Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74451 

small numbers of five marine mammal 

species incidental to the Pier 

Maintenance and Bank Stabilization 

project in Port Angeles, Washington, 

that includes the previously explained 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

requirements. The IHA can be found at: 

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

incidental-take-authorization-us-coastguard-air-station-port-angeles-piermaintenance-and. 

Dated: October 25, 2023. 

Catherin Marzin, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23948 Filed 10–30–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD325] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Eareckson Air 

Station Fuel Pier Repair in Alcan 

Harbor on Shemya Island, Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the U.S Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) on behalf of the Pacific Air 

Forces Regional Support Center (USAF) 

for authorization to take marine 

mammals incidental to the Eareckson 

Air Station (EAS) Fuel Pier Repair in 

Alcan Harbor, Shemya Island, Alaska. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to incidentally take 

marine mammals during the specified 

activities. NMFS is also requesting 

comments on a possible one-time, 1- 

year renewal that could be issued under 

certain circumstances and if all 

requirements are met, as described in 

the Request for Public Comments 

section 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 November 30, 

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.Fleming@

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 below. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

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

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

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Fleming, 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 

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 15, 2023, NMFS received a 

request from the USACE on behalf of 

USAF for an IHA to take marine 

mammals incidental to construction 

associated with the EAS Fuel Pier 

Repair in Alcan Harbor on Shemya 

Island, Alaska. Following NMFS’ review 

of the application, and discussions 

between NMFS and USAF, the 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on September 19, 2023. The 

USAF’s request is for take of 12 species 

of marine mammals, by Level B 

harassment and, for a subset of these 

species, Level A harassment. Neither 

USAF nor NMFS expect serious injury 

or mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
74452 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

This proposed IHA would cover 1 

year of a larger 3-year project that 

involves construction activities that will 

not result in the take of marine 

mammals (i.e., movement, mobilization, 

and staging of equipment; replacing the 

pier deck; and installing an engineered 

revetment along the western shoreline). 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The USAF is proposing to conduct 

long-term repairs on the only existing 

fuel pier at EAS on Shemya Island, 

Alaska. The fuel delivered to the pier is 

used by the island generator systems to 

aid in the operation of homeland 

defense early warning radar surveillance 

and communication systems. EAS also 

functions as an emergency divert 

airfield supporting commercial and air 

traffic destined for Japan, China, and 

other destinations in Asia and the 

Pacific. In February 2020, a destructive 

storm left the fuel pier in critical 

condition. In 2021, emergency repairs 

were completed to restore minimal 

function to the fuel pier. Long-term 

repairs are planned in order to prevent 

future degradation and catastrophic loss 

to the fuel pier, to maintain access to the 

pier, and to protect the shoreline 

facilities from further erosion. The 

activities that have the potential to take 

marine mammals, by Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment, 

include down-the-hole (DTH) drilling, 

vibratory and impact installation of 

temporary and permanent steel pipe 

piles, and vibratory removal of 

temporary steel pipe piles, and would 

introduce underwater sounds that may 

result in take, by Level A harassment 

and Level B harassment, of marine 

mammals. The marine construction 

associated with the proposed activities 

is planned to occur over 160 days over 

1 year, accounting for weather delays 

and mechanical issues. 

Dates and Duration 

The proposed IHA would be effective 

from April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025. 

The project would occur between April 

and October 2024 and would require 

approximately 160 days of pile driving. 

In-water construction activities would 

only occur during daylight hours, and 

typically over a 12-hour work day, up to 

7 days per week. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The proposed activities would occur 

on the EAS Fuel Pier on Shemya Island, 

located in Section 16, Township 86 

South, Range 257 West, of the Seward 

Meridian, Alaska. Shemya Island is a 

remote island in the western Aleutians. 

The fuel pier is located in Alcan Harbor, 

which opens to Shemya Pass to the west 

and the Bering Sea to its north and east. 

Alcan harbor is exposed to strong north 

winds. The dimensions of the new Pier 

footprint would be approximately 30 by 

104 meters (m), or 100 by 340 feet (ft). 

Depths at the project site range from 5 

to 10 m (16 to 33 ft). However, the area 

of impact would extend 40 kilometers 

(km), or 25 miles (mi), into the 

southwest portion of the Bering Sea, 

reaching depths of approximately 3,900 

m (2.4 mi). 

Shemya Island and its waters are 

within the Alaska Maritime National 

Wildlife Refuge, which if not for it being 

a military base, would typically be 

under the jurisdiction of U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2021). The 

fuel pier is the only pier on Shemya 

Island; there are no neighboring piers or 

docks. The next nearest developed 

location that is inhabited is Nikol’skoe, 

which is approximately 370 mi (595 km) 

west on Bering Island, Russia. Adak, 

Alaska, is approximately 400 mi (644 

km) to the east in the Central Aleutians. 

The United States Coast Guard 

previously maintained a long-range 

navigation station on Attu Island, 

Alaska, 28 mi (45 km) to the west, but 

that site has been abandoned for several 

years. All former Alaska Native village 

sites in the region have been abandoned 

since World War II. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74453 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C Detailed Description of the Specified 

Activity 

The USAF is proposing to repair the 

fuel pier at EAS on Shemya Island, 

Alaska. As noted above, this proposed 

IHA would authorize take associated 

with Year 1 of a larger 3-year project. 

Please refer to USAF’s application for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1EN31OC23.000</GPH> EN31OC23.001</GPH>

Figure 1 -- Project Location on Shemya Island, Alaska 

Figure 2 -- Detailed view of the Fuel Pier location on Shemya Island, Alaska 
74454 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

additional information about project 

components planned for the period 

beyond Year 1. 

The USAF estimates that Year 1 

activities would include vessel 

movement and mobilization; pile 

installation for the fuel pier, screening 

and clearance for Munitions and 

Explosives of Concern (MEC) (see 

explanation below), remote equipment 

operations, removal of existing precast 

dolosse from the western shoreline, and 

crushing/recycling concrete. 

The replacement fuel pier is within a 

Military Munitions Response Program 

(MMRP) site and although prior surveys 

and clearance of the Alcan Harbor 

Ordnance MMRP site have been 

completed, there is potential for 

munitions and explosives of concern to 

migrate within the site. As such, 

magnetometer-based surveys for MEC 

will be conducted prior to ground 

disturbing activities within the 

boundaries of the MMRP site to detect 

anomalies and inform follow-on actions 

to the extent practicable. Excavated 

material from in-water work will be 

further screened and cleared to remove 

any potential MEC. The material would 

be excavated with a clamshell bucket 

and placed in a hopper that deposits the 

material onto a conveyor leading to a 6- 

inch remote controlled grizzly rock 

screener. Subsequently, material six 

inches or larger would be inspected by 

UXO technicians for MEC prior to 

transfer by armored equipment to a 

screening plant with a specialized 

magnet belt to remove all potential 

metals and munitions. Cleared material 

would be transferred to an upland, lowgrade staging area while MEC would be 

transferred from the construction site to 

the MEC storage and disposal site. 

Additionally, USAF anticipates 

approximately five vessels (i.e., tugboats 

towing barges) per season would be 

used for project activities, transiting 

between Seattle, WA and Shemya 

Island, AK, with some trips making a 

stop in Seward, Kodiak, or Anchorage, 

AK. With the exception of pile driving, 

these activities are not anticipated to 

result in take. 

The proposed fuel pier replacement 

project would include the installation of 

an interlocking steel pipe combi-wall 

system, which will require the 

installation and removal of 60 30-inch 

(in) temporary steel pipe piles and the 

installation of 208 42-inch round steel 

interlocking pipe piles using vibratory, 

impact, and/or DTH methods (table 1). 

USAF does not plan to operate multiple 

hammers concurrently. 

The interlocking steel pipe combiwall system would be installed 15 ft (4.6 

m) off the existing fuel pier to 

encapsulate most of the existing 

structure. The steel combi-wall system 

would extend approximately 560 ft (171 

m) from the northern bulkhead corner, 

along the entire Pier berthing face, and 

around the northern perimeter. 

Template frames for the pile wall 

would be installed to construct the new 

pier exterior structure and subsequently 

removed; template frames would be 

constructed to cantilever off the existing 

fuel pier structure (i.e., not be placed in 

the water). However, up to 60 30-inch 

(76-cm) template piles may be installed 

in the water to provide additional 

support. A remotely operated vibratory 

pile driving hammer would be used to 

drive the piles through the bottom 

sediment to specified depths. It is 

anticipated that a diesel or hydraulic 

impact hammer would be utilized to 

achieve the specified embedment depth 

of 44 temporary piles. Up to six 

temporary piles in the southeast corner, 

where there is very little overburden, 

would likely need to be rock socketed 

into bedrock via a DTH. 

The main component of the combiwall system would require the 

installation of 208 42-inch (107-cm) 

interlocking permanent steel pipe piles 

that would be installed using vibratory 

and impact pile driving to specified 

embedment depths. The pile interlocks 

would be designed to transfer soil and 

water pressure to the interlocking steel 

pipe piles, which would carry most of 

the load. In addition to vibratory and 

impact pile driving, it is expected that 

most, if not all permanent piling will 

require a rock socket into the bedrock, 

at a minimum of 30 ft (9 m) below the 

mudline, using a DTH hammer and bit. 

The bit will be slightly larger than the 

outside diameter of the permanent pipe 

pile. 

Construction of the proposed dock 

would follow this sequence: 

1. Set one or two cantilevered 

templates utilizing existing fuel pier as 

support. These cantilevered templates 

would not be installed in the water. 

However, template piles may be 

installed in some areas to offer 

additional support (table 1). 

2. Within the frame, loft and stab 6– 

12 each 42-inch permanent pile. 

3. Within the frame, vibrate, impact, 

and DTH drill 42-inch diameter pipe 

pile. Only one pile would be driven at 

a time, even if two pile templates are 

used. 

4. Remove the frame and any 

temporary piles and move to the next 

permanent pile location. 

5. Repeat this process for placement 

of all the permanent piles. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PILES TO BE INSTALLED AND REMOVED

Installation or removal Number of 

piles 

Impact 

strikers 

per pile 

Vibratory 

duration 

per pile, 

minutes 

DTH pile 

installation, 

duration 

per pile, 

minutes 

Maximum 

piles per 

day— 

impact 

pile driving 

Maximum 

piles per 

day— 

vibratory 

pile driving 

Maximum 

piles per 

day—DTH 

pile 

installation 

Days of 

installation 

and/or 

removal a

42-inch Interlocking Steel Pipe Piles—Permanent 

Installation ............................................................................. 208 1,800 30 180 4 4 3 122 

30-inch Steel Pipe Piles—Template 

Installation ............................................................................. 60 900 15 150 4 4 3 17 

Removal ................................................................................ .................. 4 .................. ..................

a USAF estimates a total of 160 construction days to account for weather delays and mechanical issues. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting sections). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. NMFS fully considered 

all of this information, and we refer the 

reader to these descriptions, instead of 

reprinting the information. Additional 

information regarding population trends 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74455 

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. Alaska 2022 SARs (Young 

et al., 2023). All values presented in 

table 2 are the most recent available at 

the time of publication and are available 

online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

TABLE 2—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Artiodactyla—Infraorder Cetacea—Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenopteridae 

Fin Whale ...................... Balaenoptera physalus ........ Northeast Pacific ................. E, D, Y UND (UND, UND, 2013) 4 ... UND 0.6 

Humpback Whale .......... Megaptera novaeangliae ..... Western North Pacific .......... E, D, Y 1,084, (0.088, 1,007, 2006) 3 2.8 

Mexico—North Pacific ......... T, D, Y N/A (N/A, N/A, 2006) 5 ......... UND 0.56 

Hawai1i ................................. -, -, N 11,278 (0.56, 7,265, 2020) .. 127 19.6 

Minke Whale .................. Balaenoptera acutorostrata Alaska .................................. -, -, - N/A (N/A, N/A, N/A) 6 ........... UND 0 

Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Physeteridae 

Sperm whale .................. Physeter macrocephalus ..... North Pacific ........................ E, D, Y UND (UND, UND, 2015) 7 ... UND 3.5 

Family Ziphiidae (beaked 

whales) 

Baird’s beaked whale .... Berardius bairdii ................... Alaska .................................. -, -, N N/A (N/A, N/A, N/A) 8 ........... N/A 0 

Stejneger’s Beaked 

Whale.

Mesoplodon stejnegeri ........ Alaska .................................. -, -, N N/A (N/A, N/A, N/A) 8 ........... N/A 0 

Family Delphinidae 

Killer Whale ................... Orcinus orca ........................ ENP Alaska Resident Stock -, -, N 1,920 (N/A, 1,920, 2019) ..... 19 1.3 

ENP Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering 

Sea.

-, -, N 587 (N/A, 587, 2012) ........... 5.9 0.8 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

Dall’s Porpoise ............... Phocoenoides dalli .............. Alaska .................................. -, -, N UND (UND, UND, 2015) 9 ... UND 37 

Harbor Porpoise .................... Phocoena phocoena ............ Bering Sea ........................... -, -, Y UNK (UNK, N/A, 2008) 10 .... UND 0.4 

Order Carnivora—Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions) 

Northern Fur Seal .......... Callorhinus ursinus .............. Eastern Pacific ..................... -, D, Y 626,618 (0.2, 530,376, 

2019).

11,403 373 

Steller Sea Lion ............. Eumetopias jubatus ............. Western, U.S ....................... E, D, Y 52,932 (N/A, 52,932, 2019) 318 254 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals) 

Harbor Seal ................... Phoca vitulina ...................... Aleutian Islands ................... -, -, N 5,588 (N/A, 5,366, 2018) ..... 97 90 

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

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

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

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of 

stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable (explain if this is the case). 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, 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. 4The best available abundance estimate for this stock is not considered representative of the entire stock as surveys were limited to a small portion of the stock’s 

range. Based upon this estimate and the Nmin, the PBR value is likely negatively biased for the entire stock. 5Abundance estimates are based upon data collected more than 8 years ago and therefore current estimates are considered unknown.

6 Reliable population estimates are not available for this stock. Please see Friday et al. (2013) and Zerbini et al. (2006) for additional information on numbers of 

minke whales in Alaska. 7The most recent abundance estimate is likely unreliable as it covered a small area that may not have included females and juveniles, and did not account for animals missed on the trackline. The calculated PBR is not a reliable index for the stock as it is based upon negatively biased minimum abundance estimate. 8 Reliable abundance estimates for this stock are currently unavailable. 

9The best available abundance estimate is likely an underestimate for the entire stock because it is based upon a survey that covered only a small portion of the 

stock’s range. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I 
74456 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

10The best available abundance estimate and Nmin are likely an underestimate for the entire stock because it is based upon a survey that covered only a small 

portion of the stock’s range. PBR for this stock is undetermined due to this estimate being older than 8 years. 

As indicated above, all 12 species 

(with 15 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 3–1 of the IHA application. While 

blue whale, gray whale, North Pacific 

right whale, Pacific white-sided 

dolphin, and ribbon seal could occur 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. These 

species all have extremely low 

abundance and most are observed in 

areas outside of the project area. 

In addition, northern sea otter may be 

found the western Aleutians. However, 

this species is managed by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and is not 

considered further in this document. 

Fin Whale 

Fin whales are found in polar, 

temperate, and subtropical waters 

worldwide, where they inhabit deep, 

offshore waters and often travel in open 

seas away from coasts. Fin whales in the 

northeast Pacific are typically 

distributed off the coast of the Gulf of 

Alaska and the Bering and Chukchi 

Seas. In general, the spring and early 

summer are spent in cold, high latitude 

feeding waters as far north as Chukchi 

Sea, the Gulf of Alaska, Prince William 

Sound, along the Aleutian Islands, and 

west of Kodiak Island. In the fall, fin 

whales return to low latitudes for the 

winter breeding season, though they 

may remain in residence in their high 

latitude ranges if food resources remain 

plentiful. 

Although typically observed in groups 

of 6 to 10 individuals, fin whales are 

also sighted in pairs, alone, or in feeding 

aggregations up to 100 individuals. In 

the central eastern Bering Sea, most 

sightings have occurred along the 

continental shelf break in a zone of high 

prey abundance (Clark, 2008a). Across 

119 days of three distinct marine 

mammal surveys completed from 

Shemya Island between 2016 and 2021, 

no fin whales were observed in the 

project area (see application). Note that 

Alcan harbor was included in islandwide monitoring of two of these 

surveys, and the third survey effort was 

conducted exclusively at the project site 

during an emergency repair of the fuel 

pier. 

Humpback Whale 

On September 8, 2016, NMFS divided 

the once single population into 14 

distinct population segments (DPS) 

under the ESA, removed the specieslevel listing as endangered, and, in its 

place, listed four DPSs as endangered 

and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 

62259, September 8, 2016). The 

remaining nine DPSs were not listed. 

There are four DPSs in the North 

Pacific, including the Western North 

Pacific and Central America, which are 

listed as endangered, Mexico, which is 

listed as threatened, and Hawai1i, which 

is not listed. 

The 2022 Alaska and Pacific SARs 

described a revised stock structure for 

humpback whales which modifies the 

previous stocks designated under the 

MMPA to align more closely with the 

ESA-designated DPSs (Caretta et al., 

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

the three previous North Pacific 

humpback whale stocks (Central and 

Western North Pacific stocks and a CA/ 

OR/WA stock) were replaced by five 

stocks, largely corresponding with the 

ESA-designated DPSs. These include 

the Western North Pacific and Hawai1i 

stocks and a Central America/Southern 

Mexico—CA/OR/WA stock (which 

corresponds with the Central America 

DPS). The remaining two stocks, 

corresponding with the Mexico DPS, are 

the Mainland Mexico—CA/OR/WA and 

Mexico—North Pacific stocks (Caretta et 

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

former stock is expected to occur along 

the west coast from California to 

southern British Columbia, while the 

latter stock may occur across the Pacific, 

from northern British Columbia through 

the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands/ 

Bering Sea region to Russia. 

The Hawai1i stock consists of one 

demographically independent 

population (DIP)—Hawai1i—Southeast 

Alaska/Northern British Columbia DIP 

and one unit—Hawai1i—North Pacific 

unit, which may or may not be 

composed of multiple DIPs (Wade et al., 

2021). The DIP and unit are managed as 

a single stock at this time, due to the 

lack of data available to separately 

assess them and lack of compelling 

conservation benefit to managing them 

separately (NMFS, 2023; NMFS, 2019; 

NMFS, 2022b). The DIP is delineated 

based on two strong lines of evidence: 

genetics and movement data (Wade et 

al., 2021). Whales in the Hawai1i— 

Southeast Alaska/Northern British 

Columbia DIP winter off Hawai1i and 

largely summer in Southeast Alaska and 

Northern British Columbia (Wade et al., 

2021). The group of whales that migrate 

from Russia, western Alaska (Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands), and central 

Alaska (Gulf of Alaska excluding 

Southeast Alaska) to Hawai1i have been 

delineated as the Hawai1i—North Pacific 

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

small number of whales that migrate 

between Hawai1i and southern British 

Columbia/Washington, but current data 

and analyses do not provide a clear 

understanding of which unit these 

whales belong to (Wade et al., 2021; 

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

The Mexico—North Pacific unit is 

likely composed of multiple DIPs, based 

on movement data (Martien et al., 2021; 

Wade, 2021; Wade et al., 2021). 

However, because currently available 

data and analyses are not sufficient to 

delineate or assess DIPs within the unit, 

it was designated as a single stock 

(NMFS, 2023a; NMFS, 2019; NMFS, 

2022c). Whales in this stock winter off 

Mexico and the Revillagigedo 

Archipelago and summer primarily in 

Alaska waters (Martien et al., 2021; 

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

The Western North Pacific stock 

consists of two units—the Philippines/ 

Okinawa—North Pacific unit and the 

Marianas/Ogasawara—North Pacific 

unit. The units are managed as a single 

stock at this time, due to a lack of data. 

Recognition of these units is based on 

movements and genetic data (Oleson et 

al., 2022). Whales in the Philippines/ 

Okinawa—North Pacific unit winter 

near the Philippines and in the Ryukyu 

Archipelago and migrate to summer 

feeding areas primarily off the Russian 

mainland (Oleson et al., 2022). Whales 

that winter off the Mariana Archipelago, 

Ogasawara, and other areas not yet 

identified and then migrate to summer 

feeding areas off the Commander 

Islands, and to the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands comprise the Marianas/ 

Ogasawara—North Pacific unit. 

Humpback whales that occur in the 

project area are predominantly members 

of the Hawai’i stock, which corresponds 

to the Hawai1i DPS (91 percent 

probability in the Aleutian Islands), and 

is not listed under the ESA. However, 

members of the Mexico North Pacific 

stock, which include the Mexico DPS 

and is listed as threatened, have a small 

potential to occur in the project location 

(7 percent probability in the Aleutians), 

and the Western North Pacific Stock, 

which corresponds to the Western North 

Pacific DPS and is listed as endangered, 

have an even smaller potential to occur 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74457 

in the project location (2 percent, Wade, 

2021). 

Humpback whales migrate to the 

North Pacific, including the Aleutian 

Islands, to feed after months of fasting 

in equatorial breeding grounds. 

Humpback whales generally travel alone 

or in small groups that persist only a 

few hours. Groups may stay together for 

longer in the summer in order to feed 

cooperatively. During the 2016 and 2021 

Shemya Island marine mammal surveys, 

seven humpback whales were observed 

in the project area (see application). 

Minke Whale 

Minke whales occur in polar, 

temperate, and tropical waters 

worldwide in a range extending from 

the ice edge in the Arctic during the 

summer to near the equator during 

winter. However, they are known to 

prefer temperate to boreal waters due to 

the abundance of prey (Guerrero, 

2008b). When comparing distribution 

and abundance in the years 2002, 2008, 

and 2010, it was found that that minke 

whales were scattered throughout all 

oceanographic domains: coastal, middle 

shelf, and outer shelf/slope (Muto et al., 

2021). The minke whale mostly migrates 

seasonally and can travel long distances; 

although, some minke whale 

individuals and stocks have resident 

home ranges and are not highly 

migratory (Guerrero, 2008b). The Alaska 

Stock of minke whales are migratory 

and are common in the waters of the 

Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and 

Southeast Alaska in the spring and 

summer (NMFS, 2023c). 

The distribution of minke whales vary 

according to age, sex, and reproductive 

status. Older mature males are 

commonly found in small social groups 

around the ice edge of polar regions 

during the summer feeding season. 

Comparatively, adult females will 

migrate farther into the higher latitudes 

but generally remain in coastal waters. 

Immature minke whales tend to be 

solitary and stay in lower latitudes 

during the summer (Guerrero, 2008b). 

Although the minke whale tends to be 

solitary or in groups of two to three 

individuals, they can congregate in 

larger groups containing up to 400 

individuals at the higher latitude 

foraging areas (NOAA, 2021). During 

surveys in Alaska, minke whales are 

predominately observed alone (Wade et 

al., 2003; Waite, 2003). Breeding season 

typically occurs from December to 

March, but in some regions minke 

whales breed year-round. When 

migrating north in spring and summer, 

they will travel along in coastal waters, 

whereas in fall and winter, they move 

farther offshore (NMFS, 2023c). In 2003, 

a minke whale was observed in July 

when a sea otter survey was being 

conducted at Attu Island (Doroff et al., 

2004), 28 mi to the west of Shemya 

Island. During the 2016 and 2021 

Shemya Island marine mammal surveys, 

no minke whales were observed in the 

project area (see application). 

Sperm Whale 

Sperm whales are the most sighted 

and recorded cetacean in marine 

mammal surveys in high latitude 

regions of the North Pacific, including 

the Bering Sea and the Aleutian Islands 

(Young et al., 2023). However, sperm 

whales exhibit sex-specific latitudinal 

segregation, where females and their 

young form social groups and are 

usually found in temperate and tropical 

latitudes, while males forage at higher 

latitudes and tends to only return to 

tropical and subtropical regions to breed 

(Whitehead, 2009). As such, males are 

more frequently encountered in the 

Aleutians than females; social groups 

typically occur in this area only during 

the winter when males are less likely to 

be present (Posdalijian, 2023). 

Sperm whales tend to occur offshore 

in submarine canyons at the edge of the 

continental shelf in water 1,000 m 

(3,300 ft) deep (Jaquet and Whitehead, 

1996). They hunt for food during deep 

dives that routinely reach depths of 

2,000 feet and can last for 45 minutes. 

Because sperm whales spend most of 

their time in deep waters, their diet 

consists of species such as squid, 

sharks, skates, and fish that also occupy 

deep ocean waters. 

The Aleutian Islands are considered a 

biologically important area (BIA) for 

feeding for sperm whale (Brower, 2022). 

This BIA overlaps with the project area 

and is active April through September. 

The BIA scored a three for importance 

and intensity, and a two for data 

support and boundary certainty, 

indicating that it is of high importance, 

has moderately certain boundaries, and 

moderate data to support the 

identification of the BIA (see Harrison et 

al. (2023) for additional information 

about the scoring process used to 

identify BIAs). The BIA was identified 

as having dynamic spatiotemporal 

variability. 

During the 2016 and 2021 marine 

mammal surveys completed on Shemya 

Island, four sperm whales were 

observed on a single day (see 

application). 

Baird’s Beaked Whale 

Baird’s beaked whale occurs in the 

North Pacific and Bering Sea along the 

Aleutian Islands as well as the adjacent 

waters of the Gulf of Alaska, Sea of 

Okhotsk, and the Sea of Japan (Guerrero, 

2008a). Within the North Pacific Ocean, 

Baird’s beaked whales have been 

sighted north of 30° N in deep, cold 

waters over the continental shelf (Muto 

et al., 2021), particularly in regions with 

1,000 m (3,300 ft) or deeper contours, 

submarine canyons, and seamounts. 

However, they can be occasionally 

found in nearshore environments along 

narrow continental shelves. Baird’s 

beaked whales migrate seasonally based 

on the temperature of surface water 

(NMFS, 2023a). They occur in waters of 

the continental slope during summer 

and fall months when surface water 

temperatures are the highest (Muto et 

al., 2021). They have also been observed 

in the nearshore waters of the Bering 

Sea and Okhotsk Sea in May to October 

(NMFS, 2023a). Baird’s beaked whales 

are usually found in tight social groups 

(schools or pods) averaging between five 

and 20 individuals, but they have 

occasionally been observed in larger 

groups of up to 50 animals. 

During the 2016 and 2021 Shemya 

Island marine mammal surveys, no 

Baird’s beaked whales were observed in 

the project area (see application). 

Stejneger’s Beaked Whale 

Stejneger’s beaked whale prefer cold, 

temperate, and subarctic waters of the 

North Pacific Ocean and are generally 

found in deep, offshore waters on or 

beyond the continental slope between 

2,500 and 5,000 ft. Most records are 

from Alaskan waters, and the Aleutian 

Islands appear to be its center of 

distribution (Mead, 1989; Wade et al., 

2003).They are usually found in small, 

tight social groups averaging between 5 

and 15 individuals. This whale is rarely 

sighted at sea, but they have been 

detected acoustically in the Aleutian 

waters in summer, fall, and spring 

(Baumann-Pickering et al., 2014; Muto, 

2021). Most data on Stejneger’s beaked 

whale have been collected and inferred 

from stranded individuals. Though most 

strandings in the Aleutians occur in the 

central portion of the island chain, there 

was a stranding of an adult male 

Stejneger’s beaked whale on the 

southeast coast of Shemya Island on 

September 1, 2005 (Savage et al., 2021). 

During the 2016 and 2021 marine 

mammal surveys completed on Shemya 

Island, no Stejneger’s beaked whale 

were observed. 

Killer Whale 

Killer whales occur in every ocean in 

the world and are the most widely 

distributed of all cetaceans. Along the 

west coast of North America, killer 

whales occur along the entire Alaska 

coast (Braham and Dahlheim, 1982). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
74458 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

This proposed IHA considers only the 

Eastern North Pacific Alaska Resident 

stock (Alaska Resident stock), and the 

Eastern North Pacific Gulf of Alaska, 

Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea 

Transient stocks because all other killer 

whale stocks occur outside the 

geographic area under consideration 

(Muto et al., 2021). 

There are three distinct ecotypes, or 

forms, of killer whales recognized: 

Resident, Transient, and Offshore. The 

three ecotypes differ morphologically, 

ecologically, behaviorally, and 

genetically. Spatial distribution has 

been shown to vary among the different 

ecotypes, with resident and, to a lesser 

extent, transient killer whales more 

commonly observed along the 

continental shelf, and offshore killer 

whales more commonly observed in 

pelagic waters (Rice et al., 2021). 

When comparing movement, 

residents tend to have more predictable 

movements and the smallest home 

ranges and they return annually, 

whereas transients are less predictable 

due to their larger home ranges and 

quick transits through local areas. 

Offshore ecotypes have the largest home 

ranges that are generally farther offshore 

compared to the other two ecotypes. 

(Zimmerman and Small, 2008). Resident 

killer whales live in large, stable groups 

ranging normally from 5 to 50 

individuals and up to 100 or more. They 

feed only on fish, especially Pacific 

salmon. Transient killer whales, on the 

other hand, hunt marine mammals, like 

pinnipeds and porpoises, in smaller 

groups of 10 individuals or less (Forney 

and Wade, 2006). 

During the 2016 and 2021 marine 

mammal surveys at Shemya Island, 

Killer whales were frequently 

documented within the project area and 

around the island during these surveys. 

Within the project area alone, the 

average daily observation rate was 0.6 

killer whales (see application). 

Dall’s Porpoise 

Dall’s porpoises are widely 

distributed across the North Pacific 

Ocean, ranging from Japan to southern 

California and up to Alaska and the 

Bering Sea in coastal and pelagic waters 

between 28° N and 65° N (Wells, 2008; 

Muto et al., 2021). They inhabit all 

strata on the continental shelf, slope, 

and pelagic waters with the greatest 

densities occurring in deeper inshore 

and slope habitats (Rone et al., 2017). 

Throughout most of the eastern North 

Pacific they are present during all 

months of the year, although there may 

winter movements out of areas of ice 

like Prince William Sound and the 

Bering Sea or onshore-offshore 

movements along the west coast of the 

continental U.S. (Muto et al., 2021). 

Depending on morphology/type, 

geography, and seasonality, they have 

inshore-offshore and north-south 

migration patterns (NMFS, 2023b). 

They generally travel in groups of 10 

to 20 individuals but can occur in 

groups with over hundreds of 

individuals (Wells, 2008). These groups 

appear to be fluid as they form and 

break-up during play and feeding. 

During the 2016 and 2021 Shemya 

Island marine mammal surveys, no 

Dall’s porpoise were observed in the 

project area (see application) 

Harbor Porpoise 

The Bering Sea stock of harbor 

porpoise occurs within the project area, 

ranging from throughout the Aleutian 

Islands and into all waters north of 

Unimak Pass. The harbor porpoise 

frequents nearshore waters and coastal 

embayments throughout their range, 

including bays, harbors, estuaries, and 

fjords less than 650 ft (198 m) deep 

(NMFS, 2023d). They are most often 

observed in groups of two or three. 

During the 2016 and 2021 marine 

mammal surveys completed on Shemya 

Island, one group of two to three harbor 

porpoise were observed (see 

application). 

Northern Fur Seal 

Northern fur seals occur from 

southern California north to the Bering 

Sea and west to the Sea of Okhotsk and 

Honshu Island, Japan. They are highly 

pelagic, spending most of their time 

each year alone at sea. During the 

summer breeding season, most of the 

worldwide population is found on the 

Pribilof Islands in the southern Bering 

Sea, with the remaining animals on 

rookeries in Russia, on Bogoslof Island 

in the southern Bering Sea, on San 

Miguel Island off southern California 

(Lander and Kajimura, 1982; NMFS, 

1993), and on the Farallon Islands off 

central California. Non-breeding 

northern fur seals may occasionally haul 

out on land at other sites in Alaska, 

British Columbia, and on islets along 

the west coast of the United States 

(Fiscus, 1983). 

During the reproductive season, adult 

males usually are on shore during the 4- 

month period from May to August, 

although some may be present until 

November. Adult females are ashore 

during a 6-month period (June– 

November). Following their respective 

times ashore, Alaska northern fur seals 

of both genders the move south and 

remain at sea until the next breeding 

season (Roppel, 1984). Adult females 

and pups from the Pribilof Islands move 

through the Aleutian Islands into the 

North Pacific Ocean, often to the waters 

offshore of Oregon and California (Ream 

et al., 2005). Adult males generally 

move only as far south as the Gulf of 

Alaska in the eastern North Pacific 

(Kajimura, 1984) and the Kuril Islands 

in the western North Pacific (Loughlin 

et al., 1999). In Alaska, pups are born 

during the summer months and leave 

the rookeries in the fall, on average 

around mid-November. They generally 

remain at sea for 22 months before 

returning to land (Kenyon and Wilke, 

1953). 

During the 2016 and 2021 marine 

mammal surveys completed on Shemya 

Island, no northern fur seals were 

observed (see application). 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions in the project area are 

anticipated to be from the Western 

stock, which includes all Steller sea 

lions originating from rookeries west of 

Cape Suckling (144° W longitude). The 

centers of abundance and distribution 

for western DPS Steller sea lions are 

located in the Gulf of Alaska and 

Aleutian Islands. At sea, Steller sea 

lions commonly occur near the 656-ft 

(200-m) depth contour but have been 

found from nearshore to well beyond 

the continental shelf (Kajimura and 

Loughlin, 1988). Sea lions move 

offshore to pelagic waters for feeding 

excursions. 

Steller sea lions are frequently 

observed around Shemya Island outside 

of the ensonified area, though only 

occasionally observed in low numbers 

in Alcan Harbor and Shemya Pass (see 

application). The ensonified area would 

intersect with the aquatic zone of Steller 

sea lion haulouts designated as critical 

habitat. The Shemya Island Major 

Haulout is 2.75 nmi to the east of the 

project site, Alaid Island Major Haulout 

is 5 nmi northwest of the project site, 

and Attu/Chirikof Point Major Haulout 

is 24 nmi to the northwest of the project 

site. However, no Steller sea lions have 

been observed on the Shemya Island 

Major Haulout during surveys 

completed between 2015 and 2017, and 

only one Steller sea lion was observed 

at Attu/Chirkock Point during surveys 

conducted during the same time frame. 

An average of 68 non-pups and 7 pups 

were observed annually during this time 

at Alaid Island Major Haulout (see 

application). 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and 

estuarine waters off Alaska. They haul 

out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting 

glacial ice. They are generally nonmigratory, with local movements 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74459 

associated with such factors as tides, 

weather, season, food availability, and 

reproduction (Muto et al., 2021). They 

are opportunistic feeders and often 

adjust their distribution to take 

advantage of locally and seasonally 

abundant prey (Womble et al., 2010; 

Allen and Angliss, 2015). Although they 

tend to be solitary when in the water, 

they can form groups of about 30 or less 

individuals of both sexes and all ages 

when hauling out. Harbor seals haul out 

to rest periodically, give birth or nurse. 

Harbor seals in the project area are 

recognized as part of the Aleutian Island 

stock, occurring along the entire 

Aleutian island chain from Attu Island 

to Ugamak Island. Pupping season in 

the Aleutian Islands is occurs between 

mid-June to mid-July. (Sease, 1992). 

Harbor seals haul out on beaches all 

around Shemya Island, with largest 

numbers observed on the east side of the 

island, away from the ensonified area. 

However, harbor seals are occasionally 

observed occurring inside the 

ensonified area. During the 2016 and 

2021 marine mammal surveys 

completed on Shemya Island, an 

average of 0.45 harbor seals were 

observed each day. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

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

and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 

2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. 

(2007, 2019) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into hearing 

groups based on directly measured 

(behavioral or auditory evoked potential 

techniques) or estimated hearing ranges 

(behavioral response data, anatomical 

modeling, etc.). Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65-decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in table 3. 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing Group Generalized Hearing 

Range * 

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

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

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

australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz 

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

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

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

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

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

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section provides a discussion of 

the ways in which components of the 

specified activity may impact marine 

mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

section later in this document includes 

a quantitative analysis of the number of 

individuals that are expected to be taken 

by this activity. The Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination section 

considers the content of this section, the 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

section, and the Proposed Mitigation 

section, to draw conclusions regarding 

the likely impacts of these activities on 

the reproductive success or survivorship 

of individuals and whether those 

impacts are reasonably expected to, or 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Acoustic effects on marine mammals 

during the specified activity can occur 

from impact and vibratory pile driving 

and removal and DTH. The effects of 

underwater noise from USAF’s 

proposed activities have the potential to 

result in Level A harassment and Level 

B harassment of marine mammals. 

Description of Sound 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 (American National Standards 

Institute 1995). 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
74460 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

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 removal, and use of 

DTH equipment. 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 (American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI), 1986; 

National Institute of Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1998; 

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 rapid 

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 in Southall 

et al., 2007). 

Three types of hammers would be 

used on this project: impact, vibratory, 

and DTH. Impact hammers operate by 

repeatedly dropping and/or pushing a 

heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile 

into the substrate. Sound generated by 

impact hammers is 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). 

A DTH hammer is essentially a drill 

bit that drills through the bedrock using 

a rotating function like a normal drill, 

in concert with a hammering 

mechanism operated by a pneumatic (or 

sometimes hydraulic) component 

integrated into to the DTH hammer to 

increase speed of progress through the 

substrate (i.e., it is similar to a ‘‘hammer 

drill’’ hand tool). The sounds produced 

by the DTH method contain both a 

continuous, non-impulsive component 

from the drilling action and an 

impulsive component from the 

hammering effect. Therefore, we treat 

DTH systems as both impulsive and 

continuous, non-impulsive sound 

source types simultaneously. 

The likely or possible impacts of 

USAF’s proposed activities on marine 

mammals could be generated from both 

non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. 

Potential non-acoustic stressors include 

the physical presence of the equipment, 

vessels, and personnel; however, any 

impacts to marine mammals are 

expected to primarily be acoustic in 

nature. Acoustic stressors include 

effects of heavy equipment operation 

during pile installation and removal and 

DTH. 

Acoustic Impacts 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile driving and removal and DTH 

equipment is the primary means by 

which marine mammals may be 

harassed from USAF’s specified 

activities. In general, animals exposed to 

natural or anthropogenic sound may 

experience behavioral, physiological, 

and/or physical effects, ranging in 

magnitude from none to severe 

(Southall et al., 2007). Generally, 

exposure to pile driving and removal 

and DTH noise has the potential to 

result in behavioral reactions (e.g., 

avoidance, temporary cessation of 

foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive 

behavior) and, in limited cases, auditory 

threshold shifts. Exposure to 

anthropogenic noise can also lead to 

non-observable physiological responses 

such as an increase in stress hormones. 

Additional noise in a marine mammal’s 

habitat can mask acoustic cues used by 

marine mammals to carry out daily 

functions such as communication and 

predator and prey detection. The effects 

of pile driving and removal and DTH 

noise on marine mammals are 

dependent on several factors, including, 

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

impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the 

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

male vs. mother 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., 2003; 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; Ward et al., 1959; Ward, 1960; 

Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; 

Henderson et al., 2008). PTS levels for 

marine mammals are estimates, because 

there are limited empirical data 

measuring PTS in marine mammals 

(e.g., Kastak et al., 2008), 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74461 

ability (Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran 

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

described in Finneran (2016), marine 

mammal studies have shown the 

amount of TTS increases with 

cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At 

low exposures with lower SELcum, the 

amount of TTS is typically small and 

the growth curves have shallow slopes. 

At exposures with higher SELcum, the 

growth curves become steeper and 

approach linear relationships with the 

noise SEL. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

Masking, below). For example, a marine 

mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

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). 

Activities for this project include 

impact and vibratory pile driving, 

vibratory pile removal, and DTH 

activities. There would likely be pauses 

in activities producing the sound during 

each day. Given these pauses and the 

fact that many marine mammals are 

likely moving through the project areas 

and not remaining for extended periods 

of time, the potential for threshold shift 

declines. 

Behavioral harassment—Exposure to 

noise from pile driving and removal and 

DTH 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; National 

Research Council (NRC), 2005]. 

The following subsections provide 

examples of behavioral responses that 

provide an idea of the variability in 

behavioral responses that would be 

expected given the differential 

sensitivities of marine mammal species 

to sound and the wide range of potential 

acoustic sources to which a marine 

mammal may be exposed. Behavioral 

responses that could occur for a given 

sound exposure should be determined 

from the literature that is available for 

each species, or extrapolated from 

closely related species when no 

information exists, along with 

contextual factors. 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. There are broad 

categories of potential response, which 

we describe in greater detail here, that 

include alteration of dive behavior, 

alteration of foraging behavior, effects to 

respiration, interference with or 

alteration of vocalization, avoidance, 

and flight. 

Pinnipeds may increase their haul out 

time, possibly to avoid in-water 

disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). 

Behavioral reactions can vary not only 

among individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

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

depending on characteristics associated 

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

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). In 

general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant 

of, or at least habituate more quickly to, 

potentially disturbing underwater sound 

than do cetaceans, and generally seem 

to be less responsive to exposure to 

industrial sound than most cetaceans. 

Alteration of Dive Behavior—Changes 

in dive behavior can vary widely, and 

may consist of increased or decreased 

dive times and surface intervals as well 

as changes in the rates of ascent and 

descent during a dive (e.g., Frankel and 

Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Ng and 

Leung, 2003; Nowacek et al., 2004; 

Goldbogen et al., 2013). Seals exposed 

to non-impulsive sources with a 

received sound pressure level within 

the range of calculated exposures (142– 

193 dB re 1 mPa), have been shown to 

change their behavior by modifying 

diving activity and avoidance of the 

sound source (Go ̈tz and Janik, 2010; 

Kvadsheim et al., 2010). Variations in 

dive behavior may reflect interruptions 

in biologically significant activities (e.g., 

foraging) or they may be of little 

biological significance. The impact of an 

alteration to dive behavior resulting 

from an acoustic exposure depends on 

what the animal is doing at the time of 

the exposure and the type and 

magnitude of the response. 

Alteration of Feeding Behavior— 

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; Melco ́n et al., 2012). In 

addition, behavioral state of the animal 

plays a role in the type and severity of 

a behavioral response, such as 

disruption to foraging (e.g., Silve et al., 

2016; Wensveen et al., 2017). An 

evaluation of whether foraging 

disruptions would be likely to incur 

fitness consequences considers temporal 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
74462 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

and spatial scale of the activity in the 

context of the available foraging habitat 

and, in more severe cases may 

necessitate consideration of 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. 

Goldbogen et al. (2013) indicate that 

disruption of feeding and displacement 

could impact individual fitness and 

health. However, for this to be true, we 

would have to assume that an 

individual could not compensate for 

this lost feeding opportunity by either 

immediately feeding at another location, 

by feeding shortly after cessation of 

acoustic exposure, or by feeding at a 

later time. There is no indication this is 

the case here, particularly since prey 

would likely still be available in the 

environment in most cases following the 

cessation of acoustic exposure. 

Respiration—Respiration naturally 

varies with different behaviors, and 

variations in respiration rate as a 

function of acoustic exposure can be 

expected to co-occur with other 

behavioral reactions, such as a flight 

response or an alteration in diving. 

However, respiration rates in and of 

themselves may be representative of 

annoyance or an acute stress response. 

Studies with captive harbor porpoises 

showed increased respiration rates upon 

introduction of acoustic alarms 

(Kastelein et al., 2001; Kastelein et al., 

2006a) and emissions for underwater 

data transmission (Kastelein et al., 

2005). Various studies also have shown 

that species and signal characteristics 

are important factors in whether 

respiration rates are unaffected or 

change, again highlighting the 

importance in understanding species 

differences in the tolerance of 

underwater noise when determining the 

potential for impacts resulting from 

anthropogenic sound exposure (e.g., 

Kastelein et al., 2005; Kastelein et al., 

2006; Kastelein et al., 2018; Gailey et al., 

2007; Isojunno et al., 2018). 

Vocalization—Marine mammals 

vocalize for different purposes and 

across multiple modes, such as 

whistling, echolocation click 

production, calling, and singing. 

Changes in vocalization behavior in 

response to anthropogenic noise can 

occur for any of these modes and may 

result from a need to compete with an 

increase in background noise or may 

reflect increased vigilance or a startle 

response. For example, in the presence 

of potentially masking signals, 

humpback whales and killer whales 

(Orcinus orca) have been observed to 

increase the length of their songs (Miller 

et al., 2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote 

et al., 2004), while right whales have 

been observed to shift the frequency 

content of their calls upward while 

reducing the rate of calling in areas of 

increased anthropogenic noise (Parks et 

al., 2007; Rolland et al., 2012). Killer 

whales off the northwestern coast of the 

United States have been observed to 

increase the duration of primary calls 

once a threshold in observing vessel 

density (e.g., whale watching) was 

reached, which has been suggested as a 

response to increased masking noise 

produced by the vessels (Foote et al., 

2004; NOAA, 2014). In some cases, 

however, animals may cease or alter 

sound production in response to 

underwater sound (e.g., Bowles et al., 

1994; Castellote et al., 2012; Cerchio et 

al., 2014). Studies also demonstrate that 

even low levels of noise received far 

from the noise source can induce 

changes in vocalization and/or 

behavioral responses (Blackwell et al., 

2013; Blackwell et al., 2015). 

Avoidance—Avoidance is the 

displacement of an individual from an 

area or migration path as a result of the 

presence of a sound or other stressors, 

and is one of the most obvious 

manifestations of disturbance in marine 

mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Avoidance is qualitatively different 

from the flight response, but also differs 

in the magnitude of the response (i.e., 

directed movement, rate of travel, etc.). 

Often avoidance is temporary, and 

animals return to the area once the noise 

has ceased. Acute avoidance responses 

have been observed in captive porpoises 

and pinnipeds exposed to a number of 

different sound sources (Kastelein et al., 

2001; Finneran et al., 2003; Kastelein et 

al., 2006a; Kastelein et al., 2006b; 

Kastelein et al., 2015b; Kastelein et al., 

2015c; Kastelein et al., 2018). Shortterm avoidance of seismic surveys, low 

frequency emissions, and acoustic 

deterrents have also been noted in wild 

populations of odontocetes (Bowles et 

al., 1994; Goold, 1996; Goold and Fish, 

1998; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Hiley 

et al., 2021) and to some extent in 

mysticetes (Malme et al., 1984; 

McCauley et al., 2000; Gailey et al., 

2007). Longer-term displacement is 

possible, however, which may lead to 

changes in abundance or distribution 

patterns of the affected species in the 

affected region if habituation to the 

presence of the sound does not occur 

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

2006; Teilmann et al., 2006). 

Forney et al. (2017) described the 

potential effects of noise on marine 

mammal populations with high site 

fidelity, including displacement and 

auditory masking. In cases of western 

gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) and 

beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris), 

anthropogenic effects in areas where 

they are resident or exhibit site fidelity 

could cause severe biological 

consequences, in part because 

displacement may adversely affect 

foraging rates, reproduction, or health, 

while an overriding instinct to remain 

in the area could lead to more severe 

acute effects. Avoidance of overlap 

between disturbing noise and areas and/ 

or times of particular importance for 

sensitive species may be critical to 

avoiding population-level impacts 

because (particularly for animals with 

high site fidelity) there may be a strong 

motivation to remain in the area despite 

negative impacts. 

Flight Response—A flight response is 

a dramatic change in normal movement 

to a directed and rapid movement away 

from the perceived location of a sound 

source. The flight response differs from 

other avoidance responses in the 

intensity of the response (e.g., directed 

movement, rate of travel). Relatively 

little information on flight responses of 

marine mammals to anthropogenic 

signals exist, although observations of 

flight responses to the presence of 

predators have occurred (Connor and 

Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight 

response could range from brief, 

temporary exertion and displacement 

from the area where the signal provokes 

flight to, in extreme cases, marine 

mammal strandings (Evans and 

England, 2001). There are limited data 

on flight response for marine mammals 

in water; however, there are examples of 

this response in species on land. For 

instance, the probability of flight 

responses in Dall’s sheep Ovis dalli dalli 

(Frid, 2003), hauled out ringed seals 

(Phoca hispida) (Born et al., 1999), 

Pacific brant (Branta bernicla nigricans), 

and Canada geese (B. canadensis) 

increased as a helicopter or fixed-wing 

aircraft more directly approached 

groups of these animals (Ward et al., 

1999). However, it should be noted that 

response to a perceived predator does 

not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and 

Reeves, 2008), and whether individuals 

are solitary or in groups may influence 

the response. 

Behavioral disturbance can also 

impact marine mammals in more subtle 

ways. Increased vigilance may result in 

costs related to diversion of focus and 

attention (i.e., when a response consists 

of increased vigilance, it may come at 

the cost of decreased attention to other 

critical behaviors such as foraging or 

resting). These effects have generally not 

been observed in marine mammals, but 

studies involving fish and terrestrial 

animals have shown that increased 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74463 

vigilance may substantially reduce 

feeding rates and efficiency (e.g., 

Beauchamp and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et 

al., 2002; Purser and Radford, 2011). In 

addition, chronic disturbance can cause 

population declines through reduction 

of fitness (e.g., decline in body 

condition) and subsequent reduction in 

reproductive success, survival, or both 

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

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

Many animals perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour 

cycle). Disruption of such functions 

resulting from reactions to stressors 

such as sound exposure are more likely 

to be significant if they last more than 

one diel cycle or recur on subsequent 

days (Southall et al., 2007). 

Consequently, a behavioral response 

lasting less than 1 day and not recurring 

on subsequent days is not considered 

particularly severe unless it could 

directly affect reproduction or survival 

(Southall et al., 2007). Note that there is 

a difference between multi-day 

substantive behavioral reactions and 

multi-day anthropogenic activities. For 

example, just because an activity lasts 

for multiple days does not necessarily 

mean that individual animals are either 

exposed to activity-related stressors for 

multiple days or, further, exposed in a 

manner resulting in sustained multi-day 

substantive behavioral responses. 

To assess the strength of behavioral 

changes and responses to external 

sounds and SPLs associated with 

changes in behavior, Southall et al. 

(2007) developed and utilized a severity 

scale, which is a 10-point scale ranging 

from no effect (labeled 0), effects not 

likely to influence vital rates (low; 

labeled from one to three), effects that 

could affect vital rates (moderate; 

labeled from four to six), to effects that 

were thought likely to influence vital 

rates (high; labeled from seven to nine). 

Southall et al. (2021) updated the 

severity scale by integrating behavioral 

context (i.e., survival, reproduction, and 

foraging) into severity assessment. For 

non-impulsive sounds (i.e., similar to 

the sources used during the proposed 

action), data suggest that exposures of 

pinnipeds to sources between 90 and 

140 dB re 1 mPa do not elicit strong 

behavioral responses; no data were 

available for exposures at higher 

received levels for Southall et al. (2007) 

to include in the severity scale analysis. 

Reactions of harbor seals were the only 

available data for which the responses 

could be ranked on the severity scale. 

For reactions that were recorded, the 

majority (17 of 18 individuals/groups) 

were ranked on the severity scale as a 

4 (defined as moderate change in 

movement, brief shift in group 

distribution, or moderate change in 

vocal behavior) or lower. The remaining 

response was ranked as a 6 (defined as 

minor or moderate avoidance of the 

sound source). 

Habituation—Habituation can occur 

when an animal’s response to a stimulus 

wanes with repeated exposure, usually 

in the absence of unpleasant associated 

events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals 

are most likely to habituate to sounds 

that are predictable and unvarying. It is 

important to note that habituation is 

appropriately considered as a 

‘‘progressive reduction in response to 

stimuli that are perceived as neither 

aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as, 

more generally, moderation in response 

to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 

2009). The opposite process is 

sensitization, when an unpleasant 

experience leads to subsequent 

responses, often in the form of 

avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. 

As noted, behavioral state may affect the 

type of response. For example, animals 

that are resting may show greater 

behavioral change in response to 

disturbing sound levels than animals 

that are highly motivated to remain in 

an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 

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

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals have showed 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud sound 

sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran 

et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild 

marine mammals to loud impulsive 

sound sources (typically seismic airguns 

or acoustic harassment devices) have 

been varied but often consist of 

avoidance behavior or other behavioral 

changes suggesting discomfort (Morton 

and Symonds, 2002; Richardson et al., 

1995; Nowacek et al., 2007). 

Stress responses—An animal’s 

perception of a threat may be sufficient 

to trigger stress responses consisting of 

some combination of behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

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

Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of energetic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor. Autonomic nervous 

system responses to stress typically 

involve changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 

These responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. Neuroendocrine stress 

responses often involve the 

hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. 

Virtually all neuroendocrine functions 

that are affected by stress—including 

immune competence, reproduction, 

metabolism, and behavior—are 

regulated by pituitary hormones. Stressinduced changes in the secretion of 

pituitary hormones have been 

implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

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

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

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

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well-studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

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

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

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

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

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

and, more rarely, studied in wild 

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

For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. These and 

other studies lead to a reasonable 

expectation that some marine mammals 

will experience physiological stress 

responses upon exposure to acoustic 

stressors and that it is possible that 

some of these would be classified as 

‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal 

experiencing TTS would likely also 

experience stress responses (NRC, 

2003), however distress is an unlikely 

result of these projects based on 

observations of marine mammals during 

previous, similar projects. 

Auditory Masking—Sound can 

disrupt behavior through masking, or 

interfering with, an animal’s ability to 

detect, recognize, or discriminate 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
74464 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., 

those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Masking occurs when the receipt of a 

sound is interfered with by another 

coincident sound at similar frequencies 

and at similar or higher intensity, and 

may occur whether the sound is natural 

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

precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 

pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic 

exploration) in origin. The ability of a 

noise source to mask biologically 

important sounds depends on the 

characteristics of both the noise source 

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

direction), in relation to each other and 

to an animal’s hearing abilities (e.g., 

sensitivity, frequency range, critical 

ratios, frequency discrimination, 

directional discrimination, age or TTS 

hearing loss), and existing ambient 

noise and propagation conditions. 

Masking of natural sounds can result 

when human activities produce high 

levels of background sound at 

frequencies important to marine 

mammals. Conversely, if the 

background level of underwater sound 

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

and high waves), an anthropogenic 

sound source would not be detectable as 

far away as would be possible under 

quieter conditions and would itself be 

masked. 

Airborne Acoustic Effects—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 elevated above the acoustic 

criteria. 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 likely previously have 

been ‘taken’ because of exposure to 

underwater sound above the behavioral 

harassment thresholds, which are 

generally 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 

additional incidental take resulting from 

airborne sound for pinnipeds is 

warranted, and airborne sound is not 

discussed further. 

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects 

USAF’s proposed construction 

activities could have localized, 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat, including prey, by increasing 

in-water sound pressure levels and 

slightly decreasing water quality. 

Increased noise levels may affect 

acoustic habitat (see Masking discussion 

above) and adversely affect marine 

mammal prey in the vicinity of the 

project areas (see discussion below). 

Elevated levels of underwater noise 

would ensonify the project areas where 

both fishes and mammals occur and 

could affect foraging success. 

Additionally, marine mammals may 

avoid the area during construction; 

however, displacement due to noise is 

expected to be temporary and is not 

expected to result in long-term effects to 

the individuals or populations. 

In-water Construction Effects on 

Potential Prey—Construction activities 

would produce continuous (i.e., 

vibratory pile driving and DTH) and 

intermittent (i.e., impact driving and 

DTH) sounds. Sound may affect marine 

mammals through impacts on the 

abundance, behavior, or distribution of 

prey species (e.g., crustaceans, 

cephalopods, fish, zooplankton). Marine 

mammal prey varies by species, season, 

and location. Here, we describe studies 

regarding the effects of noise on known 

marine mammal prey. 

Fish utilize the soundscape and 

components of sound in their 

environment to perform important 

functions such as foraging, predator 

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

Zelick and Mann, 1999; Fay, 2009). 

Depending on their hearing anatomy 

and peripheral sensory structures, 

which vary among species, fishes hear 

sounds using pressure and particle 

motion sensitivity capabilities and 

detect the motion of surrounding water 

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

of noise on fishes depends on the 

overlapping frequency range, distance 

from the sound source, water depth of 

exposure, and species-specific hearing 

sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. 

Key impacts to fishes may include 

behavioral responses, hearing damage, 

barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), 

and mortality. 

Fish react to sounds that are 

especially strong and/or intermittent 

low-frequency sounds, and behavioral 

responses such as flight or avoidance 

are the most likely effects. Short 

duration, sharp sounds can cause overt 

or subtle changes in fish behavior and 

local distribution. The reaction of fish to 

noise depends on the physiological state 

of the fish, past exposures, motivation 

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

other environmental factors. Hastings 

and Popper (2005) identified several 

studies that suggest fish may relocate to 

avoid certain areas of sound energy. 

Additional studies have documented 

effects of pile driving on fish; several are 

based on studies in support of large, 

multiyear bridge construction projects 

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

and Yan, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 

2009). Several studies have 

demonstrated that impulse sounds 

might affect the distribution and 

behavior of some fishes, potentially 

impacting foraging opportunities or 

increasing energetic costs (e.g., Fewtrell 

and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 

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

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

some studies have shown no or slight 

reaction to impulse sounds (e.g., Pena et 

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

and Gyselman, 2009). 

SPLs of sufficient strength have been 

known to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality. However, in most fish 

species, hair cells in the ear 

continuously regenerate and loss of 

auditory function likely is restored 

when damaged cells are replaced with 

new cells. Halvorsen et al. (2012a) 

showed that a TTS of 4 to 6 dB was 

recoverable within 24 hours for one 

species. Impacts would be most severe 

when the individual fish is close to the 

source and when the duration of 

exposure is long. Injury caused by 

barotrauma can range from slight to 

severe and can cause death, and is most 

likely for fish with swim bladders. 

Barotrauma injuries have been 

documented during controlled exposure 

to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 

2012b; Casper et al., 2013). 

The most likely impact to fishes from 

pile driving activities at the project area 

would be temporary behavioral 

avoidance of the area. The duration of 

fish avoidance of this area after pile 

driving stops is unknown, but a rapid 

return to normal recruitment, 

distribution, and behavior is 

anticipated. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74465 

Construction activities have the 

potential to have adverse impacts on 

forage fish in the project area in the 

form of increased turbidity. Forage fish 

form a significant prey base for many 

marine mammal species that occur in 

the project area. Turbidity within the 

water column has the potential to 

reduce the level of oxygen in the water 

and irritate the gills of prey fish in the 

proposed project area. However, fish in 

the proposed project area would be able 

to move away from and avoid the areas 

where increase turbidity may occur. 

Given the limited area affected and 

ability of fish to move to other areas, 

any effects on forage fish are expected 

to be minor or negligible. 

In summary, given the short daily 

duration of sound associated with 

individual pile driving and removal 

events and the relatively small areas 

being affected, pile driving and removal 

activities associated with the proposed 

actions are not likely to have a 

permanent, adverse effect on any fish 

habitat, or populations of fish species. 

Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the 

disturbed area would still leave 

significantly large areas of fish and 

marine mammal foraging habitat in the 

nearby vicinity. Thus, we conclude that 

impacts of the specified activities are 

not likely to have more than short-term 

adverse effects on any prey habitat or 

populations of prey species. Further, 

any impacts to marine mammal habitat 

are not expected to result in significant 

or long-term consequences for 

individual marine mammals, or to 

contribute to adverse impacts on their 

populations. 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers,’’ and 

the negligible impact determinations. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which: (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as use of the 

acoustic sources (i.e., impact and 

vibratory pile driving and removal and 

DTH) 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 mysticetes and/or high frequency 

species and/or phocids because 

predicted auditory injury zones are 

larger than for mid-frequency species 

and/or otariids. Auditory injury is 

unlikely to occur for other groups. 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 

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; Southall et 

al., 2021; Ellison et al., 2012). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a metric that is both 

predictable and measurable for most 

activities, NMFS typically uses a 

generalized acoustic threshold based on 

received level to estimate the onset of 

behavioral harassment. NMFS generally 

predicts that marine mammals are likely 

to be behaviorally harassed in a manner 

considered to be Level B harassment 

when exposed to underwater 

anthropogenic noise above root-meansquared pressure received levels (RMS 

SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 

micropascal (re 1 mPa)) for continuous 

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

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

airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. Generally speaking, 

Level B harassment take estimates based 

on these behavioral harassment 

thresholds are expected to include any 

likely takes by TTS as, in most cases, 

the likelihood of TTS occurs at 

distances from the source less than 

those at which behavioral harassment is 

likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can 

manifest as behavioral harassment, as 

reduced hearing sensitivity and the 

potential reduced opportunities to 

detect important signals (conspecific 

communication, predators, prey) may 

result in changes in behavior patterns 

that would not otherwise occur. USAF’s 

proposed activity includes the use of 

continuous (vibratory pile driving and 

removal and DTH) and impulsive 

(impact pile driving and DTH) sources, 

and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds 

of 120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa is/are 

applicable. 

Level A harassment—NMFS’ 

‘‘Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing’’ (Version 2.0, 

Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). USAF’s proposed activity 

includes the use of impulsive (impact 

pile driving and DTH) and nonimpulsive (vibratory pile driving and 

removal and DTH) 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/ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
74466 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

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., pile driving and 

removal and DTH). The maximum 

(underwater) area ensonified above the 

thresholds for behavioral harassment 

referenced above is 1286 km2 (496 mi2), 

and the calculated distance to the 

farthest behavioral harassment isopleth 

is approximately 39,811 m (24,737.4 

mi). 

The project includes vibratory pile 

installation and removal, impact pile 

driving, and DTH. Source levels for 

these activities are based on reviews of 

measurements of the same or similar 

types and dimensions of piles available 

in the literature. Source levels for each 

pile size and activity are presented in 

table 5. Source levels for vibratory 

installation and removal of piles of the 

same diameter are assumed to be the 

same. 

NMFS recommends treating DTH 

systems as both impulsive and 

continuous, non-impulsive sound 

source types simultaneously. Thus, 

impulsive thresholds are used to 

evaluate Level A harassment, and 

continuous thresholds are used to 

evaluate Level B harassment. With 

regards to DTH mono-hammers, NMFS 

recommends proxy levels for Level A 

harassment based on available data 

regarding DTH systems of similar sized 

piles and holes (Denes et al., 2019; Reyff 

and Heyvaert, 2019; Reyff, 2020; 

Heyvaert and Reyff, 2021) (table 1 

includes number of piles and duration; 

table 5 includes sound pressure and 

sound exposure levels for each pile 

type). 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATES OF MEAN UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS GENERATED DURING VIBRATORY AND IMPACT PILE

INSTALLATION, DTH, AND VIBRATORY PILE REMOVAL

Continuous sound sources SSL at 10 m 

dB rms Literature source 

Vibratory Hammer 

42-inch steel piles ........................... 168.2 Port of Anchorage Test Pile Program (Table 16 in Austin et al., 2016). 

30-inch steel piles ........................... 166 * NMFS Analysis (C. Hotchkin, April 24, 2023). 

DTH 

42-inch steel piles ........................... 174 Reyff & Heyvaert, 2019; Reyff, 2020. 

30-inch steel piles ........................... 174 Reyff & Heyvaert, 2019; Reyff, 2020. 

Impulsive sound sources dB rms dB SEL dB peak Literature source 

Impact Hammer 

42-inch steel piles ........... 192 179 213 Caltrans, 2020. 

30-inch steel piles ........... 191 177 212 Caltrans, 2020. 

DTH 

42-inch steel piles ........... N/A 164 194 Reyff & Heyvaert, 2019; Reyff, 2020; Denes et al., 2019. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74467 

Impulsive sound sources dB rms dB SEL dB peak Literature source 

30-inch steel piles ........... N/A 164 194 Reyff & Heyvaert, 2019; Reyff, 2020; Denes et al., 2019. 

Note: dB peak = peak sound level; DTH = down-the-hole drilling; rms = root mean square; SEL = sound exposure level. 

* NMFS generated this source level by completing a completed a comprehensive review of source levels relevant to Southeast Alaska; NMFS 

compiled all available data from Puget Sound and Southeast Alaska and adjusted the data to standardize distance from the measured pile to 10 

m. NMFS then calculated average source levels for each project and for each pile type. NMFS weighted impact pile driving project averages by 

the number of strikes per pile following the methodology in Navy (2015). 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2), 

where 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement 

Absent site-specific acoustical 

monitoring with differing measured 

transmission loss, a practical spreading 

value of 15 is used as the transmission 

loss coefficient in the above formula. 

Site-specific transmission loss data for 

the Shemya Island are not available; 

therefore, the default coefficient of 15 is 

used to determine the distances to the 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment thresholds. 

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 pile driving, the 

optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts 

the distance at which, if a marine 

mammal remained at that distance for 

the duration of the activity, it would be 

expected to incur PTS. Inputs used in 

the optional User Spreadsheet tool, and 

the resulting estimated isopleths, are 

reported below. 

TABLE 6—USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS

Vibratory Impact DTH 

30-inch 

steel piles 

42-inch 

steel piles 

30-inch 

steel piles 

42-inch 

steel piles 

30-inch 

steel piles 

42-inch 

steel piles 

Installation or 

removal 

Installation Installation Installation Installation Installation 

Spreadsheet Tab Used A.1) Vibratory 

Pile Driving 

A.1) Vibratory 

Pile Driving 

E.1) Impact 

Pile Driving 

E.1) Impact 

Pile Driving 

E.2) DTH 

Pile Driving 

E.2) DTH 

Pile Driving 

Source Level (SPL) 166 RMS 168.2 RMS 177 SEL 179 SEL 174 RMS, 

164 SEL 

174 RMS, 

164 SEL 

Transmission Loss Coefficient .................................................................. 15 15 15 15 15 15 

Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz) .......................................................... 2.5 2.5 2 2 2 2 

Activity Duration per day (minutes) ........................................................... 60 120 120 180 150 180 

Strike Rate per second ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ .................... .................... 10 10 

Number of strikes per pile ......................................................................... ........................ ........................ 900 1,800 .................... ....................

Number of piles per day ........................................................................... 4 4 4 4 3 3 

Distance of sound pressure level measurement ...................................... 10 10 10 10 10 10 

TABLE 7—LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS FROM VIBRATORY AND IMPACT PILE DRIVING

AND DTH 

Pile type 

Level A harassment isopleths (m) Level B 

harassment 

isopleth 

(m) LF MF HF PW OW 

Vibratory 

42-inch steel pipe piles ..................................................................................... 32.7 2.9 48.4 19.9 1.4 16,343 

30-inch Steel pipe piles ..................................................................................... 14.7 1.3 21.8 8.9 0.6 11,659 

DTH 

42-inch Steel pipe piles ..................................................................................... 2,549.4 90.7 3,036.7 1,364.3 99.3 39,811 

30-inch Steel pipe piles ..................................................................................... 2,257.6 80.3 2,689.2 1,208.2 88.0 39,811 

Impact 

42-inch steel pipe piles ..................................................................................... 2,015.1 71.7 2,400.3 1,078.4 78.5 1,359 

30-inch Steel pipe piles ..................................................................................... 933.8 33.2 1,112.3 499.7 36.4 1,166 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I 
74468 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Estimation 

In this section we provide information 

about the occurrence of marine 

mammals, including density or other 

relevant information which will inform 

the take calculations. 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. 

As described above, for some species 

(humpback whale, killer whale, Steller 

sea lion and harbor seal) observations 

within the project area from the prior 

monitoring were available to directly 

inform the take estimates, while for 

other species (fin whale, minke whale, 

sperm whale, Baird’s beaked whale, 

Stejneger’s beaked whale, Dall’s 

porpoise, harbor porpoise and northern 

fur seal) they were not. Prior surveys 

include Protected Species Observer 

(PSO) monitoring completed at the 

project site on 60 days between June 

and August 2021 during the emergency 

fuel pier repair, island-wide faunal 

surveys completed by the USACE 

Engineer Research Development Center 

(ERDC) across 33 days between 2016 

and 2019 (primarily in the spring and 

fall), and island-wide marine mammal 

surveys completed by the USACE Civil 

Works Environmental Resource Section 

on 26 days between May and October 

2021. From all three surveys, data that 

were collected within the project area 

are primarily the basis for the take 

estimates because those data best 

represents what might be encountered 

there. Average group sizes used to 

inform Level B take estimates (which 

also underlie the estimates for Level A 

harassment) for all species with prior 

observations in the project area are 

primarily based on those data. Alternate 

methods utilizing average group sizes 

informed primarily by Alaska’s Wildlife 

Notebook Series are used for species 

without prior observations. 

Also of note, while the results are not 

significantly different, in some cases we 

recommended modified methods for 

estimating take from those presented by 

the applicant and have described them 

below. A summary of proposed take, 

including as a percentage of population 

for each of the species, is shown in table 

8. 

Fin Whale 

No fin whale were reported during 

monitoring conducted for the EAS fuel 

pier emergency repair completed in 

2021, nor during other surveys 

completed from Shemya Island (see 

application). Accordingly, average 

group size, estimated group size based 

on information shared in the Alaska 

Wildlife Notebook Series (Clark 2008a), 

is used as the basis for the take 

estimates. 

USAF requested 17 takes of fin 

whales by Level B harassment, using a 

calculation based on of 0.002 groups of 

eight fin whales per hour of 

construction activity. NMFS concurs 

with USAF’s predicted group size of fin 

whale (8 individuals), but since there 

are no observations of this species from 

Shemya Island, NMFS finds it more 

appropriate to estimate take by Level B 

harassment using a less granular 

occurrence estimate (monthly) rather 

than USAF’s hourly occurrence 

estimate. Specifically, 1 group of 8 fin 

whales is predicted every 2 construction 

months, based on the applicant’s 

prediction that this species would be 

rare in the project area. The duration of 

the construction is 160 days (2.65 × the 

basic 60 day period) and 8 * 2.65 = 21 

takes by Level B harassment). 

Although the shutdown zone is larger 

than the Level A harassment zone for 

low frequency cetaceans, USAF 

indicates that at ≥2,000 m, it becomes 

more challenging to reliably detect low 

frequency cetaceans in some 

environmental conditions, and therefore 

it is possible that a fin whale could 

enter the Level A harassment zone 

during DTH activities and stay long 

enough to incur PTS before USAF 

detects the animal and shuts down. As 

such, USAF requested and NMFS 

proposed to authorize a small amount of 

take by Level A harassment of fin 

whales. NMFS calculated takes by Level 

A harassment by first determining the 

proportion of the area of largest Level A 

harassment zone (42-inch DTH, 2,549 

m) that occurs beyond the readily 

observable 2,000 m from the pile driving 

location (i.e., 7.5 km2¥5 km2/7.5 km2 = 

0.33). This ratio was multiplied by the 

estimated fin whale exposures, which is 

generally one group of eight fin whale 

that would occur every 2 construction 

months (or 60 days, adjusted by 1.2 to 

account for the 70 days that DTH 

activities are planned). Multiplying 

these factors (8 * 1.2 * 0.33) results in 

= 3 takes by Level A harassment). 

Any individuals exposed to the higher 

levels associated with the potential for 

PTS closer to the source might also be 

behaviorally disturbed, however, for the 

purposes of quantifying take we do not 

count those exposures of one individual 

as both a Level A harassment take and 

a Level B harassment take, and therefore 

takes by Level B harassment calculated 

as described above are further modified 

to deduct the proposed amount of take 

by Level A harassment (i.e., 21¥3 = 18). 

Therefore, NMFS proposes to 

authorize 3 takes by Level A harassment 

and 18 takes by Level B harassment for 

fin whales, for a total of 21 takes. 

Humpback Whale 

Across 119 days of marine mammal 

surveys completed from Shemya Island 

between 2016 and 2021, seven 

humpback whales were observed in the 

project area. The average group size for 

humpback whales detected in the 

project area was 2 humpback whales per 

group detected. 

For estimating take by Level B 

harassment where monitoring data 

confirmed the presence of the marine 

mammal species, NMFS concurred with 

USAF’s proposed approach. USAF 

requested take by Level B harassment by 

predicting that 0.07 groups of humpback 

whales would be sighted every hour, 

which was based on the applicant 

predicting this species would 

commonly occur within the project area. 

This was then multiplied by the average 

group size for humpback whales (2 

individuals), to achieve an hourly 

humpback rate. Finally, these numbers 

are multiplied by the hours of 

construction activity. (0.07 * 2 * 1,101 

= 154 takes by Level B harassment). 

Although the shutdown zone is larger 

than the Level A harassment zone for 

low frequency cetaceans, USAF 

indicates that at ≥2,000 m, it becomes 

more challenging to reliably detect low 

frequency cetaceans in some 

environmental conditions, and therefore 

it is possible that humpback whales 

could enter the Level A harassment 

zone during DTH activities and stay 

long enough to incur PTS before USAF 

detects the animal and shuts down. As 

such, USAF requested and NMFS 

proposed to authorize a small amount of 

take by Level A harassment of 

humpback whales. NMFS calculated 

takes by Level A harassment by 

determining the proportion of the area 

of largest Level A harassment zone (42- 

inch DTH, 2,549 m) that occurs beyond 

2,000 m from the pile driving location 

(i.e., 7.5 km2¥5 km2/7.5 km2 = 0.33) 

and multiplying this ratio by the 

estimated humpback whale exposures 

(0.07 groups of 2 humpback whale) that 

would occur every construction hour 

that DTH activities are planned (624 

hours) (0.07 * 2 * 624 * 0.33 = 29 takes 

by Level A harassment). 

For the reasons described above, takes 

by Level B harassment were modified to 

deduct the proposed amount of take by 

Level A harassment (i.e., 154¥29 = 

125). 

Therefore, NMFS proposes to 

authorize 29 takes by Level A 

harassment and 125 takes by Level B 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74469 

harassment for humpback whales, for a 

total of 154 takes. 

Minke Whale 

No minke whales were reported 

during monitoring conducted for the 

EAS fuel pier emergency repair 

completed in 2021, nor during other 

surveys completed from Shemya Island 

(e.g., see application). Accordingly, 

average group size, estimated based on 

group size information shared in the 

Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series (Clark 

2008a), is used as the basis for the take 

estimates (Guerrero 2008b). 

USAF requested 7 takes of minke 

whales by Level B harassment, using a 

calculation of of 0.002 groups of three 

minke whales per hour of construction 

activity. NMFS concurs with USAF’s 

predicted group size of minke whale 

(three individuals), but since there are 

no observations of this species from 

Shemya Island, NMFS finds it more 

appropriate to estimate take by Level B 

harassment using a less granular 

occurrence estimate (monthly) rather 

than USAF’s hourly occurrence 

estimate. Specifically, one group of 

three minke whales is predicted every 2 

construction months, based on the 

applicant’s prediction that this species 

would be rare in the project area. The 

duration of construction is 160 days 

(2.65 * the basic 60 day period, which 

corresponds to two months) and 3 * 

2.65 = 8 takes by Level B harassment. 

Although the shutdown zone is larger 

than the Level A harassment zone for 

low frequency cetaceans, USAF 

indicates that at ≥2,000 m, it becomes 

more challenging to reliably detect low 

frequency cetaceans in some 

environmental conditions, and therefore 

it is possible that a minke whale could 

enter the Level A harassment zone 

during DTH activities and stay long 

enough to incur PTS before USAF 

detects the animal and shuts down. As 

such, USAF requested and NMFS 

proposed to authorize a small amount of 

take by Level A harassment of minke 

whales. NMFS calculated takes by Level 

A harassment by determining the 

proportion of the area of largest Level A 

harassment zone (42-inch DTH, 2,549 

m) that occurs beyond the readily 

observable 2,000 m from the pile driving 

location (i.e., 7.5 km2¥5 km2/7.5 km2 = 

0.33). This ratio was multiplied by the 

estimated minke whale exposures, 

which is generally one group of three 

minke whales every 2 construction 

months (or 60 days), adjusted by 1.2 to 

account for the 70 days that DTH 

activities are planned. Multiplying these 

factors 1.2 * 0.33 results in 1 take by 

Level A harassment. Since the predicted 

average group size of minke whale is 

three, NMFS proposes to authorize three 

takes by Level A harassment of minke 

whale. 

For reasons described above, takes by 

Level B harassment were modified to 

deduct the proposed amount of take by 

Level A harassment (i.e., 8¥3 = 5). 

Therefore, NMFS proposes to 

authorize three takes by Level A 

harassment and five takes by Level B 

harassment for minke whales, for a total 

of eight takes. 

Sperm Whale 

Across 119 monitoring days between 

2016 and 2021, four sperm whales were 

observed on a single day from Shemya 

Island, though outside of the project 

area (see application). 

USAF requested 27 takes of sperm 

whale by Level B harassment, using a 

calculation based on of 0.006 groups of 

four sperm whales per hour of 

construction activity. NMFS concurs 

with USAF’s predicted group size of 

sperm whale (4 individuals, which 

corresponds to the number of sperm 

whales detected on a single day during 

Shemya Island marine mammal 

surveys), but since there are few 

observations of this species from 

Shemya Island, NMFS finds it more 

appropriate to estimate take by Level B 

harassment using a less granular 

occurrence estimate (monthly) rather 

than USAF’s hourly occurrence 

estimate. Specifically, two groups of 

four sperm whales is predicted every 1 

construction month based on sperm 

whales being one of the most frequently 

sighted marine mammals in the high 

latitude regions of the North Pacific, 

including the Bering Sea and the 

Aleutian Islands. The duration of the 

construction is 5 months and 2 * 4 * 5 

= 40 takes by Level B harassment. 

Due to the small Level A harassment 

zones (table 9), which do not reach deep 

water where sperm whales are expected 

to be encountered, coupled with the 

implementation of shutdown zones, 

which will be larger than Level A 

harassment zones for mid-frequency 

cetaceans (described in the Proposed 

Mitigation section), NMFS concurs with 

USAF’s assessment that take by Level A 

harassment is not anticipated for sperm 

whale. Therefore, NMFS proposed to 

authorize all 40 estimated exposures as 

takes by Level B harassment. Takes by 

Level A harassment for sperm whales 

are not requested nor are they proposed 

for authorization. 

Baird’s Beaked Whale 

Baird’s beaked whales are usually 

found in tight social groups (schools or 

pods) averaging between 5 and 20 

individuals, but they have occasionally 

been observed in larger groups of up to 

50 animals. Across 119 days of marine 

mammal surveys completed from 

Shemya Island between 2016 and 2021, 

no observations of Baird’s beaked whale 

were recorded (see application). 

Accordingly, average group size, 

estimated based on group size 

information shared in the Alaska 

Wildlife Notebook Series (Guerrero 

2008a), is used as the basis for take 

estimates. 

USAF requested 11 takes by Level B 

harassment, using a calculation based 

on 0.001 groups of ten Baird’s beaked 

whales per hour of construction activity. 

NMFS concurs with USAF’s predicted 

group size of Baird’s beaked whale (10 

individuals), but since there are no 

observations of this species from 

Shemya Island, NMFS finds it more 

appropriate to estimate take by Level B 

harassment using a less granular 

occurrence estimate (monthly) rather 

than USAF’s hourly occurrence 

estimate. Specifically, 1 group of 10 

Baird’s beaked whales is predicted 

across the project, which is based on 

this species being shy and preferring 

deep waters and as such the applicant 

predicted they would be very rare in the 

project area. Therefore, NMFS proposes 

to authorize 10 takes of Baird’s beaked 

whale by Level B harassment. 

Due to the small Level A harassment 

zones (table 9), which do not reach deep 

water where Baird’s beaked whales are 

expected to be encountered, coupled 

with the implementation of shutdown 

zones, which will be larger than Level 

A harassment zones for mid-frequency 

cetaceans (described in the Proposed 

Mitigation section), NMFS concurs with 

USAF’s assessment that take by Level A 

harassment is not anticipated for Baird’s 

beaked whale. Therefore, NMFS 

proposed to authorize all 10 estimated 

exposures as takes by Level B 

harassment. Takes by Level A 

harassment for Baird’s beaked whales 

are not requested nor are they proposed 

for authorization. 

Stejneger’s Beaked Whale 

Across 119 days of marine mammal 

surveys completed from Shemya Island 

between 2016 and 2021, no observations 

of Stejneger’s beaked whale were 

recorded (see application). Accordingly, 

average group size, estimated based on 

group size information shared in the 

Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series 

(Guerrero 2008a), is used as the basis for 

take estimates. 

USAF requested 9 takes of Stejneger’s 

beaked whale by Level B harassment, 

using a calculation based on of 0.001 

groups of eight Stejneger’s beaked 

whales per hour of construction activity. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
74470 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

NMFS concurs with USAF’s predicted 

group size of Stejneger’s beaked whale 

(eight individuals), but since there are 

no observations of this species from 

Shemya Island, NMFS finds it more 

appropriate to estimate take by Level B 

harassment using a less granular 

occurrence estimate (monthly) rather 

than USAF’s hourly occurrence 

estimate. Specifically, one group of 

eight Stejneger’s beaked whales is 

predicted across the entirety of the 

project, based on this species being shy 

and preferring deep waters and as such 

the applicant predicted they would only 

be very rarely encountered in the project 

area. Therefore NMFS proposes to 

authorize 8 Stejneger’s beaked whale by 

level B harassment. 

Due to the small Level A harassment 

zones (table 9), which do not reach deep 

water where Stejneger’s beaked whales 

are expected to be encountered, coupled 

with the implementation of shutdown 

zones, which will be larger than Level 

A harassment zones for mid-frequency 

cetaceans (described in the Proposed 

Mitigation section), NMFS concurs with 

USAF’s assessment that take by Level A 

harassment is not anticipated for 

Stejneger’s beaked whale. Therefore, 

NMFS proposed to authorize all eight 

estimated exposures as takes by Level B 

harassment. Takes by Level A 

harassment for Stejneger’s beaked 

whales are not requested nor are they 

proposed for authorization. 

Killer Whale 

Across 119 days of marine mammal 

surveys completed from Shemya Island 

between 2016 and 2021, 69 killer 

whales were observed in the project 

area. The average group size for killer 

whales detected in the project area was 

8 killer whales per group detected. 

For estimating take by Level B 

harassment where monitoring data 

confirmed the presence of the marine 

mammal species, NMFS concurred with 

USAF’s proposed approach. USAF 

requested take by Level B harassment by 

predicting that 0.02 groups of killer 

whales would be sighted every hour, 

which was based on the applicant’s 

prediction that this species would 

commonly be encountered in the project 

area. This was then multiplied by the 

average group size for humpback whales 

(8 individuals), to achieve an hourly 

killer whale rate. Finally, these numbers 

are multiplied by the hours of 

construction activity. (0.02 * 8 * 1,101 

= 176 takes by Level B harassment). 

Due to the small Level A harassment 

zones (table 9), coupled with the 

implementation of shutdown zones, 

which will be larger than Level A 

harassment zones for mid-frequency 

cetaceans (described in the Proposed 

Mitigation section), NMFS concurs with 

USAF’s assessment that take by Level A 

harassment is not anticipated for killer 

whale. Therefore, NMFS proposed to 

authorize all 176 estimated exposures as 

takes by Level B harassment. Takes by 

Level A harassment for killer whale are 

not requested nor are they proposed for 

authorization. 

Dall’s Porpoise 

No Dall’s porpoise were reported 

during monitoring conducted for the 

EAS fuel pier emergency repair 

completed in 2021, nor during other 

surveys completed from Shemya Island 

(see application). Dall’s porpoise 

generally travel in groups of 10 to 20 

individuals but can occur in groups 

with over hundreds of individuals 

(Wells, 2008). Accordingly, average 

group size, estimated based group size 

information shared in the Alaska 

Wildlife Notebook Series (Wells 2008), 

is used as the basis for the take 

estimates, is used as the basis for take 

estimates. 

USAF requested 33 takes of Dall’s 

porpoise by Level B harassment, using 

a calculation based on of 0.002 groups 

of 15 Dall’s porpoise per hour of 

construction activity. NMFS concurs 

with USAF’s predicted group size of 

Dall’s porpoise (15 individuals), but 

since there are no observations of this 

species from Shemya Island, NMFS 

finds it more appropriate to estimate 

take by Level B harassment using a less 

granular occurrence estimate (monthly) 

rather than USAF’s hourly occurrence 

estimate. Specifically, 1 group of 15 

Dall’s porpoise is predicted every 2 

construction months, based on the 

applicant’s prediction that this species 

would be rarely encountered in the 

project area. The duration of the 

construction is 160 days (2.65 * the 

basic 60 day period that corresponds to 

two construction months) and 15 * 2.65 

= 40 takes by Level B harassment. 

For most activities, NMFS calculated 

takes by Level A harassment by 

determining the ratio of the largest Level 

A harassment area for 42-inch DTH 

activities (i.e., 10.2 km2 for a Level A 

harassment distance of 3,037 m) minus 

the area of the proposed shutdown zone 

for Dall’s porpoise (i.e., 0.5 km2 for a 

shutdown zone distance of 500 m) to the 

area of the Level B harassment isopleth 

(1,285.9 km2) for a Level B harassment 

distance of 39,811 m (i.e., (10.2 

km2¥0.5 km2)/1,285.9 km2 = 0.008). We 

then multiplied this ratio by the number 

of estimated Dall’s porpoise exposures 

calculated as described above for Level 

B harassment to determine take by Level 

A harassment (i.e., 0.008 * 40 exposures 

= 0.32 takes by Level A harassment). 

For Level A harassment during impact 

pile driving of 42-inch piles, for which 

the Level A harassment zone is larger 

than the Level B harassment zone, 

NMFS estimates take based on 1 group 

of 15 Dall’s porpoise every 2 months, or 

60 days, in consideration of the 52 days 

(0.87 of 60) of impact driving of 42-in 

piles (15 Dall’s porpoise * 0.87 months 

= 13.05) for a total of 13.37 takes by 

Level A harassment (0.32 + 13.05 = 13). 

For reasons described above, takes by 

Level B harassment were modified to 

deduct the proposed amount of take by 

Level A harassment (i.e., 40¥13 = 27). 

Therefore, NMFS proposes to 

authorize 13 takes by Level A 

harassment and 27 takes by Level B 

harassment for Dall’s porpoise, for a 

total of 40 takes. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Across 119 monitoring days between 

2016 and 2021, one group of two to 

three harbor porpoise were observed 

from Shemya Island (see application), 

though outside of the project area. 

Average group size, estimated based on 

the Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series 

(Schmale 2008), is used as the basis for 

take estimates. 

USAF requested 11 takes of harbor 

porpoise by Level B harassment, using 

a calculation based on of 0.01 groups of 

one harbor porpoise per hour of 

construction activity. NMFS concurs 

with USAF’s predicted group size of 

harbor porpoise (1 individual), but since 

there are few observations of this 

species from Shemya Island, NMFS 

finds it more appropriate to estimate 

take by Level B harassment using a less 

granular occurrence estimate (monthly) 

rather than USAF’s hourly occurrence 

estimate. Specifically, 3 groups of 1 

harbor porpoise is predicted every 1 

construction month. The duration of 

construction is 5 months and 3 * 5 = 15 

takes by Level B harassment. 

For most activities, NMFS calculated 

takes by Level A harassment by 

determining the ratio of the largest Level 

A harassment area for 42-inch DTH 

activities (i.e., 10.2 km2 for a Level A 

harassment distance of 3,037 m) minus 

the area of the proposed shutdown zone 

for harbor porpoise (i.e., 0.5 km2 for a 

shutdown zone distance of 500 m) to the 

area of the Level B harassment isopleth 

(1,285.9 km2) for a Level B harassment 

distance of 39,811 m (i.e., (10.2 

km2¥0.5 km2)/1,285.9 km2 = 0.008). We 

then multiplied this ratio by the number 

of estimated harbor porpoise exposures 

calculated as described above for Level 

B harassment to determine take by Level 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74471 

A harassment (i.e., 0.008 * 15 exposures 

= 0.12 takes by Level A harassment). 

For Level A harassment during impact 

pile driving of 42-inch piles, for which 

the Level A harassment zone is larger 

than the Level B harassment zone, 

NMFS estimates take based on 3 groups 

of 1 harbor porpoise could be taken by 

Level A harassment every 1 month, or 

30 days in consideration of the 52 days 

(1.7 * 30) of impact pile driving of 42- 

inch piles (3 groups of1 harbor porpoise 

* 1.7 = 5.1) for a total of five takes by 

Level A harassment (0.12 + 5.1 = 5). 

For reasons described above, takes by 

Level B harassment were modified to 

deduct the proposed amount of take by 

Level A harassment (i.e., 15¥5 = 10). 

Therefore, NMFS proposes to 

authorize 5 takes by Level A harassment 

and 10 takes by Level B harassment for 

harbor porpoise, for a total of 15 takes. 

Northern Fur Seal 

USAF requested 33 takes of northern 

fur seal by Level B harassment using a 

calculation based on 0.003 groups of 

eight northern fur seals per hour of 

construction activity. NMFS disagrees 

with USAF’s predicted group size of 

northern fur seal, as these animals are 

typically solitary when at sea. 

Additionally, because there are no 

records of northern fur seal in the area, 

NMFS finds it more appropriate to 

estimate take by Level B harassment 

according to a less granular occurrence 

estimate (monthly) rather than USAF’s 

hourly occurrence estimate. 

Specifically, one group of one northern 

fur seal every 1 construction month is 

predicted and 1 * 5 = 5 takes by Level 

B harassment. 

Due to the small Level A harassment 

zones (table 9), coupled with the 

implementation of shutdown zones, 

which will be larger than Level A 

harassment zones for otariids (described 

in the Proposed Mitigation section), 

NMFS concurs with USAF’s assessment 

that take by Level A harassment is not 

anticipated for northern fur seal. 

Therefore, NMFS proposed to authorize 

all five estimated exposures as takes by 

Level B harassment. Takes by Level A 

harassment for northern fur seals are not 

requested nor are they proposed for 

authorization. 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions are frequently 

observed around Shemya Island outside 

of the ensonified area, but only 

occasionally observed in Alcan Harbor 

and Shemya Pass (see application). 

Across 119 monitoring days between 

2016 and 2021, 16 Steller sea lions were 

observed within the project area. The 

average group size for Steller sea lion 

detected in the project area as well as 

around Shemya Island was 1 Steller sea 

lion per detection. 

For estimating take by Level B 

harassment where monitoring data 

confirmed the presence of the marine 

mammal species, NMFS concurred with 

USAF’s proposed approach. USAF 

requested take by Level B harassment by 

predicting that 0.09 groups of Steller sea 

lion would be sighted every hour, which 

was based on the applicant’s prediction 

that this species would be more 

commonly encountered in the project 

area. This was then multiplied by the 

average group size for Steller sea lion (1 

individual), to achieve an hourly steller 

sea lion rate. Finally, these numbers are 

multiplied by the hours of construction 

activity. (0.09 * 1 * 1,101 = 99 takes by 

Level B harassment). 

Due to the small Level A harassment 

zones (table 9), coupled with the 

implementation of shutdown zones, 

which will be larger than Level A 

harassment zones for otariids (described 

in the Proposed Mitigation section), 

NMFS concurs with USAF’s assessment 

that take by Level A harassment is not 

anticipated for Steller sea lion. 

Therefore, NMFS proposed to authorize 

all 99 estimated exposures as takes by 

Level B harassment. Takes by Level A 

harassment for Steller sea lion are not 

requested nor are they proposed for 

authorization. 

Harbor Seal 

Across 119 monitoring days between 

2016 and 2021, 54 harbor seals were 

observed within the project area. The 

average group size for harbor seals 

detected in the project area was 1 harbor 

seals per group. 

For estimating take by Level B 

harassment where monitoring data 

confirmed the presence of the marine 

mammal species, NMFS concurred with 

USAF’s proposed approach. USAF 

requested take by Level B harassment by 

predicting that 0.14 groups of harbor 

seals would be sighted every hour, 

which was based on the fact that this 

species is expected to more commonly 

occur within the project area. This was 

then multiplied by the average group 

size for harbor seal (1 individual), to 

achieve an hourly harbor seal rate. 

Finally, these numbers are multiplied 

by the hours of construction activity. 

(0.14 * 1 * 1,101 = 154 takes by Level 

B harassment). 

NMFS initially calculated takes by 

Level A harassment by determining the 

ratio of the largest Level A harassment 

area for 42-inch DTH activities (i.e., 2.6 

km2 for a Level A harassment distance 

of 1364 m) minus the area of the 

proposed shutdown zone for harbor seal 

(i.e., 0.37 km2 for a shutdown zone 

distance of 400 m) to the area of the 

Level B harassment isopleth (1,285.9 

km2) for a Level B harassment distance 

of 39,811 m (i.e., (2.6 km2¥0.37 km2)/ 

1,285.9 km2 = 0.002). We then 

multiplied this ratio by the number of 

estimated harbor seal exposures 

calculated as described above for Level 

B harassment to determine take by Level 

A harassment (i.e., 0.002 * 154 

exposures = 0.3 takes by Level A 

harassment). 

Because harbor seals typically inhabit 

areas closer to shore rather than 

distances represented by the largest 

level B zone (39,811 m), NMFS 

determined that the method above could 

underestimate potential take by Level A 

harassment. NMFS accordingly 

estimated additional takes by Level A 

harassment by determining the ratio of 

harbor seals that were observed beyond 

the proposed shutdown zone isopleth 

compared to the harbor seals that were 

observed closer to construction 

activities during the EAS fuel pier 

emergency repair that was completed in 

2021 (i.e., 11/38 = 0.29 harbor seals). We 

then multiplied this ratio by the total 

number of estimated harbor seal 

exposures to determine take by Level A 

harassment (i.e., 0.29 * 154 exposures = 

45) for a total of 45 takes by Level A 

harassment (0.3 + 45 = 45.3). 

For reasons described above, takes by 

Level B harassment were modified to 

deduct the proposed amount of take by 

Level A harassment (i.e., 154¥45 = 

109). 

Therefore, NMFS proposes to 

authorize 45 takes by Level A 

harassment and 109 takes by Level B 

harassment for harbor seal, for a total of 

154 takes. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
74472 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

TABLE 8—PROPOSED TAKE BY STOCK AND HARASSMENT TYPE AND AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE

Species Stock 

Proposed authorized take Proposed take 

as a 

percentage 

of stock 

abundance 

Level B 

harassment 

Level A 

harassment 

Fin Whale ........................................................ Northeast Pacific ............................................ 18 3 >1 

Humpback Whale ............................................ Western North Pacific .................................... 3 1 >1 

Mexico—North Pacific .................................... 9 2 1.2 

Hawai1i ............................................................. 113 ................................................................. 26 1.2 

Minke Whale ................................................... Alaska ............................................................. 5 3 >1 

Sperm Whale .................................................. North Pacific ................................................... 40 0 16.4 

Baird’s beaked whale ...................................... Alaska ............................................................. 10 0 -* 

Stejneger’s beaked whale ............................... Alaska ............................................................. 8 0 -* 

Killer whale ...................................................... ENP Alaska Resident Stock .......................... 176 0 9.2 

ENP Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and 

Bering Seal.

30 

Dall’s Porpoise ................................................ Alaska ............................................................. 26 13 <1 

Harbor Porpoise .............................................. Bering Seal ..................................................... 10 5 <1 

Northern Fur Seal ........................................... Eastern Pacific ............................................... 5 0 <1 

Steller Sea Lion .............................................. Western, U.S. ................................................. 99 0 <1 

Harbor Seal ..................................................... Aleutian Islands .............................................. 109 45 2.8 

* Reliable abundance estimates for these stock are currently unavailable. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, NMFS considers two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat, as well as 

subsistence uses. This considers the 

nature of the potential adverse impact 

being mitigated (likelihood, scope, 

range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, and 

impact on operations. 

USAF must ensure that construction 

supervisors and crews, the monitoring 

team and relevant USAF staff are 

trained prior to the start of all pile 

driving and DTH activity, so that 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, monitoring protocols, and 

operational procedures are clearly 

understood. New personnel joining 

during the project must be trained prior 

to commencing work. 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

Shutdown Zones—For all pile 

driving/removal and DTH activities, 

USAF would implement shutdowns 

within designated zones. The purpose of 

a shutdown zone is generally to define 

an area within which shutdown of the 

activity would occur upon sighting of a 

marine mammal (or in anticipation of an 

animal entering the defined area). 

Shutdown zones vary based on the 

activity type and marine mammal 

hearing group (table 9). In most cases, 

the shutdown zones are based on the 

estimated Level A harassment isopleth 

distances for each hearing group, as 

requested by USAF. However, in cases 

where it would be challenging to detect 

marine mammals at the Level A 

isopleth, (e.g., for high frequency 

cetaceans and phocids during DTH 

activities and impact pile driving), 

smaller shutdown zones have been 

proposed (table 9). Additionally, USAF 

has agreed to implement a minimum 

shutdown zone of 25 m during all pile 

driving and removal activities and DTH. 

Finally, construction supervisors and 

crews, PSOs, and relevant USAF staff 

must avoid direct physical interaction 

with marine mammals during 

construction activity. If a marine 

mammal comes within 10 m of such 

activity, operations must cease and 

vessels must reduce speed to the 

minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions, as 

necessary to avoid direct physical 

interaction. If an activity is delayed or 

halted due to the presence of a marine 

mammal, the activity may not 

commence or resume until either the 

animal has voluntarily exited and been 

visually confirmed beyond the 

shutdown zone indicated in table 9 or 

15 minutes have passed for delphinids 

or pinnipeds or 30 minutes for all other 

species without re-detection of the 

animal. 

Construction activities must be halted 

upon observation of a species for which 

incidental take is not authorized or a 

species for which incidental take has 

been authorized but the authorized 

number of takes has been met entering 

or within the harassment zone. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74473 

TABLE 9—PROPOSED SHUTDOWN ZONES

Activity Pile diameter 

Shutdown zones (m) 

LF MF HF PW OW 

Vibratory Installation or Removal .......................................................................... 42-in ...................... 50 

30-in ...................... 25 

DTH ....................................................................................................................... 42-in ...................... 2,600 100 500 400 100 

30-in ...................... 2,300 80 90 

Impact Pile ............................................................................................................. 42-in ...................... 2,100 80 

30-in ...................... 1,000 50 50 

Protected Species Observers—The 

number and placement of PSOs during 

all construction activities (described in 

the Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

section) would ensure that the entire 

shutdown zone is visible. USAF would 

employ at least two PSOs for all pile 

driving and DTH activities. 

Monitoring for Level B Harassment— 

PSOs would monitor the shutdown 

zones and beyond to the extent that 

PSOs can see. Monitoring beyond the 

shutdown zones enables observers to be 

aware of and communicate the presence 

of marine mammals in the project areas 

outside the shutdown zones and thus 

prepare for a potential cessation of 

activity should the animal enter the 

shutdown zone. If a marine mammal 

enters the Level B harassment zone, 

PSOs will document the marine 

mammal’s presence and behavior. 

Pre and Post-Activity Monitoring— 

Prior to the start of daily in-water 

construction activity, or whenever a 

break in pile driving of 30 minutes or 

longer occurs, PSOs will observe the 

shutdown, Level A harassment, and 

Level B harassment for a period of 30 

minutes. Pre-start clearance monitoring 

must be conducted during periods of 

visibility sufficient for the lead PSO to 

determine that the shutdown zones are 

clear of marine mammals. If the 

shutdown zone is obscured by fog or 

poor lighting conditions, in-water 

construction activity will not be 

initiated until the entire shutdown zone 

is visible. Pile driving may commence 

following 30 minutes of observation 

when the determination is made that the 

shutdown zones are clear of marine 

mammals. If a marine mammal is 

observed entering or within shutdown 

zones, pile driving activity must be 

delayed or halted. If pile driving is 

delayed or halted due to the presence of 

a marine mammal, the activity may not 

commence or resume until either the 

animal has voluntarily exited and been 

visually confirmed beyond the 

shutdown zone or 15 minutes have 

passed for delphinids or pinnipeds or 

30 minutes have passed for all other 

species without re-detection of the 

animal. If a marine mammal for which 

Level B harassment take is authorized is 

present in the Level B harassment zone, 

activities would begin and Level B 

harassment take would be recorded. 

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 three 

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. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the proposed mitigation measures 

provide the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present while conducting the activities. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

activity; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and, 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring—Marine mammal 

monitoring must be conducted in 

accordance with the Marine Mammal 

Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. Marine 

mammal monitoring during pile driving 

and removal and DTH activities must be 

conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs in 

a manner consistent with the following: 

• PSOs must be independent of the 

activity contractor (for example, 

employed by a subcontractor), and have 

no other assigned tasks during 

monitoring periods; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
74474 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

• At least one PSO must have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; 

• Other PSOs may substitute other 

relevant experience, education (degree 

in biological science or related field) or 

training for experience performing the 

duties of a PSO during construction 

activities pursuant to a NMFS-issued 

incidental take authorization. 

• Where a team of three or more PSOs 

is required, a lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator will be 

designated. The lead observer will be 

required to have prior experience 

working as a marine mammal observer 

during construction activity pursuant to 

a NMFS-issued incidental take 

authorization; and, 

• PSOs must be approved by NMFS 

prior to beginning any activity subject to 

this IHA. 

PSOs must also have the following 

additional qualifications: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including identification of behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including, but not 

limited to, the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was note 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior; and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

Visual monitoring will be conducted 

by a minimum of two trained PSOs 

positioned at suitable vantage points. 

One PSO will have an unobstructed 

view of all water within the shutdown 

zone and will be stationed at or near the 

pier. Remaining PSOs will be placed at 

one or more of the observer monitoring 

locations identified on Figure 3–3 of the 

marine mammal monitoring and 

mitigation plan, in order to observe as 

much as the Level A and Level B 

harassment zone as possible. All PSOs 

will have access to 20 by 60 spotting 

scope on a window mount or tripod. 

Monitoring will be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after all in water construction activities. 

In addition, PSOs will record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and will document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from piles being driven or 

removed. Pile driving activities include 

the time to install or remove a single 

pile or series of piles, as long as the time 

elapsed between uses of the pile driving 

equipment is no more than 30 minutes. 

Reporting 

USAF will submit a draft marine 

mammal monitoring report to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving activities, or 60 days prior 

to a requested date of issuance of any 

future IHAs for the project, or other 

projects at the same location, whichever 

comes first. The marine mammal 

monitoring report will include an 

overall description of work completed, 

a narrative regarding marine mammal 

sightings, and associated PSO data 

sheets. Specifically, the report will 

include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including: (1) The number and type of 

piles that were driven and the method 

(e.g., impact, vibratory, DTH); (2) Total 

duration of driving time for each pile 

(vibratory driving) and number of 

strikes for each pile (impact driving); 

and (3) For DTH drilling, duration of 

operation for both impulsive and nonpulse components; 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; 

• Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance; 

• Upon observation of a marine 

mammal, the following information: (1) 

Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) 

and PSO location and activity at time of 

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

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

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO 

confidence in identification, and the 

composition of the group if there is a 

mix of species; (4) Distance and location 

of each observed marine mammal 

relative to the pile being driven for each 

sighting; (5) Estimated number of 

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

Estimated number of animals by cohort 

(adults, juveniles, neonates, group 

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

point of approach and estimated time 

spent within the harassment zone; (8) 

Description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses thought to have resulted from 

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

in behavioral state such as ceasing 

feeding, changing direction, flushing, or 

breaching); 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected within the harassment zones, 

by species; and, 

• Detailed information about 

implementation of any mitigation (e.g., 

shutdowns and delays), a description of 

specific actions that ensued, and 

resulting changes in behavior of the 

animal(s), if any. 

A final report must be prepared and 

submitted within 30 calendar days 

following receipt of any NMFS 

comments on the draft report. If no 

comments are received from NMFS 

within 30 calendar days of receipt of the 

draft report, the report shall be 

considered final. All PSO datasheets 

and/or raw sighting data would be 

submitted with the draft marine 

mammal report. 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

Holder must report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources (OPR), 

NMFS (PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@

noaa.gov and itp.fleming@noaa.gov) and 

to the Alaska regional stranding network 

(877–925–7773) as soon as feasible. If 

the death or injury was clearly caused 

by the specified activity, the Holder 

must immediately cease the activities 

until NMFS OPR is able to review the 

circumstances of the incident and 

determine what, if any, additional 

measures are appropriate to ensure 

compliance with the terms of this IHA. 

The Holder must not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS. The 

report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74475 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any impacts or responses (e.g., 

intensity, duration), the context of any 

impacts or responses (e.g., critical 

reproductive time or location, foraging 

impacts affecting energetics), as well as 

effects on habitat, and the likely 

effectiveness of the mitigation. We also 

assess the number, intensity, and 

context of estimated takes by evaluating 

this information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338, September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the regulatory status of the 

species, population size and growth rate 

where known, ongoing sources of 

human-caused mortality, or ambient 

noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, the majority of 

our analysis applies to all the species 

listed in table 2, 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 DTH activities 

associated with the EAS fuel pier repair 

project, as outlined previously, have the 

potential to disturb or displace marine 

mammals. Specifically, the specified 

activities may result in take, in the form 

of Level B harassment and, for some 

species Level A harassment, from 

underwater sounds generated by pile 

driving and DTH. Potential takes could 

occur if marine mammals are present in 

zones ensonified above the thresholds 

for Level B harassment or Level A 

harassment, identified above, while 

activities are underway. 

No serious injury or mortality would 

be expected, even in the absence of 

required mitigation measures, given the 

nature of the activities. Further, no take 

by Level A harassment is anticipated for 

otariids and mid-frequency cetaceans, 

due to the application of proposed 

mitigation measures, such as shutdown 

zones that encompass Level A 

harassment zones for these species. The 

potential for harassment would be 

minimized through the implementation 

of planned mitigation measures (see 

Proposed Mitigation section). 

Take by Level A harassment is 

proposed for six species (harbor 

porpoise, Dall’s porpoise, harbor seal, 

fin whale, humpback whale, and minke 

whale) as the Level A harassment zone 

exceeds the size of the shutdown zones 

(high frequency cetaceans and phocids), 

or, in the case of low frequency 

cetaceans, the shutdown zone is so large 

that it is possible that a minke whale, 

fin whale, or humpback whale could 

enter the Level A harassment zone and 

remain within the zone for a duration 

long enough to incur PTS before being 

detected. 

Any take by Level A harassment is 

expected to arise from, at most, a small 

degree of PTS (i.e., minor degradation of 

hearing capabilities within regions of 

hearing that align most completely with 

the energy produced by impact pile 

driving such as the low-frequency 

region below 2 kHz), not severe hearing 

impairment or impairment within the 

ranges of greatest hearing sensitivity. 

Animals would need to be exposed to 

higher levels and/or longer duration 

than are expected to occur here in order 

to incur any more than a small degree 

of PTS. 

Given the small degree anticipated, 

any PTS potential incurred would not 

be expected to affect the reproductive 

success or survival of any individuals, 

much less result in adverse impacts on 

the species or stock. 

Additionally, some subset of the 

individuals that are behaviorally 

harassed could also simultaneously 

incur some small degree of TTS for a 

short duration of time. However, since 

the hearing sensitivity of individuals 

that incur TTS is expected to recover 

completely within minutes to hours, it 

is unlikely that the brief hearing 

impairment would affect the 

individual’s long-term ability to forage 

and communicate with conspecifics, 

and would therefore not likely impact 

reproduction or survival of any 

individual marine mammal, let alone 

adversely affect rates of recruitment or 

survival of the species or stock. 

As described above, NMFS expects 

that marine mammals would likely 

move away from an aversive stimulus, 

especially at levels that would be 

expected to result in PTS, given 

sufficient notice through use of soft 

start. USAF would also shut down pile 

driving activities if marine mammals 

enter the shutdown zones (table 9) 

further minimizing the likelihood and 

degree of PTS that would be incurred. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment in the form of 

behavioral disruption, on the basis of 

reports in the literature as well as 

monitoring from other similar activities, 

would likely be limited to reactions 

such as avoidance, increased swimming 

speeds, increased surfacing time, or 

decreased foraging (if such activity were 

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

2006). Most likely, individuals would 

simply move away from the sound 

source and temporarily avoid the area 

where pile driving is occurring. If sound 

produced by project activities is 

sufficiently disturbing, animals are 

likely to simply avoid the area while the 

activities are occurring. We expect that 

any avoidance of the project areas by 

marine mammals would be temporary 

in nature and that any marine mammals 

that avoid the project areas during 

construction would not be permanently 

displaced. Short-term avoidance of the 

project areas and energetic impacts of 

interrupted foraging or other important 

behaviors is unlikely to affect the 

reproduction or survival of individual 

marine mammals, and the effects of 

behavioral disturbance on individuals is 

not likely to accrue in a manner that 

would affect the rates of recruitment or 

survival of any affected stock. 

The project area does overlap a BIA 

identified as important for feeding by 

sperm whale (Brower et al., 2022). The 

BIA that overlaps the project area is 

active April through September, which 

overlaps USAF’s proposed work period 

(April to October). White the BIA is 

considered to be of higher importance, 

the area of the BIA is very large, 

spanning the island chain, and the 

project area is very small in comparison. 

Further sperm whales utilize deeper 

waters to feed, and while the Level B 

harassment zone does extend into 

deeper waters, the sound levels at the 

distances that overlay deeper water 

where sperm whales might be foraging 

would be of comparatively lower levels. 

Given the extensive options for high 

quality foraging area near and outside of 

the project area, any impacts to feeding 

sperm whales would not be expected to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
74476 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

impact the survival or reproductive 

success of any individuals. 

The ensonfied area also overlaps ESAdesignated critical habitat for western 

DPS Steller sea lion. Specifically, the 

Level B ensonified area overlaps with 

the aquatic zones of three designated 

major haulouts to the east and 

northwest of the project site: Shemya 

Island Major Haulout, Alaid Island 

Major Haulout, Attu/Chirikof Point 

Major Haulout. The ensonified area 

Level B harassment zone related to 

implementation of the proposed project, 

described in the Estimated Take of 

Marine Mammals section, overlaps with 

the designated aquatic zone of all three 

designated major haulouts. No 

terrestrial or in-air critical habitat of any 

major haulout overlaps with the project 

area. No Steller sea lions have been 

observed on Shemya Island Major 

Haulout during the most recent surveys 

(between 2015 and 2017) and only one 

Steller sea lion was observed at Attu/ 

Chirikof Point Major Haulout. An 

average of 68 non-pups and 7 pups were 

observed annually during this time at 

Alaid Island Major Haulout, which is 5 

nmi northwest of the project site. The 

construction site itself does not overlap 

with critical habitat. 

The project is also not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitats. The 

project activities would not modify 

existing marine mammal habitat for a 

significant amount of time. The 

activities may cause some fish to leave 

the area of disturbance, thus temporarily 

impacting marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities in a limited portion of the 

foraging range. We do not expect pile 

driving activities to have significant 

consequences to marine invertebrate 

populations. Given the short duration of 

the activities and the relatively small 

area of the habitat that may be affected, 

the impacts to marine mammal habitat, 

including fish and invertebrates, are not 

expected to cause significant or longterm 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; 

• No Level A harassment of six 

species is proposed; 

• Level A harassment takes of six 

species proposed for authorization are 

expected to be of a small degree; 

• While impacts would occur within 

areas that are important for feeding for 

sperm whale, because of the small 

footprint of the activity relative to the 

area of these important use areas, we do 

not expect impacts to the reproduction 

and survival of any individuals; 

• Effects on species that serve as prey 

for marine mammals from the activities 

are expected to be short-term and, 

therefore, any associated impacts on 

marine mammal feeding are not 

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

accrue to adverse impacts on their 

populations; 

• The lack of anticipated significant 

or long-term negative effects to marine 

mammal habitat; and 

• The efficacy of the mitigation 

measures in reducing the effects of the 

specified activities on all species and 

stocks. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted previously, only take of 

small numbers of marine mammals may 

be authorized under sections 

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

specified activities other than military 

readiness activities. The MMPA does 

not define small numbers and so, in 

practice, where estimated numbers are 

available, NMFS compares the number 

of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one-third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The instances of take NMFS proposes 

to authorize are below one-third of the 

estimated stock abundance for all stocks 

(table 8). The number of animals that we 

expect to authorize to be taken from 

these stocks would be considered small 

relative to the relevant stocks’ 

abundances even if each estimated 

taking occurred to a new individual, 

which is an unlikely scenario. 

The best available abundance estimate 

for fin whale is not considered 

representative of the entire stock as 

surveys were limited to a small portion 

of the stock’s range, but there are known 

to be over 2,500 fin whales in the 

northeast Pacific stock (Muto et al., 

2021). As such, the 18 takes by Level B 

harassment and 3 takes by Level A 

harassment proposed for authorization, 

compared to the abundance estimate, 

shows that less than 1 percent of the 

stock would be expected to be impacted. 

The most recent abundance estimate 

for the Mexico-North Pacific stock of 

humpback whale is likely unreliable as 

it is more than 8 years old. The most 

relevant estimate of this stock’s 

abundance in the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands is 918 humpback 

whales (Wade, 2021), so the 9 proposed 

takes by Level B harassment and 2 

proposed takes by Level A harassment, 

is small relative to the estimated 

abundance (1.2 percent), even if each 

proposed take occurred to a new 

individual. 

A lack of an accepted stock 

abundance value for the Alaska stock of 

minke whale did not allow for the 

calculation of an expected percentage of 

the population that would be affected. 

The most relevant estimate of partial 

stock abundance is 1,233 minke whales 

in coastal waters of the Alaska 

Peninsula and Aleutian Islands (Zerbini 

et al., 2006), so the 5 proposed takes by 

Level B harassment, and 3 proposed 

takes by Level A harassment, compared 

to the abundance estimate, shows that 

less than 1 percent of the stock would 

be expected to be impacted. 

The most recent abundance estimate 

for sperm whale in the North Pacific is 

likely unreliable as it is more than 8 

years old and was derived from data 

collected in a small area that may not 

have included females and juveniles, 

and did not account for animals missed 

on the trackline. The minimum 

population estimate for this stock is 244 

sperm whales, so the 40 proposed takes 

by Level B harassment is small relative 

to the estimated survey abundance, even 

if each proposed take occurred to a new 

individual. 

There is no abundance information 

available for any Alaskan stock of 

beaked whale. However, the take 

numbers are sufficiently small (8 and 10 

takes by Level B harassment for 

Stejneger’s beaked whale and Baird’s 

beaked whale, respectively) that we can 

safely assume that they are small 

relative to any reasonable assumption of 

likely population abundance for these 

stocks. For reference, current abundance 

estimates for other beaked whale stocks 

in the Pacific include 1,363 Baird’s 

beaked whales (California, Oregon/ 

Washington stock), 3,044 Mesoplodont 

beaked whales (CA/OR/WA stock), 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74477 

5,454 Cuvier’s beaked whales (CA/OR/ 

WA stock), 564 Blainville’s beaked 

whales (Hawai’i Pelagic stock), 2,550 

Longman’s beaked whales (Hawai1i 

stock), and 3,180 Cuvier’s beaked 

whales (Hawai’i Pelagic stock). 

The Alaska stock of Dall’s porpoise 

has no official NMFS abundance 

estimate for this area, as the most recent 

estimate is greater than 8 years old. The 

most recent estimate was 13,110 

animals for just a portion of the stock’s 

range. Therefore, the 26 takes by Level 

B harassment and 13 takes by Level A 

harassment of this stock proposed for 

authorization, compared to the 

abundance estimate, shows that less 

than 1 percent of the stock would be 

expected to be impacted. 

For the Bering Sea stock of harbor 

porpoise, the most reliable abundance 

estimate is 5,713, a corrected estimate 

from a 2008 survey. However, this 

survey covered only a small portion of 

the stock’s range, and therefore, is 

considered to be an underestimate for 

the entire stock (Muto et al., 2022). 

Given the proposed 10 takes by Level B 

harassment for the stock, and 5 takes by 

Level A harassment for the stock, 

compared to the abundance estimate, 

which is only a portion of the Bering 

Sea Stock, shows that, at most, less than 

1 percent of the stock would be 

expected to be impacted. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals would be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must 

find that the specified activity will not 

have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ 

on the subsistence uses of the affected 

marine mammal species or stocks by 

Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity: (1) that is likely to 

reduce the availability of the species to 

a level insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by, (i) causing the 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 

hunting areas, (ii) directly displacing 

subsistence users, or (iii) placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; 

and (2) that cannot be sufficiently 

mitigated by other measures to increase 

the availability of marine mammals to 

allow subsistence needs to be met. 

No subsistence hunting occurs on 

Shemya Island, which is a USAF Air 

Station; Access to the island is only 

provided by military aircraft and USAFcontracted charter planes for crews and 

workers. The nearest community that 

engages in subsistence hunting is 

located on Adak, Alaska which is 640 

km (399 mi) to the east. Historically, an 

Alaska Native community on Attu, 60 

km (37 mi) to the west, hunted for 

subsistence, but that community was 

destroyed during WWII and the 

residents that survived internment did 

not return to the island. 

Based on the description of the 

specified activity, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that there will 

not be an unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from USAF’s proposed 

activities. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with the Alaska Regional 

Office. 

NMFS is proposing to authorize take 

of western DPS Steller sea lion, fin 

whale (northeast Pacific), and 

humpback whale (Mexico—North 

Pacific and western North Pacific), and 

sperm whale (North Pacific) which are 

listed under the ESA. The Permits and 

Conservation Division has requested 

initiation of section 7 consultation with 

the Alaska Regional Office for the 

issuance of this IHA. NMFS will 

conclude the ESA consultation prior to 

reaching a determination regarding the 

proposed issuance of the authorization. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to USAF for conducting the EAS 

Fuel Pier Replacement project in Alcan 

Harbor on Shemya Island, Alaska during 

April through October 2024, provided 

the previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. A draft of the 

proposed IHA can be found at: https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHA for the proposed construction 

project. We also request comment on the 

potential renewal of this proposed IHA 

as described in the paragraph below. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform decisions on the request for 

this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Description of 

Proposed Activity section of this notice 

is planned or (2) the activities as 

described in the Description of 

Proposed Activity section of this notice 

would not be completed by the time the 

IHA expires and a renewal would allow 

for completion of the activities beyond 

that described in the Dates and Duration 

section of this notice, provided all of the 

following conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to the needed 

renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that the renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond 1 year from 

expiration of the initial IHA). 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted under the requested 

renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take); and, 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
74478 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

Dated: October 25, 2023. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23970 Filed 10–30–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 

BUREAU 

Credit Union Advisory Council Meeting 

AGENCY: Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA), this notice sets 

forth the announcement of a public 

meeting of the Credit Union Advisory 

Council (CUAC or Council) of the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

(CFPB or Bureau). The notice also 

describes the functions of the Council. 

DATES: The meeting date is Thursday, 

November 16, 2023, from approximately 

1 p.m. to 3 p.m., eastern daylight time. 

This meeting will be held virtually and 

is open to the general public. Members 

of the public will receive the agenda 

and dial-in information when they 

RSVP. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

George, Outreach and Engagement 

Associate, Advisory Board and 

Councils, External Affairs Division, at 

202–450–8617, or email: CFPB_

CABandCouncilsEvents@cfpb.gov. If 

you require this document in an 

alternative electronic format, please 

contact CFPB_Accessibility@cfpb.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 2 of the CUAC charter 

provides that pursuant to the executive 

and administrative powers conferred on 

the CFPB by section 1012 of the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), the 

Director of the CFPB renews the 

discretionary Credit Union Advisory 

Council under agency authority in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. 10. 

Section 3 of the CUAC charter states 

that the purpose of the CUAC is to 

advise the CFPB in the exercise of its 

functions under the Federal consumer 

financial laws as they pertain to credit 

unions with total assets of $10 billion or 

less. 

II. Agenda 

The CUAC will discuss broad policy 

matters related to the Bureau’s Unified 

Regulatory Agenda and general scope of 

authority. 

If you require any additional 

reasonable accommodation(s) in order 

to attend this event, please contact the 

Reasonable Accommodations team at 

CFPB_ReasonableAccommodations@

cfpb.gov, 48 business hours prior to the 

start of this event. 

Written comments will be accepted 

from interested members of the public 

and should be sent to CFPB_

CABandCouncilsEvents@cfpb.gov, a 

minimum of seven (7) days in advance 

of the meeting. The comments will be 

provided to the CUAC members for 

consideration. Individuals who wish to 

join this meeting must RSVP via this 

link https://surveys.consumerfinance.

gov/jfe/form/SV_b9H4zHzWtrtXxZQ. 

III. Availability 

The Council’s agenda will be made 

available to the public on Tuesday, 

October 31, 2023, via 

consumerfinance.gov. 

A recording and summary of this 

combined meeting will be available after 

the meeting on the Bureau’s website 

consumerfinance.gov. 

Jocelyn Sutton, 

Deputy Chief of Staff, Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23897 Filed 10–30–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 

BUREAU 

Consumer Advisory Board Meeting 

AGENCY: Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA), this notice sets 

forth the announcement of a public 

meeting of the Consumer Advisory 

Board (CAB or Board) of the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or 

Bureau). The notice also describes the 

functions of the Board. 

DATES: The meeting date is Tuesday, 

November 14, 2023, from approximately 

1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., eastern daylight 

time. This meeting will be held virtually 

and is open to the general public. 

Members of the public will receive the 

agenda and dial-in information when 

they RSVP. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

George, Outreach and Engagement 

Associate, Advisory Board and 

Councils, External Affairs Division, at 

202–450–8617, or email: CFPB_

CABandCouncilsEvents@cfpb.gov. If 

you require this document in an 

alternative electronic format, please 

contact CFPB_Accessibility@cfpb.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 3 of the charter of the Board 

states that: The purpose of the CAB is 

outlined in section 1014(a) of the DoddFrank Act, which states that the CAB 

shall ‘‘advise and consult with the 

Bureau in the exercise of its functions 

under the Federal consumer financial 

laws’’ and ‘‘provide information on 

emerging practices in the consumer 

financial products or services industry, 

including regional trends, concerns, and 

other relevant information.’’ 

To carry out the CAB’s purpose, the 

scope of its activities shall include 

providing information, analysis, and 

recommendations to the CFPB. The CAB 

will generally serve as a vehicle for 

trends and themes in the consumer 

finance marketplace for the CFPB. Its 

objectives will include identifying and 

assessing the impact on consumers and 

other market participants of new, 

emerging, and changing products, 

practices, or services. 

II. Agenda 

The CAB will discuss broad policy 

matters related to the Bureau’s Unified 

Regulatory Agenda and general scope of 

authority. 

If you require any additional 

reasonable accommodation(s) in order 

to attend this event, please contact the 

Reasonable Accommodations team at 

CFPB_ReasonableAccommodations@

cfpb.gov 48 hours prior to the start of 

this event. 

Written comments will be accepted 

from interested members of the public 

and should be sent to CFPB_

CABandCouncilsEvents@cfpb.gov, a 

minimum of seven (7) days in advance 

of the meeting. The comments will be 

provided to the CAB members for 

consideration. Individuals who wish to 

join this meeting must RSVP via this 

link https://surveys.consumerfinance.

gov/jfe/form/SV_aVSwdg1vAHHzgKW. 

III. Availability 

The Board’s agenda will be made 

available to the public on Tuesday, 

October 31, 2023, via 

consumerfinance.gov. 

A recording and summary of this 

meeting will be available after the 

meeting on the Bureau’s website 

consumerfinance.gov. 

Jocelyn Sutton, 

Deputy Chief of Staff, Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23895 Filed 10–30–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1