.7 

harbor seals per day in the project area 

per haulout. The Level B harassment 

zone encompasses three haulouts and it 

is expected that roughly the same 

amount of seals haulout at each location 

per day. It is expected that up to 23 

harbor seals per day could be present in 

the Level B harassment zone during 

vibratory pile driving and removal. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
65966 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 

Therefore, NMFS expects that 2,029 

harbor seal takes by Level B harassment 

over the course of constructions. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for phocid pinnipeds extends 193 m 

from the source (Table 7). The Port of 

Bellingham expressed concern with the 

ability to complete work in an efficient 

manner with the common occurence of 

harbor seals in the project area. The 

applicant and NMFS agreed on the 

implementation of a 50 m shutdown 

zone in order to shutdown for those 

animals closest to the pile driving 

activity but allow for pile driving to 

continue for animals that may beyond 

50 m (see Proposed Mitigation section). 

It is expected that 7.7 harbor seals per 

day may be subject to Level A 

harassment during 17 days of impact 

pile driving for a total of 264 takes by 

Level A harassment. 

TABLE 8—ESTIMATED TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES AND STOCK

Common name Stock Stock 

abundance a Level A Level B Total proposed take 

Proposed take 

as percentage 

of stock 

Harbor porpoise .................. Washington Inland Waters 11,233 0 261 261 2.3 

Steller sea lion .................... Eastern U.S ........................ 43,201 0 87 87 .2 

California sea lion ............... U.S ..................................... 257,606 0 87 87 <0.1 

Harbor seal ......................... Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage.

b 7,513 264 2,029 3,050 30.5 

aStock or DPS size is Nbest according to NMFS 2022 Final Stock Assessment Reports. 

bStock abundance estimate derived from Jefferson et al. 2021. 

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. NMFS 

regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, NMFS considers two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations. 

The following measures would apply 

to the Port of Bellingham’s mitigation 

requirements: 

Implementation of Shutdown Zones 

for Level A Harassment—For all pile 

driving/removal activities, the Port of 

Bellingham would implement 

shutdowns within designated zones. 

The purpose of a shutdown zone is 

generally to define an area within which 

shutdown of activity would occur upon 

sighting of a marine mammal (or in 

anticipation of an animal entering the 

defined area). Implementation of 

shutdowns would be used to avoid or 

minimize incidental Level A harassment 

exposures from vibratory and impact 

pile driving for all four species for 

which take may occur (see Table 8). 

Shutdown zones for impact and 

vibratory pile driving activities are 

based on the Level A harassment zones 

for the 24-in steel piles, strikes (impact) 

or duration (vibratory) per day, and 

marine mammal hearing group (Table 

9). The shutdown zone for harbor seals 

during impact pile driving is less that 

the Level A harassment zone in order to 

facilitate efficient work operations 

during the project. The placement of 

PSOs during all pile driving activities 

(described in detail in the Monitoring 

and Reporting Section) would ensure 

the full extent of shutdown zones are 

visible to PSOs. 

TABLE 9—SHUTDOWN ZONES DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL

Activity 

Shutdown zones 

(m) 

HF cetaceans Phocids Otariids 

Vibratory installation (90 minutes) ............................................................................. 30 20 10 

Vibratory removal (30 minutes) ................................................................................. 20 10 10 

Impact installation (1,725 strikes) .............................................................................. 430 50 20 

Establishment of Monitoring Zones— 

The Port of Bellingham has identified 

monitoring zones that would be in effect 

for all pile driving activities. Vibratory 

installation and removal is expected to 

occur on all day of construction and the 

zone for 24-in steel piles would be 

implemented at all times (Table 10) 

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 area outside the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 65967 

shutdown zone and thus prepare for a 

potential cease of activity should the 

animal enter the shutdown zone. PSOs 

would monitor the entire visible area to 

maintain the best sense of where 

animals are moving relative to the zone 

boundaries defined in Tables 9 and 10. 

Placement of PSOs on the Port of 

Bellingham facility or in a small boat in 

the Bellingham Bay would allow PSOs 

to observe marine mammals within and 

near the bay. 

TABLE 10—MARINE MAMMAL

MONITORING ZONE

Activity 

Monitoring 

zone 

(m) 

24-in vibratory installation 

and removal ...................... 11,660 

Soft Start—The use of soft-start 

procedures are believed to provide 

additional protection to marine 

mammals by providing warning and/or 

giving marine mammals a chance to 

leave the area prior to the hammer 

operating at full capacity. For impact 

pile driving, contractors would be 

required to provide an initial set of 

strikes from the hammer at reduced 

energy, with each strike followed by a 

30-second waiting period. This 

procedure would be conducted a total of 

three times before impact pile driving 

begins. Soft start would be implemented 

at the start of each day’s impact pile 

driving and at any time following 

cessation of impact pile driving for a 

period of 30 minutes or longer. Soft start 

is not required during vibratory pile 

driving and removal activities. 

Pre-Activity Monitoring—Prior to the 

start of daily in-water construction 

activity, or whenever a break in pile 

driving/removal of 30 minutes or longer 

occurs, PSOs would observe the 

shutdown and monitoring zones for a 

period of 30 minutes. The shutdown 

zone would be considered cleared when 

a marine mammal has not been 

observed within the zone for that 30- 

minute period. If a marine mammal is 

observed within the shutdown zone, a 

soft-start cannot proceed until the 

animal has left the zone or has not been 

observed for 15 minutes. If the 

monitoring zone has been observed for 

30 minutes and marine mammals are 

not present within the zone, soft-start 

procedures can commence and work 

can continue. When a marine mammal 

permitted for take by Level B 

harassment is present in the Level B 

harassment zone, activities may begin. 

No work may begin unless the entire 

shutdown zone is visible to the PSOs. If 

work ceases for more than 30 minutes, 

the pre-activity monitoring of both the 

monitoring zone and shutdown zone 

would commence. 

Bubble Curtain—A bubble curtain 

would be employed during impact 

installation or proofing of steel piles. A 

noise attenuation device would not be 

required during vibratory pile driving. If 

a bubble curtain or similar measure is 

used, it would distribute air bubbles 

around 100 percent of the piling 

perimeter for the full depth of the water 

column. Any other attenuation measure 

would be required to provide 100 

percent coverage in the water column 

for the full depth of the pile. The lowest 

bubble ring would be in contact with 

the mudline for the full circumference 

of the ring. The weights attached to the 

bottom ring would ensure 100 percent 

mudline contact. No parts of the ring or 

other objects would prevent full 

mudline contact. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present 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 

Monitoring shall be conducted by 

NMFS-approved observers in 

accordance with section 13.2 of the 

application. Trained observers shall be 

placed from the best vantage point(s) 

practicable to monitor for marine 

mammals and implement shutdown or 

delay procedures when applicable 

through communication with the 

equipment operator. Observer training 

must be provided prior to project start, 

and shall include instruction on species 

identification (sufficient to distinguish 

the species in the project area), 

description and categorization of 

observed behaviors and interpretation of 

behaviors that may be construed as 

being reactions to the specified activity, 

proper completion of data forms, and 

other basic components of biological 

monitoring, including tracking of 

observed animals or groups of animals 

such that repeat sound exposures may 

be attributed to individuals (to the 

extent possible). 

Monitoring would be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after pile driving/removal activities. In 

addition, observers shall record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and shall document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from piles being driven or 

removed. Pile driving/removal 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
65968 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 

A minimum of one PSO would be on 

duty during impact pile driving 

activities and a minimum of two PSOs 

during vibratory installation/removal. 

Locations from which PSOs would be 

able to monitor for marine mammals are 

readily available from the Port of 

Bellingham property and, if necessary, 

on small boats in Bellingham Bay. PSOs 

would monitor for marine mammals 

entering the Level B harassment zones; 

the position(s) may vary based on 

construction activity and location of 

piles or equipment. 

PSOs would scan the waters using 

binoculars and would use a handheld 

range-finder device to verify the 

distance to each sighting from the 

project site. All PSOs would be trained 

in marine mammal identification and 

behaviors and are required to have no 

other project-related tasks while 

conducting monitoring. In addition, 

monitoring would be conducted by 

qualified observers, who would be 

placed at the best vantage point(s) 

practicable to monitor for marine 

mammals and implement shutdown/ 

delay procedures when applicable by 

calling for the shutdown to the hammer 

operator via a radio. The Port of 

Bellingham would adhere to the 

following observer qualifications: 

(i) Independent observers (i.e., not 

construction personnel) are required; 

(ii) One PSO would be designated as 

the lead PSO or monitoring coordinator 

and that observer must have prior 

experience working as an observer; 

(iii) Other observers may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience; and 

(iv) The applicant must submit 

observer Curriculum Vitaes for approval 

by NMFS. 

Additional standard observer 

qualifications include: 

• 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 and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were suspended to avoid 

potential incidental injury from 

construction sound of marine mammals 

observed within a defined shutdown 

zone; 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. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report would be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal activities. It 

would 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 driving) and the total 

equipment duration for cutting 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 time of 

sighting; Time of sighting; Identification 

of the animal(s) (e.g., genus/species, 

lowest possible taxonomic level, or 

unidentified), PSO confidence in 

identification, and the composition of 

the group if there is a mix of species; 

Distance and bearing of each marine 

mammal observed relative to the pile 

being driven for each sighting (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, 

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, 

by species. 

• Detailed information about any 

implementation of any mitigation 

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

description of specific actions that 

ensued, and resulting changes in 

behavior of the animal(s), if any. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft final 

report would 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 unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such 

as an injury, serious injury or mortality, 

the Port of Bellingham would 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, and the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinator. The report 

would include the following 

information: 

• Description of the incident; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

Beaufort sea state, visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities would not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS would work with the Port of 

Bellingham to determine what is 

necessary to minimize the likelihood of 

further prohibited take and ensure 

MMPA compliance. The Port of 

Bellingham would not be able to resume 

their activities until notified by NMFS 

via letter, email, or telephone. 

In the event that the Port of 

Bellingham discovers an injured or dead 

marine mammal, and the lead PSO 

determines that the cause of the injury 

or death is unknown and the death is 

relatively recent (e.g., in less than a 

moderate state of decomposition as 

described in the next paragraph), the 

Port of Bellingham would immediately 

report the incident to the Office of 

Protected Resources 

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

NMFS and to the West Coast Region 

regional stranding coordinator as soon 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 65969 

as feasible. The report would include 

the same information identified in the 

paragraph above. Activities would be 

able to continue while NMFS reviews 

the circumstances of the incident. 

NMFS would work with the Port of 

Bellingham to determine whether 

modifications in the activities are 

appropriate. 

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 4033; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the regulatory status of the 

species, population size and growth rate 

where known, ongoing sources of 

human-caused mortality, or ambient 

noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, the majority of 

our analysis applies to all the species 

listed in Table 8, given that many of the 

anticipated effects of this project on 

different marine mammal stocks are 

expected to be relatively similar in 

nature. Where there are meaningful 

differences between species or stocks, or 

groups of species, in anticipated 

individual responses to activities, 

impact of expected take on the 

population due to differences in 

population status, or impacts on habitat, 

they are described independently in the 

analysis below. 

Pile driving and removal activities 

associated with the project as outlined 

previously, have the potential to disturb 

or displace marine mammals. 

Specifically, the specified activities may 

result in take, in the form of Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

from underwater sounds generated from 

pile driving and removal. Potential takes 

could occur if individuals of these 

species are present in zones ensonified 

above the thresholds for Level A or 

Level B harassment identified above 

when these activities are underway. 

Take by Level A and Level B 

harassment would be due to potential 

behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. 

No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or proposed for 

authorization given the nature of the 

activity and measures designed to 

minimize the possibility of injury to 

marine mammals. Take by Level A 

harassment is only anticipated for 

harbor seal. The potential for 

harassment is minimized through the 

construction method and the 

implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures (see Proposed 

Mitigation section). 

Based on reports in the literature as 

well as monitoring from other similar 

activities, behavioral disturbance (i.e., 

Level B harassment) would likely be 

limited to reactions such as increased 

swimming speeds, increased surfacing 

time, or decreased foraging (if such 

activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson 

and Reyff, 2006; HDR, Inc., 2012; Lerma, 

2014; ABR, 2016). Most likely for pile 

driving, individuals would simply move 

away from the sound source and be 

temporarily displaced from the areas of 

pile driving, although even this reaction 

has been observed primarily only in 

association with impact pile driving. 

The pile driving activities analyzed here 

are similar to, or less impactful than, 

numerous other construction activities 

conducted in Washington, which have 

taken place with no observed severe 

responses of any individuals or known 

long-term adverse consequences. Level 

B harassment would be reduced to the 

level of least practicable adverse impact 

through use of mitigation measures 

described herein and, if sound produced 

by project activities is sufficiently 

disturbing, animals are likely to simply 

avoid the area while the activity is 

occurring. While vibratory driving 

associated with the proposed project 

may produce sound at distances of 

many kilometers from the project site, 

thus overlapping with some likely lessdisturbed habitat, the project site itself 

is located in a busy harbor and the 

majority of sound fields produced by 

the specified activities are close to the 

harbor. Animals disturbed by project 

sound would be expected to avoid the 

area and use nearby higher-quality 

habitats. 

In addition to the expected effects 

resulting from authorized Level B 

harassment, we anticipate that harbor 

seals may sustain some limited Level A 

harassment in the form of auditory 

injury. However, animals in these 

locations that experience PTS would 

likely only receive slight PTS, i.e., 

minor degradation of hearing 

capabilities within regions of hearing 

that align most completely with the 

energy produced by pile driving, i.e., 

the low-frequency region below 2 kHz, 

not severe hearing impairment or 

impairment in the regions of greatest 

hearing sensitivity. If hearing 

impairment occurs, it is most likely that 

the affected animal would lose a few 

decibels in its hearing sensitivity, which 

in most cases is not likely to 

meaningfully affect its ability to forage 

and communicate with conspecifics. As 

described above, we expect that marine 

mammals would be likely to move away 

from a sound source that represents an 

aversive stimulus, especially at levels 

that would be expected to result in PTS, 

given sufficient notice through use of 

soft start. 

The project also is not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitat. The 

project activities would not modify 

existing marine mammal habitat for a 

significant amount of time. The 

activities may cause some fish or 

invertebrates to leave the area of 

disturbance, thus temporarily impacting 

marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities in a limited portion of the 

foraging range; but, because of the short 

duration of the activities, the relatively 

small area of the habitat that may be 

affected, and the availability of nearby 

habitat of similar or higher value, the 

impacts to marine mammal habitat are 

not expected to cause significant or 

long-term negative consequences. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect any of 

the species or stocks through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• Any Level A harassment exposures 

(i.e., to harbor seals, only) are 

anticipated to result in slight PTS (i.e., 

of a few decibels), within the lower 

frequencies associated with pile driving; 

• The anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment would consist of, at worst, 

temporary modifications in behavior 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
65970 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 

that would not result in fitness impacts 

to individuals; 

• The ensonifed areas from the 

project is very small relative to the 

overall habitat ranges of all species and 

stocks 

• or any other areas of known 

biological importance; with the 

exception of three haulout locations in 

Bellingham Bay that would be affected 

by the project. Currently those haulout 

locations are not known to be pupping 

locations for harbor seals but are 

important areas throughout the year. 

Harbor seals at these haulouts would 

likely result in repeated exposure of the 

same animals. Repeated exposures of 

individuals to this pile driving activity 

could cause Level A and Level B 

harassment but are unlikely to 

considerably disrupt foraging behavior 

or result in significant decrease in 

fitness, reproduction, or survival for the 

affected individuals. In all, there would 

be no adverse impacts to the stock as a 

whole. 

• The proposed mitigation measures 

are expected to reduce the effects of the 

specified activity to the level of least 

practicable adverse impact. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted previously, only take of 

small numbers of marine mammals may 

be authorized under sections 

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

specified activities other than military 

readiness activities. The MMPA does 

not define small numbers and so, in 

practice, where estimated numbers are 

available, NMFS compares the number 

of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one-third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

Table 8 demonstrates the number of 

instances in which individuals of a 

given species could be exposed to 

receive noise levels that could cause 

Level A and Level B harassment for the 

proposed work in Bellingham Bay. Our 

analysis shows that less than 3 percent 

of all but one stock could be taken by 

harassment, and less than 30 percent of 

harbor seals, noting that the percentage 

of individual harbor seals is likely 

notably lower because some portion of 

the estimated instances of take are 

expected to represent repeated takes of 

the same individuals on multiple days. 

The numbers of animals proposed to be 

taken for these stocks would be 

considered small relative to the relevant 

stock’s abundances, even if each 

estimated taking occurred to a new 

individual—an extremely unlikely 

scenario. 

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 (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 Port of Bellingham for 

conducting pile driving at the Port of 

Bellingham from one year of the date of 

issuance, 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-mammalprotection/incidental-takeauthorizations-construction-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 pile driving by the 

Port of Bellingham. 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 65971 

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 20, 2023. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20752 Filed 9–25–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD352] 

Pacific Fishery Management Council; 

Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s (Pacific Council) 

Groundfish Management Team (GMT) 

will hold a weeklong online work 

session that is open to the public. The 

purpose of the meeting is to prepare 

materials for the 2025–2026 harvest 

specifications and management 

measures and discuss other items on the 

Pacific Council’s November 2023 

meeting agenda. 

DATES: The online webinar meeting for 

the work session will be held Monday, 

October 16, 2023, from 1 p.m., Pacific 

time until business is completed for the 

day. The GMT will reconvene on 

Tuesday, October 17 through Friday, 

October 20, 2023, from 8:30 a.m., Pacific 

time until business for each day has 

been completed. 

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held 

online. Specific meeting information, 

including directions on how to join the 

meeting and system requirements, will 

be provided in the meeting 

announcement on the Pacific Council’s 

website (see www.pcouncil.org). You 

may send an email to Mr. Kris 

Kleinschmidt (kris.kleinschmidt@

noaa.gov) or contact him at (503) 820– 

2412 for technical assistance. 

Council address: Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, 

OR 97220–1384. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Todd Phillips, Staff Officer, Pacific 

Council; telephone: (503) 820–2426. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

primary purpose of the GMT meeting is 

to develop recommendations on the 

development of the 2025–2026 harvest 

specifications and management 

measures for consideration by the 

Pacific Council at its November 2023 

meeting. The GMT will also consider 

new management measures proposed by 

the Pacific Council at their September 

meeting. 

The GMT will dedicate their session 

on Friday, October 20, 2023, from 8:30 

a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Pacific time to 

specifically discuss items on the Pacific 

Council’s November meeting. The 

primary purpose of this dedicated 

session is to prepare for the Pacific 

Council’s November 2023 meeting 

agenda items. The GMT will discuss 

items related to groundfish management 

and administrative matters on the 

Pacific Council’s agenda. The GMT may 

also address other assignments relating 

to groundfish management. No 

management actions will be decided by 

the GMT. A detailed agenda for this 

weeklong webinar will be available on 

the Pacific Council’s website prior to the 

meeting. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in the meeting agenda may be 

discussed, those issues may not be the 

subject of formal action during this 

meeting. Action will be restricted to 

those issues specifically listed in this 

document and any issues arising after 

publication of this document that 

require emergency action under section 

305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

provided the public has been notified of 

the intent to take final action to address 

the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Mr. Kris 

Kleinschmidt (kris.kleinschmidt@

noaa.gov; (503) 820–2412) at least 10 

days prior to the meeting date. 

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

Dated: September 21, 2023. 

Rey Israel Marquez, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20927 Filed 9–25–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD389] 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council’s is convening its 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

(SSC) to consider actions affecting New 

England fisheries in the exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ). 

Recommendations from this group will 

be brought to the full Council for formal 

consideration and action, if appropriate. 

DATES: This hybrid meeting will be held 

on Wednesday, October 11, 2023, 

beginning at 9:30 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: Meeting address: The 

meeting will be held at the DoubleTree 

by Hilton, 363 Maine Mall Road, South 

Portland, ME 04106. 

Webinar Registration information: 

https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/ 

register/8548092010829152606. Call in 

information: +1 (631) 992–3221, Access 

Code: 434–460–639. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cate 

O’Keefe, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda 

The Scientific and Statistical 

Committee will meet to: review the 

information provided by the Council’s 

Plan Development Teams, and stock 

assessment information where 

appropriate, and recommend the 

overfishing limits (OFL) and acceptable 

biological catches (ABC) for: Atlantic 

sea scallops for fishing year (FY) 2024 

and the default for FY 2025; Gulf of 

Maine haddock for FY 2024 and 2025 

and Northeast skate complex for FY 

2024–2025. They will discuss other 

business as necessary. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained on the agenda may come 

before this Council for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Council 

action will be restricted to those issues 

specifically listed in this notice and any 

issues arising after publication of this 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1