78310 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 

Subject freight railcar couplers and parts 

are included within the scope whether 

finished or unfinished, whether imported 

individually or with other subject or nonsubject parts, whether assembled or 

unassembled, whether mounted or 

unmounted, or if joined with non-subject 

merchandise, such as other non-subject parts 

or a completed railcar. Finishing includes, 

but is not limited to, arc washing, welding, 

grinding, shot blasting, heat treatment, 

machining, and assembly of various parts. 

When a subject coupler or subject parts are 

mounted on or to other non-subject 

merchandise, such as a railcar, only the 

coupler or subject parts are covered by the 

scope. 

The finished products covered by the 

scope of this order meet or exceed the AAR 

specifications of M–211, ‘‘Foundry and 

Product Approval Requirements for the 

Manufacture of Couplers, Coupler Yokes, 

Knuckles, Follower Blocks, and Coupler 

Parts’’ and/or AAR M–215 ‘‘Coupling 

Systems,’’ or other equivalent domestic or 

international standards (including any 

revisions to the standard(s)). 

The country of origin for subject couplers 

and parts thereof, whether fully assembled, 

unfinished or finished, or attached to a 

railcar, is the country where the subject 

coupler parts were cast or forged. Subject 

merchandise includes coupler parts as 

defined above that have been further 

processed or further assembled, including 

those coupler parts attached to a railcar in 

third countries. Further processing includes, 

but is not limited to, arc washing, welding, 

grinding, shot blasting, heat treatment, 

painting, coating, priming, machining, and 

assembly of various parts. The inclusion, 

attachment, joining, or assembly of nonsubject parts with subject parts or couplers 

either in the country of manufacture of the 

in-scope product or in a third country does 

not remove the subject parts or couplers from 

the scope. 

The couplers that are the subject of this 

order are currently classifiable in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (HTSUS) statistical reporting number 

8607.30.1000. Unfinished subject 

merchandise may also enter under HTSUS 

statistical reporting number 7326.90.8688. 

Subject merchandise attached to finished 

railcars may also enter under HTSUS 

statistical reporting numbers 8606.10.0000, 

8606.30.0000, 8606.91.0000, 8606.92.0000, 

8606.99.0130, 8606.99.0160, or under 

subheading 9803.00.50. Subject merchandise 

may also be imported under HTSUS 

statistical reporting number 7325.99.5000. 

These HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes only; the 

written description of the scope of this order 

is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25201 Filed 11–14–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD521] 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) is 

scheduling a meeting of its Scallop 

Committee via webinar to consider 

actions affecting New England fisheries 

in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 

Recommendations from this group will 

be brought to the full Council for formal 

consideration and action, if appropriate. 

DATES: This meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, November 29, 2023, at 1 

p.m. 

ADDRESSES: 

Webinar registration URL 

information: https://attendee.

gotowebinar.com/register/ 

4699670473411333979. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cate 

O’Keefe, Ph.D., Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda 

The Committee will review 

Framework 38 (FW38): review 

specifications alternatives in FW38 and 

select final preferred alternatives. FW38 

will set specifications including the 

overfishing limit (OFL), acceptable 

biological catch/annual catch limit 

(ABC/ACLs), days-at-sea (DAS), access 

area allocations for Limited Access (LA) 

vessels, quota and access area trip 

allocation to the Limited Access General 

Category (LAGC) Individual Fishing 

Quota (IFQ) component, Total 

Allowable Landings (TAL) for Northern 

Gulf of Maine (NGOM) management 

area, a target-TAC for LAGC incidental 

catch and set-asides for the observer and 

research programs for fishing year 2024, 

and default specifications for fishing 

year 2025. This action also considers 

increasing VMS ping rates for scallop 

vessels to improve enforcement in the 

scallop fishery. Other business will be 

discussed, if necessary. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained on the agenda may come 

before this Council for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Council 

action will be restricted to those issues 

specifically listed in this notice and any 

issues arising after publication of this 

notice that require emergency action 

under section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act, provided the public has 

been notified of the Council’s intent to 

take final action to address the 

emergency. The public also should be 

aware that the meeting will be recorded. 

Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy 

of the recording is available upon 

request. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate 

O’Keefe, Ph.D., Executive Director, at 

(978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to 

the meeting date. 

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

Dated: November 9, 2023. 

Rey Israel Marquez, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25225 Filed 11–14–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD361] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Lutak Dock 

Replacement Project, Haines Borough, 

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 Haines Borough for authorization 

to take marine mammals incidental to 

the Lutak dock replacement project in 

Lutak, 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 78311 

requirements are met, as described in 

Request for Public Comments at the end 

of this notice. NMFS will consider 

public comments prior to making any 

final decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorization and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than December 15, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS 

and should be submitted via email to 

ITP.cockrell@noaa.gov. Electronic 

copies of the application and supporting 

documents, as well as a list of the 

references cited in this document, may 

be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

these documents, please call the contact 

listed above. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Cockrell, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

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

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

proposed or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA 

is provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable MMPA 

statutory terms cited above are included 

in the relevant sections below. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

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 July 10, 2023, NMFS received a 

request from the Haines Borough for an 

IHA to take marine mammals incidental 

to pile driving involving impact, 

vibratory, and down-the-hole (DTH) 

drilling to replace the Lutak Dock. 

Following NMFS’ review of the 

application, Haines Borough submitted 

a revised version on October 11, 2023. 

The application was deemed adequate 

and complete October 16, 2023. Haines 

Borough’s request is for take of six 

species of marine mammals by Level B 

harassment and, for a subset of three of 

these species, Level A harassment. 

Neither Haines Borough nor NMFS 

expect serious injury or mortality to 

result from this activity and, therefore, 

an IHA is appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The purpose of the project is to 

replace the dock facility, constructed in 

1953, that has reached the end of its 60- 

year service life and has experienced 

local structural failures. The Lutak Dock 

is an important maritime shipping link 

that is connected by road to the 

mainland of Alaska and Canada and is 

an important connection for the Alaska 

Marine Highway System to many other 

Alaskan ports. Takes of marine 

mammals by Level A and Level B 

harassment are expected to occur due to 

impact, DTH, and vibratory pile driving 

and removal. The project would occur 

in Lutak inlet which is located in 

Haines Borough in southeast Alaska. It 

is expected to take up to 234 nonconsecutive days to complete the pile 

driving and removal activities. 

Dates and Duration 

Construction activities are expected to 

over a 1-year year period from winter 

2023 to winter of 2024. It is expected to 

take up to 234 non-consecutive days of 

in water work over a 1-year work 

window to complete the pile driving 

activities. Pile driving would be 

completed intermittently throughout 

daylight hours. All pile driving is 

expected to be completed during one 

phase of construction. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The project area is in the Haines 

Borough on the southern shore of Lutak 

Inlet, at the upper reaches of Lynn Canal 

in southeast Alaska. Lutak Dock is 

located approximately 6 kilometers (km) 

(4 miles (mi)) northwest of downtown 

Haines. Lutak Inlet is approximately 9 

km (6 mi)-long and measures less than 

2 km (1 mi) across from shore to shore 

at its widest point and is about 110 

meters (m) (360 feet (ft)) deep at its 

entrance between Tanani Point and 

Taiya Point. Depths at the proposed 

action area are shallower, approximately 

8 m (25 ft) to 30 m (100 ft). To the north 

of the proposed action area, the Ferebee 

River empties into the Taiyasanka 

Harbor and then into Lutak Inlet; to the 

west of the proposed action area, 

Chilkoot Lake empties into Lutak Inlet 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78312 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 

via the Chilkoot River (see Figure 7 in 

Haines Borough’s application). 

Figure 1. Project location of the Lutak 

Dock Replacement project 

Detailed Description of the Specified 

Activity 

The Haines Borough proposes to 

encapsulate the existing Lutak Dock 

structure with a new dock structure of 

similar design. In-water construction 

activities associated with the project 

would include impact pile driving, 

vibratory pile driving and removal, and 

DTH installation. Pile removal may also 

be completed using a ‘‘dead pull’’ 

method, where a pile is tethered to a 

crane and is removed directly. Impact 

hammers operate by repeatedly 

dropping a heavy piston onto a pile to 

drive the pile into the substrate. 

Vibratory hammers install piles by 

vibrating them and allowing the weight 

of the hammer to push them into the 

sediment. 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 the DTH hammer to 

increase speed of progress through the 

substrate. 

Pile removal would consist of 24 16 

inches (in) steel pipe piles (41 

centimeters (cm)) that make up the 4 

mooring dolphins and 1 24-in (61-cm) 

steel guide pile. These piles would all 

be removed using dead pull or vibratory 

removal methods. Dead pull methods 

would not have impacts on marine 

mammals; however, we assume that all 

pile removal is conducted using 

vibratory hammer. A template frame 

would then be welded to 42 36-in (91- 

cm) temporary piles that is capable of 

holding 10 permanent piles in each 

section. The temporary piles would be 

set in place using vibratory and impact 

hammers (as needed). The template 

frame would be used to position the 180 

42-in (107-cm) permanent piles across 

the length of the dock. Up to 10 

permanent piles would be set at a time, 

before moving the template to the next 

position to install the next 10 piles. 

Permanent piles would be set with 

vibratory hammers and if required, 

impact hammers would be used to drive 

the pile past any overburden to the 

bedrock. Once the pile reaches bedrock 

DTH systems would socket the pile 

approximately 10-ft into the bedrock. A 

permanent 55.5-in (140-cm) sheet pile 

would be installed using vibratory and 

impact hammers and attached to the 

permanent piles to make up the new 

dock return wall. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1EN15NO23.037</GPH>

Figure 1. Project location of the Lutak Dock Replacement project 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 78313 

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

Guide pile 

removal 

(steel) 

Dolphin pile 

removal 

(steel) 

Temporary pile 

(steel) 

Temporary pile 

removal 

(steel) 

Permanent pile 

installation 

(steel) 

Sheet pile 

installation 

(steel) 

Pile Diameter size 

(in) .................... 24 16 36 36 42 55.5 

Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal: 

Total Quantity 1 24 42 42 180 40 

Max # of Piles 

per day ...... 1 4 4 4 4 6 

Vibratory time 

per pile 

(min) .......... 45 45 15 15 45 30 

Number of 

Days .......... 1 6 11 11 45 7 

Impact Pile Driving: 

Total Quantity N/A N/A 42 N/A 180 40 

Piles per day N/A N/A 4 N/A 4 6 

Strikes per 

pile ............. N/A N/A 900 N/A 1,500 900 

Number of 

Days .......... N/A N/A 11 N/A 45 7 

Down the Hole 

Drilling: 

Total Quantity N/A N/A N/A N/A 180 N/A 

Piles per day N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A 

Duration time 

per pile 

(min) .......... N/A N/A N/A N/A 300 N/A 

Strikes per 

pile ............. N/A N/A N/A N/A 324,000 N/A 

Number of 

Days .......... N/A N/A N/A N/A 90 N/A 

Above-water construction would 

include replacement of the dock surface 

and fill material placement. This abovewater work is not expected to result in 

any take of marine mammals, as there 

are no pinniped haulouts close enough 

to be affected by airborne noise. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (see 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. NMFS fully considered 

all of this information, and we refer the 

reader to these descriptions, instead of 

reprinting the information. Additional 

information regarding population trends 

and threats may be found in NMFS’ 

Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; http:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’ 

website (https://

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

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for this activity, and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. PBR is defined by the 

MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’ SARs). While no 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or proposed to be authorized here, PBR 

and annual serious injury and mortality 

from anthropogenic sources are 

included here as gross indicators of the 

status of the species or stocks and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ Alaska 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/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78314 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 

TABLE 2—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES 1

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 2

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 3

PBR Annual 

M/SI 4

Order Artiodactyla—Infraorder Cetacea—Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

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

Mexico-North Pacific .............. T, D, Y N/A (N/A, N/A, 2006) ............. UND 0.57 

Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Killer whale ....................... Orcinus orca ........................... Eastern North Pacific Alaska 

Resident.

-, -, N 1,920 (N/A, 1,920, 2019) ....... 19 1.3 

Eastern Northern Pacific 

Northern Resident.

-, -, N 302 (N/A, 302, 2018) ............. 2.2 0.2 

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

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise ............... Phocoena phocoena .............. Northern Southeast Alaska Inland Waters.-, -, N 1,619 (0.26, 1,250, 2019) ...... 13 5.6 

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

Order Carnivora—Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

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

Western DPS ......................... E, D, Y 52,932 (N/A, 52,932, 2019) ... 318 254 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals) 

Harbor Seal ...................... Phoca vitulina ......................... Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage.-, -, N 13,388 (N/A, 11,867, 2016) ... 214 50 

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

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

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

as depleted and as a strategic stock. 3 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stockassessment-reports/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 4These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, vessel strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 

As indicated above, all six species 

(with 10 managed stocks) in table 2 

temporally and/or spatially co-occur 

with the activity to the degree that take 

is reasonably likely to occur. While 

minke whales (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata) and Pacific white-sided 

dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) 

have been sighted in the area, the 

temporal and 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. A construction project to 

improve the Alaska Marine Lines, Inc. 

dock in Lutak, AK authorized the take 

of two minke whales by Level B 

harassment (85 FR 22139, April 21, 

2020). A similar project in Skagway, AK 

to install dolphins on the Railroad Dock 

also authorized the take of two minke 

whales by Level B harassment (84 FR 

4777, February 19, 2019). Pacific whitesided dolphins were not authorized for 

take in either project due to their 

extremely rare occurrence in the project 

areas (Dahlheim et al., 2009). There 

were no sightings by monitors of minke 

whales or Pacific white-sided dolphins 

during either construction project (Tom 

Mortensen Associates, LLC, 2021; Owl 

Ridge Natural Resource Consultants, 

2019). Therefore, take is not expected 

for these species and they are not 

discussed further in this document. 

Humpback Whale 

On September 8, 2016, NMFS divided 

the once single species into 14 distinct 

population segments (DPS) under the 

ESA, removed the species-level 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 Western North 

Pacific and Central America, which are 

listed as endangered, Mexico, which is 

listed as threatened, and Hawaii, 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 

Western North Pacific and Hawaii 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I 

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 78315 

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). 

NMFS identified most of southeast 

Alaska, including Lynn Canal, as a 

Biologically Important Area (BIA) for 

humpback whales for feeding during the 

months of June through August; 

however, the proposed action area is 

northwest of and outside the boundaries 

of the BIA (Wild et al., 2023). No 

humpback whales were observed in 

Lutak Inlet during monitoring for the 

Alaska Marine Lines, Inc. dock 

improvement project in Lutak in 

November 2020 (Tom Mortensen 

Associates, LLC, 2021). However, 

sightings of humpbacks are common in 

southeast Alaska (Dahlheim et al., 

2009). In Lynn Canal and Lutak Inlet, 

humpback whales are traditionally 

observed during seasons of high prey 

concentration, May through September 

(Witteveen et al., 2011; SolsticeAK, 

2023). 

Group sizes of humpback whales vary 

depending on the season, but based on 

sightings from local charter captains a 

group size of two can be expected from 

May through September and from 

October through April a group size of 

one can be expected (SolsticeAK, 2023; 

Straley et al., 2018; Happywhale, 2023). 

Killer Whale 

Based on data regarding association 

patterns, acoustics, movements, and 

genetic differences, eight killer whale 

stocks are now recognized within the 

Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, 

seven of which occur in Alaska. Of 

these eight stocks the three stocks most 

likely to occur in Lynn Canal are (1) the 

Alaska Resident stock which ranges 

from southeastern Alaska to the 

Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea; (2) the 

Northern Resident stock which occurs 

from Washington State through part of 

southeastern Alaska; and (3) the West 

Coast Transient stock which ranges from 

California through southeastern Alaska 

(Muto et al., 2022). 

Transient killer whales hunt and feed 

primarily on marine mammals, while 

residents forage primarily on fish. 

Transient killer whales feed primarily 

on harbor seals, Dall’s porpoises, harbor 

porpoises, and sea lions. Resident killer 

whale populations in the eastern North 

Pacific feed mainly on salmonids, 

showing a strong preference for Chinook 

salmon (NMFS, 2016a). 

Killer whales are common near the 

project area. During the monitoring of 

the White Pass and Yukon Railroad 

dock dolphin project groups of killer 

whales from one to nine individuals 

were observed from March through 

April (Owl Ridge Natural Resource 

Consultants, 2019). Group sizes of up to 

15 may be expected during the project 

based on surveys conducted in 

southeast Alaska conducted by 

Witteveen et al. (2011). 

Harbor Porpoise 

The 2022 Alaska SARs described a 

revised stock structure for southeast 

Alaska harbor porpoise, which were 

split from one stock into three: the 

Northern Southeast Alaska Inland 

Waters, Southern Southeast Alaska 

Inland Waters, and Yakutat/Southeast 

Alaska Offshore Waters harbor porpoise 

stocks. This update better aligns harbor 

porpoise stock structure with genetics, 

trends in abundance, and information 

regarding discontinuous distribution 

trends (Young et al., 2023). Harbor 

porpoises found in Lutak are assumed to 

be members of the northern southeast 

Alaska Inland Waters stock, which 

encompasses Cross Sound, Glacier Bay, 

Icy Strait, Chatham Strait, Frederick 

Sound, Stephens Passage, Lynn Canal, 

and adjacent inlets. 

Harbor porpoise are expected to be 

infrequent visitors to the upper portions 

of the Lynn Canal (Dahlheim et al., 

2009). Recent monitoring from the 

Alaska Marine Lines, Inc. dock 

improvement project in Lutak and the 

White Pass and Yukon Railroad dock 

dolphin project did not observe any 

harbor porpoises in the project areas 

during construction (Tom Mortensen 

Associates, LLC, 2021; Owl Ridge 

Natural Resource Consultants, 2019). A 

group size of two harbor porpoise is 

expected during the project based on 

survey data from Dahlheim et al. (2009). 

Dall’s Porpoise 

Dall’s porpoises are found throughout 

the North Pacific, from southern Japan 

to southern California and north to the 

Bering Sea. All Dall’s porpoises in 

Alaska are members of the Alaska stock, 

and those off California, Oregon, and 

Washington are part of a separate stock. 

This species can be found in offshore, 

inshore, and nearshore habitat, but 

prefers waters more than 600 ft (183 m) 

deep (Dahlheim et al. 2009; Jefferson, 

2009). 

Dall’s porpoises have been 

consistently observed in Lynn Canal, 

Stephens Passage, upper Chatham 

Strait, Frederick Sound, and Clarence 

Strait (Dalheim et al., 2000). The species 

is generally found in waters deeper than 

Lutak Inlet. However, despite 

generalized water depth preferences, 

Dall’s porpoises may occur in shallower 

waters. Moran et al. (2018a) recently 

mapped Dall’s porpoise distributions in 

bays, shallow water, and nearshore 

areas of Prince William Sound, habitats 

not typically utilized by this species. No 

Dall’s porpoises were observed in Lutak 

Inlet during monitoring for the Alaska 

Marine Lines, Inc. dock improvement 

project in Lutak and the White Pass and 

Yukon Railroad dock dolphin project 

did not observe any Dall’s porpoises in 

the project areas during construction 

(Tom Mortensen Associates, LLC, 2021; 

Owl Ridge Natural Resource 

Consultants, 2019). Although sightings 

near the project area are infrequent, a 

local tour boat captain confirmed there 

are occasional sightings of Dall’s 

porpoises in Taiya Inlet, but most often 

they are seen farther south near Mud 

Bay, 15 km (9 mi) south of the project 

area (SolsticeAK 2023). It is expected 

that groups of two Dall’s porpoise 

would be present in the project area 

based on survey data from Dahlheim et 

al. (2009) and on sighting data from 

above. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78316 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions were listed as 

threatened range-wide under the ESA 

on November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). 

Steller sea lions were subsequently 

partitioned into the western and eastern 

DPSs in 1997 (62 FR 24345, May 5, 

1997). The eastern DPS remained 

classified as threatened until it was 

delisted on November 4, 2013 (78 FR 

66140). The western DPS (those 

individuals west of the 144° W 

longitude or Cape Suckling, Alaska) was 

upgraded to endangered status 

following separation of the DPSs on 

May 5, 1997 (62 FR 24345). Both stocks 

of Steller sea lions are found in 

southeast Alaska and have the potential 

to occur in the project area, however it 

is more likely they would be from the 

eastern stock. 

The majority of Steller sea lions that 

inhabit southeast Alaska are part of the 

eastern DPS; however, branded 

individuals from the western DPS make 

regular movements across the 144° 

longitude boundary to the northern 

‘‘mixing zone’’ haulouts and rookeries 

within southeast Alaska (Jemison et al., 

2013). While haulouts and rookeries in 

the northern portion of southeast Alaska 

may be important areas for wDPS 

animals, there continues to be little 

evidence that their regular range 

extends to the southern haulouts and 

rookeries in southeast Alaska (Jemison 

et al., 2018). However, genetic data 

analyzed in Hastings et al. (2020) 

indicated that up to 1.4 percent of 

Steller sea lions near Lutak Inlet may be 

members of the western DPS. 

Gran Point is the closest major 

haulout and designated critical habitat 

area, approximately 10 miles (16 

kilometers) from the Project site and 

outside of Taiya Inlet. The Lutak Inlet 

eulachon (Thaleichtys pacificus) run 

between April and May correlates with 

higher sea lion numbers near the Project 

site, with the Taiya Point haulout 

(approximately 10 miles (16.1 

kilometers) away) being a popular land 

site (NOAA, 2022b). 

During the White Pass & Yukon Route 

Railroad dock dolphin project, Steller 

sea lions were sighted on 27 separate 

days with 165 individuals observed. A 

majority of the sightings occurred 

during April and May, with only six 

individuals sighted in March. Although 

a few sightings were 500 m from pile 

driving activities, most sightings were 

recorded over 1,000 m away from the 

pile driving site. Sightings were of 

single individuals and rafts up to 25 

individuals (Owl Ridge Natural 

Resource Consultants, 2019). 

Monitoring at the Alaska Marine Lines, 

Inc. dock improvement project in Lutak 

observed lone Steller sea lions on 2 

separate days (November 12 and 15, 

2020). The sightings were between 800 

m and 1,400 m from the pile driving 

(Tom Mortensen Associates, LLC, 2020). 

It is expected that groups of 40 may 

occur from mid-March through May 

during the eulachon run and groups of 

2 the rest of the year. 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and 

estuarine waters off Alaska. They haul 

out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting 

glacial ice. They are opportunistic 

feeders and often adjust their 

distribution to take advantage of locally 

and seasonally abundant prey (Womble 

et al., 2009; Allen and Angliss, 2015). 

Harbor seals occurring in the project 

area belong to the Lynn Canal/Stephens 

Passage (LC/SP) stock. Harbor seals are 

common in Lutak Inlet and in Chilkat 

Inlet where there is a small haulout at 

Pyramid Island. They are abundant in 

the Chilkat and Chilkoot rivers in late 

fall and winter during spawning runs of 

salmon (Onchorhynchus spp.) and in 

the spring (mid-March through midMay) when eulachon are present. As 

many as about 100 individuals have 

been observed actively feeding in Lutak 

Inlet near the mouth of the Chilkoot 

River, and at up-river locations during 

these fish runs (ADF&G, 2016). 

Seven hundred thirty-five harbor seals 

were observed on 46 days of in-water 

activity, with sightings occurring in all 

months of the project. The majority of 

the harbor seal observations were near 

Yakutania Point, a harbor seal haulout 

site. Most of the sightings occurred at 

least 1,000 m from the project site, 

however harbor seals came as close as 

150 m and as far as 5,000 m. Harbor 

seals were observed travelling, 

swimming, playing, milling, looking, 

hauled out, sinking, and feeding (Owl 

Ridge Natural Resource Consultants, 

2019). During the Alaska Marine Lines, 

Inc. dock improvement project in Lutak 

one lone harbor seal was observed 800 

m away from the source. It is expected 

that groups of 100 may occur from midMarch through May and groups of 5 

throughout the rest of the year. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

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

and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 

2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. 

(2007, 2019) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into hearing 

groups based on directly measured 

(behavioral or auditory evoked potential 

techniques) or estimated hearing ranges 

(behavioral response data, anatomical 

modeling, etc.). Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65-decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in table 3. 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

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

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

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

australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

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


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 78317 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS—Continued 

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

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

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

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

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

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section provides a discussion of 

the ways in which components of the 

specified activity may impact marine 

mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

section later in this document includes 

a quantitative analysis of the number of 

individuals that are expected to be taken 

by this activity. The Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination section 

considers the content of this section, the 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

section, and the Proposed Mitigation 

section, to draw conclusions regarding 

the likely impacts of these activities on 

the reproductive success or survivorship 

of individuals and whether those 

impacts are reasonably expected to, or 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Description of 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. The sound level of an area is 

defined by the total acoustical energy 

being generated by known and 

unknown sources. These sources may 

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

precipitation, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, 

dredging, aircraft, construction). 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

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

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and shipping activity) but 

also on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10 to 20 dB from day to day 

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

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the project would 

include impact pile driving, vibratory 

pile driving, vibratory pile removal, 

DTH installation. The sounds produced 

by these activities fall into one of two 

general sound types: impulsive and 

non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds (e.g., 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) are typically 

transient, brief (less than 1 second), 

broadband, and consist of high peak 

sound pressure with rapid rise time and 

rapid decay (ANSI, 1986; NIOSH, 1998; 

ANSI, 2005; NMFS, 2018). Nonimpulsive sounds (e.g., aircraft, 

machinery operations such as drilling or 

dredging, vibratory pile driving, and 

active sonar systems) can be broadband, 

narrowband or tonal, brief or prolonged 

(continuous or intermittent), and 

typically do not have the high peak 

sound pressure with raid rise/decay 

time that impulsive sounds do (ANSI, 

1995; NIOSH, 1998; NMFS, 2018). The 

distinction between these two sound 

types is important because they have 

differing potential to cause physical 

effects, particularly with regard to 

hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997; Southall, et 

al. 2007). 

Impact hammers operate by 

repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto 

a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. 

Sound generated by impact hammers is 

characterized by rapid rise times and 

high peak levels, a potentially injurious 

combination (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). Vibratory hammers install piles 

by vibrating them and allowing the 

weight of the hammer to push them into 

the sediment. Vibratory hammers 

produce significantly less sound than 

impact hammers. Peak sound pressure 

levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, 

but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than 

SPLs generated during impact pile 

driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman, 

et al., 2009). Rise time is slower, 

reducing the probability and severity of 

injury, and sound energy is distributed 

over a greater amount of time (Nedwell 

and Edwards, 2002; Carlson, et al., 

2005). 

DTH systems would also be used 

during the proposed construction. 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 

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 

methods contain both a continuous nonimpulsive component from the drilling 

action and an impulsive component 

from the hammering effect. Therefore, 

NMFS treats DTH systems as both 

impulsive and continuous, nonimpulsive sound source types 

simultaneously. 

The likely or possible impacts of the 

Haines Borough’s proposed activities on 

marine mammals could involve both 

non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. 

Potential non-acoustic stressors could 

result from the physical presence of the 

equipment and personnel; however, 

given there are no known pinniped 

haul-out sites in the vicinity of the 

proposed project site, visual and other 

non-acoustic stressors would be limited, 

and any impacts to marine mammals are 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78318 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 

expected to primarily be acoustic in 

nature. 

Auditory Effects 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile driving or drilling is the primary 

means by which marine mammals may 

be harassed from the Haines Borough 

specified activity. In general, animals 

exposed to natural or anthropogenic 

sound may experience physical and 

psychological effects, ranging in 

magnitude from none to severe 

(Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 

2019). In general, exposure to pile 

driving or drilling noise has the 

potential to result in auditory threshold 

shifts and behavioral reactions (e.g., 

avoidance, temporary cessation of 

foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive 

behavior). Exposure to anthropogenic 

noise can also lead to non-observable 

physiological responses, such an 

increase in stress hormones. Additional 

noise in a marine mammal’s habitat can 

mask acoustic cues used by marine 

mammals to carry out daily functions, 

such as communication and predator 

and prey detection. The effects of pile 

driving or drilling noise on marine 

mammals are dependent on several 

factors, including, but not limited to, 

sound type (e.g., impulsive vs. nonimpulsive), the species, age and sex 

class (e.g., adult male vs. mom with 

calf), duration of exposure, the distance 

between the pile and the animal, 

received levels, behavior at time of 

exposure, and previous history with 

exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall 

et al., 2007). Here we discuss physical 

auditory effects (threshold shifts) 

followed by behavioral effects and 

potential impacts on habitat. 

NMFS defines a noise-induced 

threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually 

an increase, in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS, 2018). The amount of 

threshold shift is customarily expressed 

in dB. A TS can be permanent or 

temporary. As described in NMFS 

(2018a), 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). When 

considering auditory effects for the 

DOT&PF’s proposed activities, vibratory 

pile driving is considered a nonimpulsive source, while impact pile 

driving is treated as an impulsive 

source. DTH systems are considered to 

have both non-impulsive and impulsive 

components. 

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)— 

NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 

irreversible increase in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS, 2018). PTS does not 

generally affect more than a limited 

frequency range, and an animal that has 

incurred PTS has incurred some level of 

hearing loss at the relevant frequencies; 

typically animals with PTS are not 

functionally deaf (Richardson et al., 

1995; Au and Hastings, 2008). 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; Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson et 

al., 2008). PTS criteria for marine 

mammals are estimates, as with the 

exception of a single study 

unintentionally inducing PTS in a 

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

are no empirical data measuring PTS in 

marine mammals largely due to the fact 

that, for various ethical reasons, 

experiments involving anthropogenic 

noise exposure at levels inducing PTS 

are not typically pursued or authorized 

(NMFS, 2018). 

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)—A 

temporary, reversible increase in the 

threshold of audibility at a specified 

frequency or portion of an individual’s 

hearing range above a previously 

established reference level (NMFS, 

2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS 

measurements (Southall et al., 2007; 

Southall et al., 2019), a TTS of 6 dB is 

considered the minimum threshold shift 

clearly larger than any day-to-day or 

session-to-session variation in a 

subject’s normal hearing ability 

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

2000; Finneran et al.,2002). As 

described in Finneran (2015), marine 

mammal studies have shown the 

amount of TTS increases with SELcum 

in an accelerating fashion: at low 

exposures with lower SELcum, the 

amount of TTS is typically small and 

the growth curves have shallow slopes. 

At exposures with higher SELcum, the 

growth curves become steeper and 

approach linear relationships with the 

noise SEL. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. We 

note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 

a simple function of aging has been 

observed in marine mammals, as well as 

humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 

2007), so we can infer that strategies 

exist for coping with this condition to 

some degree, though likely not without 

cost. 

Many studies have examined noiseinduced hearing loss in marine 

mammals (see Finneran (2015) and 

Southall et al. (2019) for summaries). 

TTS is the mildest form of hearing 

impairment that can occur during 

exposure to sound (Kryter, 2013). While 

experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold 

rises, and a sound must be at a higher 

level in order to be heard. In terrestrial 

and marine mammals, TTS can last from 

minutes or hours to days (in cases of 

strong TTS). In many cases, hearing 

sensitivity recovers rapidly after 

exposure to the sound ends. For 

cetaceans, published data on the onset 

of TTS are limited to captive bottlenose 

dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), beluga 

whale (Delphinapterus leucas), harbor 

porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise 

(Neophocoena asiaeorientalis) (Southall 

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

measurements of TTS are limited to 

harbor seals, elephant seals (Mirounga 

angustirostris), bearded seals 

(Erignathus barbatus), and California 

sea lions (Zalophus californianus) 

(Kastak et al., 1999; Kastak et al., 2007; 

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

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

al., 2020; Kastelein et al., 2021; 

Kastelein et al., 2022a; Kastelein et al., 

2022b). These studies examine hearing 

thresholds measured in marine 

mammals before and after exposure to 

intense or long-duration sound 

exposures. The difference between the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 78319 

pre-exposure and post-exposure 

thresholds can be used to determine the 

amount of threshold shift at various 

post-exposure times. 

The amount and onset of TTS 

depends on the exposure frequency. 

Sounds at low frequencies, well below 

the region of best sensitivity for a 

species or hearing group, are less 

hazardous than those at higher 

frequencies, near the region of best 

sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 

2013). At low frequencies, onset-TTS 

exposure levels are higher compared to 

those in the region of best sensitivity 

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

to be louder to cause TTS onset when 

TTS exposure level is higher), as shown 

for harbor porpoises and harbor seals 

(Kastelein et al., 2019a; Kastelein et al., 

2019c). Note that in general, harbor 

seals and harbor porpoises have a lower 

TTS onset than other measured 

pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran, 

2015). In addition, TTS can accumulate 

across multiple exposures, but the 

resulting TTS will be less than the TTS 

from a single, continuous exposure with 

the same SEL (Mooney et al., 2009; 

Finneran et al., 2010; Kastelein et al., 

2014; 2015). This means that TTS 

predictions based on the total, 

cumulative SEL will overestimate the 

amount of TTS from intermittent 

exposures, such as sonars and impulsive 

sources. Nachtigall et al. (2018) describe 

measurements of hearing sensitivity of 

multiple odontocete species (bottlenose 

dolphin, harbor porpoise, beluga, and 

false killer whale (Pseudorca 

crassidens) when a relatively loud 

sound was preceded by a warning 

sound. These captive animals were 

shown to reduce hearing sensitivity 

when warned of an impending intense 

sound. Based on these experimental 

observations of captive animals, the 

authors suggest that wild animals may 

dampen their hearing during prolonged 

exposures or if conditioned to anticipate 

intense sounds. Another study showed 

that echo-locating animals (including 

odontocetes) might have anatomical 

specializations that might allow for 

conditioned hearing reduction and 

filtering of low-frequency ambient 

noise, including increased stiffness and 

control of middle ear structures and 

placement of inner ear structures 

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

noise-induced hearing loss for 

mysticetes are currently lacking (NMFS, 

2018). Additionally, the existing marine 

mammal TTS data come from a limited 

number of individuals within these 

species. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals, and there is no PTS 

data for cetaceans, but such 

relationships are assumed to be similar 

to those in humans and other terrestrial 

mammals. PTS typically occurs at 

exposure levels at least several decibels 

above (a 40-dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et 

al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing 

mild TTS (a 6-dB threshold shift 

approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall 

et al., 2007). Based on data from 

terrestrial mammals, a precautionary 

assumption is that the PTS thresholds 

for impulsive sounds (such as impact 

pile driving pulses as received close to 

the source) are at least 6 dB higher than 

the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure 

basis and PTS cumulative sound 

exposure level thresholds are 15 to 20 

dB higher than TTS cumulative sound 

exposure level thresholds (Southall et 

al., 2007). Given the higher level of 

sound or longer exposure duration 

necessary to cause PTS as compared 

with TTS, it is considerably less likely 

that PTS could occur. 

Furthermore, installing piles for this 

project requires a combination of impact 

pile driving, vibratory pile driving, and 

DTH drilling. For the project, these 

activities would not occur at the same 

time and there would likely be pauses 

in activities producing the sound during 

each day. Given these pauses and that 

many marine mammals are likely 

moving through the action area and not 

remaining for extended periods of time, 

the potential for any TS declines. 

Behavior Effects 

Exposure to noise from pile driving 

and removal also has the potential to 

behaviorally disturb marine mammals. 

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 2005; 

Southall et al., 2021). 

Disturbance may result in changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where sound sources are located. 

Pinnipeds may increase their haul out 

time, possibly to avoid in-water 

disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific and 

any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

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

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

et al. 2021; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 

2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not 

only among individuals but also within 

exposures of an individual, depending 

on previous experience with a sound 

source, context, and numerous other 

factors (Ellison et al., 2012; Southall et 

al., 2021), and can vary depending on 

characteristics associated with the 

sound source (e.g., whether it is moving 

or stationary, number of sources, 

distance from the source). In general, 

pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at 

least habituate more quickly to, 

potentially disturbing underwater sound 

than do cetaceans, and generally seem 

to be less responsive to exposure to 

industrial sound than most cetaceans. 

For a review of studies involving marine 

mammal behavioral responses to sound, 

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

2016; and Southall et al., 2021. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

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

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

The area likely impacted by the 

project is relatively small compared to 

the available habitat in the surrounding 

waters of the Lynn Canal. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78320 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 

In 2019, the White Pass & Yukon 

Route Railroad dolphin replacement 

project (84 FR 4777, February 19, 2019) 

documented observations of marine 

mammals during construction activities 

(i.e., pile driving) in Skagway, AK. This 

project was roughly 15 mi (24 km) from 

the proposed project site and features 

that are very similar (i.e. narrow inlet off 

the Lynn Canal). During the 57-day 

(March–May) protected species 

monitoring 26 killer whales and 2 

humpback whales were observed 

traveling, diving, and swimming. There 

were 735 harbor seals and 165 Steller 

sea lions observed during the 

monitoring period of the project. Harbor 

seals and Steller sea lions were observed 

travelling, swimming, playing, milling, 

traveling, resting, porpoising, looking, 

hauled out, sinking, and feeding (Owl 

Ridge Natural Resource Consultants, 

2019). During the monitoring of the 

2020 Alaska Marine Lines, Inc. dock in 

Lutak, AK (85 FR 22139, April 21, 2020) 

protected species observers (PSOs) 

recorded two Steller sea lions and one 

harbor seal in the Level B harassment 

zone. Both species spent less than 5 

minutes in the zone (Tom Mortensen 

Associates, LLC, 2021). No visible signs 

of disturbance were noted for any of 

these species that were present in at 

either project. Given the similarities in 

activities and habitat and the fact the 

same species are involved, we expect 

similar behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to the specified activity. That 

is, disturbance, if any, is likely to be 

temporary and localized (e.g., small area 

movements). 

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 

near the project site within the range of 

noise levels exceeding the acoustic 

thresholds. We recognize that pinnipeds 

in the water could be exposed to 

airborne sound that may result in 

behavioral harassment when looking 

with their heads above water. Most 

likely, airborne sound would cause 

behavioral responses similar to those 

discussed above in relation to 

underwater sound. For instance, 

anthropogenic sound could cause 

pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their 

normal behavior, such as reduction in 

vocalizations, or cause them to 

temporarily abandon the area and move 

further from the source. However, these 

animals would previously have been 

‘‘taken’’ because of exposure to 

underwater sound above the behavioral 

harassment thresholds, which are in all 

cases larger than those associated with 

airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral 

harassment of these animals is already 

accounted for in these estimates of 

potential take. Therefore, we do not 

believe that authorization of incidental 

take resulting from airborne sound for 

pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne 

sound is not discussed further here. 

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects 

The proposed project would occur 

within the same footprint as existing 

marine infrastructure. The nearshore 

habitat where the proposed project 

would occur is an area of relatively high 

marine vessel traffic. Most marine 

mammals do not generally use the area 

within the immediate vicinity of the 

project area. Temporary, intermittent, 

and short-term habitat alteration may 

result from increased noise levels 

within the Level A and Level B 

harassment zones. Effects on marine 

mammals will be limited to temporary 

displacement from pile installation and 

removal noise, and effects on prey 

species will be similarly limited in time 

and space. 

Water Quality—Temporary and 

localized reduction in water quality will 

occur as a result of in-water 

construction activities. Most of this 

effect will occur during the installation 

and removal of piles and bedrock 

removal when bottom sediments are 

disturbed. The installation and removal 

of piles and bedrock removal will 

disturb bottom sediments and may 

cause a temporary increase in 

suspended sediment in the project area. 

During pile extraction, sediment 

attached to the pile moves vertically 

through the water column until 

gravitational forces cause it to slough off 

under its own weight. The small 

resulting sediment plume is expected to 

settle out of the water column within a 

few hours. Studies of the effects of 

turbid water on fish (marine mammal 

prey) suggest that concentrations of 

suspended sediment can reach 

thousands of milligrams per liter before 

an acute toxic reaction is expected 

(Burton, 1993). 

Impacts to water quality from DTH 

hammers are expected to be similar to 

those described for pile driving. Impacts 

to water quality would be localized and 

temporary and would have negligible 

impacts on marine mammal habitat. 

Effects to turbidity and sedimentation 

are expected to be short-term, minor, 

and localized. Since the currents are 

strong in the area, following the 

completion of sediment-disturbing 

activities, suspended sediments in the 

water column should dissipate and 

quickly return to background levels in 

all construction scenarios. Turbidity 

within the water column has the 

potential to reduce the level of oxygen 

in the water and irritate the gills of prey 

fish species in the proposed project 

area. However, turbidity plumes 

associated with the project would be 

temporary and localized, and fish in the 

proposed project area would be able to 

move away from and avoid the areas 

where plumes may occur. Therefore, it 

is expected that the impacts on prey fish 

species from turbidity, and therefore on 

marine mammals, would be minimal 

and temporary. In general, the area 

likely impacted by the proposed 

construction activities is relatively small 

compared to the available marine 

mammal habitat in southeast Alaska. 

Effects on Prey 

Construction activities would produce 

continuous (i.e., vibratory pile driving) 

and impulsive (i.e., impact driving) 

sounds and a both continuous and 

impulsive sounds from DTH 

installation. Fish react to sounds that 

are especially strong and/or intermittent 

low-frequency sounds. Short duration, 

sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle 

changes in fish behavior and local 

distribution. Hastings and Popper (2005) 

identified several studies that suggest 

fish may relocate to avoid certain areas 

of sound energy. Additional studies 

have documented effects of pile driving 

on fish, although several are based on 

studies in support of large, multiyear 

bridge construction projects (e.g., 

Scholik and Yan, 2001, Scholik and 

Yan, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). 

Sound pulses at received levels may 

cause noticeable changes in behavior 

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

1992). SPLs of sufficient strength have 

been known to cause injury to fish and 

fish mortality. 

Impacts on marine mammal prey (i.e., 

fish or invertebrates) of the immediate 

area due to the acoustic disturbance are 

possible. The duration of fish or 

invertebrate avoidance or other 

disruption of behavioral patterns in this 

area after pile driving stops is unknown, 

but a rapid return to normal 

recruitment, distribution and behavior 

is anticipated. Further, significantly 

large areas of fish and marine mammal 

foraging habitat are available in the 

nearby vicinity in the Lynn Canal. 

The duration of the construction 

activities is relatively short, with pile 

driving and removal activities expected 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 78321 

last less than one-year. Each day, 

construction would occur for no more 

than 12 hours during the day and pile 

driving activities would be restricted to 

daylight hours. The most likely impact 

to fish from pile driving activities at the 

project area would be temporary 

behavioral avoidance of the area. In 

general, impacts to marine mammal 

prey species are expected to be minor 

and temporary due to the short 

timeframe for the project. 

Construction activities, in the form of 

increased turbidity, have the potential 

to adversely affect fish in the project 

area. Increased turbidity is expected to 

occur in the immediate vicinity (on the 

order of 10 ft (3 m) or less) of 

construction activities. However, 

suspended sediments and particulates 

are expected to dissipate quickly within 

a single tidal cycle. Given the limited 

area affected and high tidal dilution 

rates any effects on fish are expected to 

be minor or negligible. In addition, best 

management practices would be in 

effect, which would limit the extent of 

turbidity to the immediate project area. 

In summary, given the relatively short 

daily duration of sound associated with 

individual pile driving and events and 

the relatively small areas being affected, 

pile driving activities associated with 

the proposed action are not likely to 

have a permanent, adverse effect on any 

fish habitat, or populations of fish 

species. Thus, we conclude that impacts 

of the specified activity are not likely to 

have more than short-term adverse 

effects on any prey habitat or 

populations of prey species. Further, 

any impacts to marine mammal habitat 

are not expected to result in significant 

or long-term consequences for 

individual marine mammals, or to 

contribute to adverse impacts on their 

populations. 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through the proposed 

IHA, which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers,’’ and 

the negligible impact determinations. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as use of the 

construction equipment (i.e., pile 

driving) has the potential to result in 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals. There is 

also some potential for auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to result, primarily 

for high frequency species and phocids, 

because predicted auditory injury zones 

are larger and beyond Haines Borough’s 

capability to reasonably monitor. 

Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for 

other species groups, based on the 

combination of expected occurrence and 

monitoring capabilities relative to 

estimated Level A harassment zone 

sizes. 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. 

Haines Borough’s proposed activity 

includes the use of continuous 

(vibratory pile driving) and impulsive 

(impact pile driving) sources, and 

therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 

and 160 dB re 1 mPa are applicable. DTH 

systems have both continuous and 

intermittent (impulsive) components as 

discussed in the Description of Sound 

Sources section above. When evaluating 

Level B harassment, NMFS recommends 

treating DTH as a continuous source and 

applying the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 

dB re 1 mPa. 

Level A harassment—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0 of 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78322 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). The Haines Borough’s 

proposed construction includes the use 

of impulsive (impact pile driving) and 

non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving) 

sources. As described above, DTH 

includes both impulsive and nonimpulsive characteristics. When 

evaluating Level A harassment, NMFS 

recommends treating DTH as an 

impulsive source. 

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: 

http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

TABLE 4—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds *

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

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

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

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

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

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

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

also be considered. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that are used in estimating the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, including source levels and 

transmission loss coefficient. 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

proposed project. Marine mammals are 

expected to be affected via sound 

generated by the primary components of 

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

vibratory pile driving and removal, 

DTH). The maximum (underwater) area 

ensonified above the thresholds for 

behavioral harassment referenced above 

is 20.86 km2 (12.96 mi2), and would 

consist of the entire area of Lutak Inlet 

(see Figure 20 in the Haines Borough’s 

application). Additionally, vessel traffic 

and other commercial and industrial 

activities in the project area may 

contribute to elevated background noise 

levels which may mask sounds 

produced by the project. 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2), 

where: 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement 

This formula neglects loss due to 

scattering and absorption, which is 

assumed to be zero here. The degree to 

which underwater sound propagates 

away from a sound source is dependent 

on a variety of factors, most notably the 

water bathymetry and presence or 

absence of reflective or absorptive 

conditions including in-water structures 

and sediments. Spherical spreading 

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

or water surface, resulting in a 6-dB 

reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance from the source 

(20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading 

occurs in an environment in which 

sound propagation is bounded by the 

water surface and sea bottom, resulting 

in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for 

each doubling of distance from the 

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

spreading value of 15 is often used 

under conditions, such as the project 

site, where water increases with depth 

as the receiver moves away from the 

shoreline, resulting in an expected 

propagation environment that would lie 

between spherical and cylindrical 

spreading loss conditions. Practical 

spreading loss is assumed here. 

The intensity of pile driving sounds is 

greatly influenced by factors such as the 

type of piles, hammers, and the physical 

environment in which the activity takes 

place. In order to calculate the distances 

to the Level A harassment and the Level 

B harassment sound thresholds for the 

methods and piles being used in this 

project, the applicant and NMFS used 

acoustic monitoring data from other 

locations to develop proxy source levels 

for the various pile types, sizes and 

methods. The project includes vibratory, 

impact, and DTH pile installation of 

steel pipe and sheet piles and vibratory 

removal of steel pipe piles. Source 

levels for 36 in steel piles are used as 

a proxy for 42 in steel piles, as 36 in 

source levels are higher than those 

available for 42 in piles. Using these 

higher values is the more conservative 

approach for mitigation measures and 

take estimate calculations. NMFS 

consulted multiple sources to determine 

valid proxy source levels for the impact 

installation of sheet piles, as indicated 

in table 5. This is the best available data 

for sheet pile source levels and is based 

on 24-in sheet piles used for a project 

in California. Source levels for each pile 

size and driving method are presented 

in table 5. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 78323 

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

Pile size Method 

Proxy source level 

Literature source dB RMS re 

1μPa 

dB SEL re 

1μPa2sec 

dB peak re 

1μPa 

16 in ................................... Vibratory ............................ 161 N/A N/A Navy 2015. 

24 in ................................... Vibratory ............................ 161 N/A N/A Navy 2015. 

36 in ................................... Vibratory ............................ 166 N/A N/A Navy 2015. 

42 in ................................... Vibratory ............................ 170 N/A N/A Illingworth and Rodkin, 2019. 

55.5 in sheet pile ............... Vibratory ............................ 162 N/A N/A Molnar et al. 2020. 

36 in ................................... Impact ................................ 192 184 211 Navy 2015. 

42 in ................................... Impact ................................ 192 184 211 Navy 2015. 

55.5 in sheet pile ............... Impact ................................ 190 180 205 Caltrans 2015. 

42 in ................................... DTH ................................... 174 164 194 NMFS 2022. 

The ensonified area associated with 

Level A harassment is more technically 

challenging to predict due to the need 

to account for a duration component. 

Therefore, NMFS developed an optional 

User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 

Technical Guidance that can be used to 

relatively simply predict an isopleth 

distance for use in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to help predict potential takes. We note 

that because of some of the assumptions 

included in the methods underlying this 

optional tool, we anticipate that the 

resulting isopleth estimates are typically 

going to be overestimates of some 

degree, which may result in an 

overestimate of potential take by Level 

A harassment. However, this optional 

tool offers the best way to estimate 

isopleth distances when more 

sophisticated modeling methods are not 

available or practical. For stationary 

sources such as impact or vibratory pile 

driving and removal and DTH, 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. Inputs used in the 

optional User Spreadsheet tool (table 6), 

and the resulting estimated isopleths 

and the calculated Level B harassment 

isopleth (table 7), are reported below. 

For source levels of each pile please 

refer to Table 5. 

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

Pile size and installation 

method Spreadsheet tab used Weighting factor adjustment (kHz) 

Number of strikes 

per pile 

Number 

of piles 

per day 

Activity duration 

(minutes) 

16-in vibratory removal ......... A.1 Vibratory pile driving ...... 2.5 N/A 4 45 

24-in vibratory removal ......... A.1 Vibratory pile driving ...... 2.5 N/A 1 45 

36-in vibratory installation 

(temporary).

A.1 Vibratory pile driving ...... 2.5 N/A 4 15 

36-in vibratory removal (temporary).A.1 Vibratory pile driving ...... 2.5 N/A 4 15 

42-in vibratory installation ..... A.1 Vibratory pile driving ...... 2.5 N/A 4 45 

55-in sheet pile vibratory installation.A.1 Vibratory pile driving ...... 2.5 N/A 6 30 

36-in impact installation (temporary).E.1 Impact pile driving .......... 2 900 4 N/A 

42-in impact installation ........ E.1 Impact pile driving .......... 2 1,500 4 N/A 

55-in sheet pile impact installation.E.1 Impact pile driving .......... 2 900 6 N/A 

42-in DTH installation ........... E.2 DTH systems ................. 2 324,000 2 N/A 

TABLE 7—CALCULATED LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS

Activity 

Level A harassment zone 

(m) Level B harassment zone 

(m) LF-cetaceans MF-cetaceans HF-cetaceans Phocids Otariids 

16-in vibratory removal ............................ 14.2 1.3 21.8 8.6 0.6 5,412 

24-in vibratory removal ............................ 5.6 0.5 8.3 3.4 0.2 

36-in vibratory installation (temporary) .... 14.7 1.3 21.8 8.9 0.6 11,659 

36-in vibratory removal (temporary) ........ 14.7 1.3 21.8 8.9 0.6 

42-in vibratory installation ........................ 42.9 3.8 63.4 26.1 1.8 16,343 

55-in sheet pile vibratory installation ....... 16.6 1.5 24.5 10.1 0.7 6,310 

36-in impact installation (temporary) ....... 2,734.9 97.3 3,257.7 1,463.6 106.6 1,359 

42-in impact installation ........................... 3,844.5 136.7 4,579.4 2,057.4 149.8 1,359 

55-in sheet pile impact installation .......... 1,939.4 69.0 2,310.1 1,037.9 75.6 1,000 

42-in DTH installation .............................. 4,046.9 143.9 4,820.5 2,165.7 157.7 39,811 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78324 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide information 

about the occurrence of marine 

mammals, including density or other 

relevant information which will inform 

the take calculations. 

When available, peer-reviewed 

scientific publications were used to 

estimate marine mammal abundance in 

the project area. Data from monitoring 

reports from previous projects in Lutak 

and Skagway were used. However, 

scientific surveys and resulting data, 

such as population estimates, densities, 

and other quantitative information, are 

lacking for some marine mammal 

populations and most areas of southeast 

Alaska, including Lutak Inlet. Therefore, 

Haines Borough additionally gathered 

qualitative information from discussions 

with knowledgeable local people in the 

Lutak area. Assumptions regarding the 

size of expected groups of different 

species, and the frequency of occurrence 

of those groups, were proposed by 

Haines Borough on the basis of the 

aforementioned information. NMFS has 

reviewed the available information and 

concurs that these choices are 

reasonable. 

Here we describe how the information 

provided is synthesized to produce a 

quantitative estimate of the take that is 

reasonably likely to occur and proposed 

for authorization. Since reliable 

densities are not available, the take 

numbers are based on the assumed 

maximum number of animals in a group 

at a given time and the occurrence of 

those groups per day multiplied by the 

duration of each activity. Tables for 

each species are presented to show the 

calculation of take during the project. 

The take calculation for this project is: 

Incidental take estimate = number of 

individuals in a group * groups per 

day * days of pile-related activity 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whale presence in Lutak is 

irregular year-round. From mid-May 

through September whales are assumed 

to occur in groups of two and from 

October to April in groups of one. It is 

expected that in early summer (midMay through July) one group every two 

days may occur and at all other times of 

the year one group every 10 days would 

occur in the project area (Solstice AK, 

2023 and Happywhale, 2023). 

Therefore, using the equation given 

above, the total number of Level B 

harassment takes for humpback whales 

would be 26. Given that 2 percent of the 

humpback whales in southeast Alaska 

are expected to be members of the 

Mexico stock (Wade et al., 2016), one 

take is assumed to be from the Mexico 

stock and 25 takes from the Hawaii 

stock. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for humpback whales extends 4,050 m 

from the noise source (table 9). All 

construction work would be shut down 

prior to a humpback whale entering the 

Level A harassment zone specific to the 

in-water activity underway at the time. 

In consideration of the infrequent 

occurrence of humpback whales in the 

project area and proposed shutdown 

requirements, no take by Level A 

harassment is anticipated or proposed 

for humpback whales. 

Killer Whale 

Killer whales occur in the Lutak Inlet 

year round with higher occurrences in 

the spring. Group sizes of 15 animals are 

expected with 1 group every 20 days 

from mid-March through May and 1 

group every 30 days for the remainder 

of the year (Hart Crowser, Inc. and KPFF 

Consulting Engineers 2016). There are 

three stocks of killer whales that may be 

present in the project area, with the 

following proportions of overall killer 

whale occurrence expected: Alaska 

Residents, 75 percent; West Coast 

Transients, 13 percent; and Northern 

Residents, 12 percent (Section 6 of the 

IHA application). The applicant 

estimated these occurrence proportions 

by determining the total number of 

animals in all three stocks and dividing 

that number by the number of animals 

in a given stock. Therefore, with 130 

expected total takes by Level B 

harassment, 103 takes are expected to be 

from the Alaska Resident stock, 19 takes 

are expected from the West Coast 

Transient stock, and 16 takes are 

expected from the Northern Resident 

stock. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for killer whales extends 150 meters 

from the noise source (table 9). Killer 

whales are generally conspicuous and 

protected species observers (PSO) are 

expected to detect killer whales and 

implement a shutdown before the 

animals enter the Level A harassment 

zone. Therefore, takes by Level A 

harassment are not anticipated or 

proposed to be authorized. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoise are present year 

round in the Lynn Canal and are 

expected to be present in groups of two 

every 30 days at the project site. Haines 

Borough requested a total of 29 takes of 

harbor porpoise for the duration of the 

project. Of the 29 takes it is expected 

that 13 of those takes could be by Level 

A harassment, over 153 days of impact 

installation of 36-in, 42-in, and 55-in 

sheet piles and DTH activities. For 

construction activities that are of short 

duration and the take estimate was 

below the expected group size, the 

expected group size (e.g., two animals) 

was used as a proxy for take 

calculations for those activities. The 

remaining 16 takes would are expected 

to be by Level B harassment. 

Harbor porpoises are known to be an 

inconspicuous species and are 

challenging for protected species 

observers (PSOs) to sight, making any 

approach to a specific area potentially 

difficult to detect. The largest Level A 

harassment zone results from impact 

driving of 42-in piles, and extends 

4,820.5 m from the source for high 

frequency cetaceans (table 7). We 

propose a distance of 200 m as an 

effective shutdown zone, given the 

difficulty of observing harbor porpoise 

at greater distances (see Proposed 

Mitigation section). Therefore, some 

take by Level A harassment is expected. 

Dall’s Porpoise 

Groups of four Dall’s porpoise are 

expected to occur once every 30 days 

during the proposed project (Dahlheim 

et al., 2009), resulting in an estimate of 

31 takes by Level B harassment. 

Although no Dall’s porpoise were 

observed during recent monitoring of 

other projects in the area, tour boat 

operators occasionally observe Dall’s 

porpoise in Taiya Inlet (SolsticeAK, 

2023). Therefore, the applicant has 

requested authorization of take as 

described above. NMFS concurs with 

this request and proposes to authorize 

the take. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for Dall’s porpoise extends 4,820.5 m 

from the source during DTH installation 

of 42-in piles (table 7). Although Haines 

Borough would implement a 

significantly smaller shutdown zone 

(i.e., 200-m), given the low likelihood of 

occurrence of Dall’s porpoises in the 

area take by Level A harassment is not 

anticipated and is not proposed to be 

authorized. 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions are frequently 

observed in the project area. Group sizes 

vary during seasonal fish runs in the 

area. Groups of 40 animals per day are 

expected from mid-March through May 

when animals frequent the project site, 

including the Taiya point haulout. At 

other times of the year groups of 2 

animals per day are expected in the 

project area. 

During the impact installation of 36- 

in and 42-in piles and the DTH 

installation of 42-in piles, groups of 2 

sea lions per day are expected to occur 

within the respective Level A 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 78325 

harassment zones over 146 days 

associated with these activities. On this 

basis, we propose to authorize 292 takes 

of Steller sea lions by Level A 

harassment. Given that 1.4 percent of 

Steller sea lions are members of the ESA 

listed western DPS in the project area, 

4 of the 292 takes by Level A 

harassment would likely be western 

DPS individuals. The largest Level A 

harassment zone for Steller sea lions is 

150 m (table 7) but it may be difficult 

for PSOs to view Steller sea lions at the 

outer edges of the zone and therefore 

some take by Level A harassment is 

expected. 

Larger harassment zones associated 

with Level B harassment would 

encompass the Taiya point haulout. It is 

expected that groups of 40 Steller sea 

lions per day over 75 days of vibratory 

installation of all pile types, impact 

installation of 36-in and 42-in piles, and 

DTH installation of 42-in piles which 

would equate to 3,000 takes by Level B 

harassment. At other times of the year 

when the Taiya point haulout is not 

used group size would be two sea lions 

per day. During this period the 

applicant would complete work over 

151 days for vibratory installation of all 

pile types, impact installation of 36-in 

and 42-in piles, and DTH installation of 

42-in piles which would equate to 302 

takes by Level B harassment. 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals are common in the 

project area year round. The applicant 

expects groups of 100 animals from 

March through May when animals are 

more frequent feeding at the mouth of 

the Chilkoot River. At other times of the 

year groups of five animals are expected 

in the project area (SolsticeAK 2023). 

During impact installation of 36-in, 

42-in, and 55-in sheet piles and DTH 

installation of 42-in piles it is expected 

that one group of five harbor seals every 

10 days would occur. Over 153 days of 

activity 79 total takes by Level A 

harassment may occur. For construction 

activities that are of short duration and 

the take estimate was below the 

expected group size, the expected group 

size (e.g. five animals) was used as a 

proxy for take calculations for those 

activities. The largest Level A 

harassment zone results from impact 

driving of 42-in piles, and extends 2,057 

m from the source for phocids (table 7). 

We propose a distance of 200 m as an 

effective shutdown zone, given the 

difficulty of observing harbor seals at 

greater distances (see Proposed 

Mitigation section). Therefore, take by 

Level A harassment is expected. 

Similar to Steller sea lions the larger 

Level B harassment zones would 

encompass the mouth of the Chilkoot 

River where larger aggregations of 

harbor seals are known to occur. It is 

expected that groups of harbor seals of 

100 every 10 days over 75 days of 

vibratory installation of all pile types, 

impact installation of all pile types, and 

DTH installation of 42-in piles, which 

would equate to 750 takes by Level B 

harassment. During other times of the 

year the applicant expects groups of five 

animals every 10 days over a 151 day 

period for vibratory installation of all 

pile types, impact installation of 36-in 

and 42-in piles, and DTH installation of 

42-inch piles. This would result in 827 

takes by Level B harassment. 

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

Common name Stock Stock 

abundance a Level A Level B Total proposed take 

Proposed take 

as a 

percentage 

Humpback Whale ................ Mexico ................................ UKN 0 1 1 N/A 

Hawaii ................................. 11,278 0 25 25 0.2 

Killer Whale ......................... Alaska Resident ................. 1,920 0 103 103 5.4 

West Coast Transients ....... 349 0 19 19 5.4 

Eastern North Pacific 

Northern Residents.

302 0 16 16 5.3 

Harbor Porpoise .................. Northern Southeast Alaska 1,619 13 16 29 1.8 

Dall’s Porpoise .................... Alaska ................................. UKN 0 31 31 N/A 

Steller sea lion .................... Western DPS ..................... 52,932 4 33 37 < 0.1 

Eastern DPS ...................... 43,201 288 2,319 2,607 6.0 

Harbor Seal ......................... Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage.13,388 79 827 906 6.8 

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

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. NMFS 

regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, NMFS considers two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned); 

and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, and 

impact on operations. 

The following measures would apply 

to Haines Borough’s mitigation 

requirements: 

Implementation of Shutdown Zones— 

For all pile driving/removal activities, 

Haines Borough would implement 

shutdowns within designated zones. 

The purpose of a shutdown zone is 

generally to define an area within which 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78326 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 

shutdown of activity would occur upon 

sighting of a marine mammal (or in 

anticipation of an animal entering the 

defined area). Implementation of 

shutdowns would be used to avoid or 

minimize incidental Level A harassment 

takes from vibratory, impact, and DTH 

pile removal and installation (Table 8). 

For all pile driving/removal activities, a 

minimum 10-m shutdown zone must be 

established. NMFS has recommended 

shutdown zones of 200 m for highfrequency cetaceans and phocids, 

despite significantly larger estimated 

Level A harassment zones, in order to 

prescribe implementation of a zone that 

may be reasonably observed under 

typical conditions for these cryptic 

species. It is reasonable to expect that 

these species would be difficult to 

detect from distances further than 200 m 

by PSOs (table 9). All other shutdown 

zones for pile driving and removal 

activities are based on the Level A 

harassment zones and therefore vary by 

pile size and marine mammal hearing 

group (table 9). The placement of PSOs 

during all pile driving activities 

(described in detail in the Monitoring 

and Reporting section) would ensure the 

full extent of shutdown zones are visible 

to PSOs. 

TABLE 9—SHUTDOWN ZONES DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL

Activity Pile size Minutes or strikes per 

pile 

Piles per 

day 

Shutdown zones 

(m) 

LF 

cetaceans 

MF 

cetaceans 

HF 

cetaceans Phocids Otariids 

Vibratory Removal ....... 16-in ............................. 45 min .......................... 4 15 10 30 10 10 

24-in ............................. 45 min .......................... 1 10 

36-in (temporary) ......... 15 min .......................... 4 15 10 30 10 10 

Vibratory Installation .... 36-in (temporary) ......... 15 min .......................... 4 15 10 30 10 10 

42-in ............................. 45 min .......................... 4 60 10 85 35 10 

55-in sheet pile ............ 30 min .......................... 6 20 10 25 10 10 

Impact Installation ........ 36-in (temporary) ......... 900 strikes .................... 4 2,735 110 200 200 110 

42-in ............................. 1,500 strikes ................. 4 3,845 150 150 

55-in sheet pile ............ 900 strikes .................... 6 1,940 70 80 

DTH drilling .................. 42-in ............................. 300 min/324,000 strikes 2 4,050 145 160 

Establishment of Monitoring Zones— 

Haines Borough has identified 

monitoring zones correlated with the 

larger of the Level B harassment or 

Level A harassment zones. Monitoring 

zones provide utility for observing by 

establishing monitoring protocols for 

areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. In 

some cases the calculated monitoring 

zones are smaller than the Level A 

shutdown zones as presented in table 

10. This is due to the project area being 

bounded by land to 7,000 m on the 

western most shore of the inlet and 

5,820 m on the eastern shore. 

Monitoring zones enable observers to be 

aware of and communicate the presence 

of marine mammals in the project area 

outside the shutdown zone and thus 

prepare for a potential cessation of 

activity should the animal enter the 

shutdown zone. PSOs would monitor 

the entire visible area to maintain the 

best sense of where animals are moving 

relative to the zone boundaries defined 

in tables 9 and 10. Placement of PSOs 

on the shorelines around Lutak Inlet 

allow PSOs to observe marine mammals 

within and near the inlet. The applicant 

may also voluntarily place a PSO on a 

skiff in Taiya Inlet if safe conditions 

allow for such activity. 

TABLE 10—MARINE MAMMAL

MONITORING ZONE

Activity Monitoring zone 

(m) 

Vibratory removal of 16- 

in and 24-in piles ........ 5,425 

Vibratory installation and 

removal of 36-in temporary piles ................. 7,000 

Vibratory installation of 

42-in piles .................... 7,000 

Vibratory installation of 

55-in sheet piles .......... 6,310 

Impact installation of 36- 

in temporary piles ....... * 1,360 

Impact installation of 42- 

in piles ......................... * 1,360 

Impact installation of 55- 

in sheet piles ............... 1,000 

DTH installation of 42-in 

piles ............................. 7,000 

* Where Level A shutdown zones are larger 

than the Level B harassment zones. 

Soft Start—The use of soft-start 

procedures are believed to provide 

additional protection to marine 

mammals by providing warning and/or 

giving marine mammals a chance to 

leave the area prior to the hammer 

operating at full capacity. For impact 

pile driving, contractors would be 

required to provide an initial set of 

strikes from the hammer at reduced 

energy, with each strike followed by a 

30-second waiting period. This 

procedure would be conducted a total of 

three times before impact pile driving 

begins. Soft start would be implemented 

at the start of each day’s impact pile 

driving and at any time following 

cessation of impact pile driving for a 

period of 30 minutes or longer. Soft start 

is not required during vibratory pile 

driving and removal activities. 

Pre-Activity Monitoring—Prior to the 

start of daily in-water construction 

activity, or whenever a break in pile 

driving/removal of 30 minutes or longer 

occurs, PSOs would observe the 

shutdown and monitoring zones for a 

period of 30 minutes. The shutdown 

zone would be considered cleared when 

a marine mammal has not been 

observed within the zone for that 30- 

minute period. If a marine mammal is 

observed within the shutdown zone, a 

soft-start cannot proceed until the 

animal has left the zone or has not been 

observed for 15 minutes. If the 

monitoring zone has been observed for 

30 minutes and marine mammals are 

not present within the zone, soft-start 

procedures can commence and work 

can continue even if visibility becomes 

impaired within the monitoring zone. 

When a marine mammal permitted for 

take by Level B harassment is present in 

the Level B harassment zone, activities 

may begin. No work may begin unless 

the entire shutdown zone is visible to 

the PSOs. If work ceases for more than 

30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring 

of both the monitoring zone and 

shutdown zone would commence. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 78327 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present while conducting the activities. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

activity; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

Monitoring shall be conducted by 

NMFS-approved observers in 

accordance with the monitoring plan 

(Appendix C of the IHA application) 

and Section 5 of the IHA. Trained 

observers shall be placed from the best 

vantage point(s) practicable to monitor 

for marine mammals and implement 

shutdown or delay procedures when 

applicable through communication with 

the equipment operator. Observer 

training must be provided prior to 

project start, and shall include 

instruction on species identification 

(sufficient to distinguish the species in 

the project area), description and 

categorization of observed behaviors 

and interpretation of behaviors that may 

be construed as being reactions to the 

specified activity, proper completion of 

data forms, and other basic components 

of biological monitoring, including 

tracking of observed animals or groups 

of animals such that repeat sound 

exposures may be attributed to 

individuals (to the extent possible). 

Monitoring would be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after pile driving/removal activities. In 

addition, observers shall record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and shall document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from piles being driven or 

removed. Pile driving/removal activities 

include the time to install or remove a 

single pile or series of piles, as long as 

the time elapsed between uses of the 

pile driving equipment is no more than 

30 minutes. 

A minimum of one PSO would be on 

duty during all barge movements and 

other in-water construction activities 

and a minimum of three PSOs during all 

pile driving activities. Locations from 

which PSOs would be able to monitor 

for marine mammals are readily 

available from publicly accessible shore 

side areas at the project site, Lutak Road 

at a beach across from Takshanuk 

Mountain trail, and along the shoreline 

just south of Tanani Point along Lutak 

Road. PSOs would monitor for marine 

mammals entering the harassment 

zones. 

PSOs would scan the waters using 

binoculars and would use a handheld 

range-finder device to verify the 

distance to each sighting from the 

project site. All PSOs would be trained 

in marine mammal identification and 

behaviors and are required to have no 

other project-related tasks while 

conducting monitoring. In addition, 

monitoring would be conducted by 

qualified observers, who would be 

placed at the best vantage point(s) 

practicable to monitor for marine 

mammals and implement shutdown/ 

delay procedures when applicable by 

calling for the shutdown to the hammer 

operator via a radio. Haines Borough 

would adhere to the following observer 

qualifications: 

(i) PSOs must be independent of the 

activity contractor (for example, 

employed by a subcontractor) and have 

no other assigned tasks during 

monitoring periods; 

(ii) One PSO would be designated as 

the lead PSO or monitoring coordinator 

and that observer must have prior 

experience working as an observer; 

(iii) Other observers may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience; and 

(iv) Haines Borough must submit 

observer Curriculum Vitaes for approval 

by NMFS. 

Additional recommended observer 

qualifications include: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were suspended to avoid 

potential incidental injury from 

construction sound of marine mammals 

observed within a defined shutdown 

zone; and marine mammal behavior; 

and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report would be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal activities. It 

would include an overall description of 

work completed, a narrative regarding 

marine mammal sightings, and 

associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, 

the report must include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78328 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including the number and type of piles 

driven or removed and by what method 

(i.e., impact driving) and for each pile or 

total number of strikes for each pile 

(impact driving); 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; 

• Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance; 

• Upon observation of a marine 

mammal, the following information: 

Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) 

and PSO location and activity at time of 

sighting; time of sighting; identification 

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

lowest possible taxonomic level, or 

unidentified), PSO confidence in 

identification, and the composition of 

the group if there is a mix of species; 

distance and bearing of each marine 

mammal observed relative to the pile 

being driven for each sighting (if pile 

driving was occurring at time of 

sighting); estimated number of animals 

(min/max/best estimate); estimated 

number of animals by cohort (adults, 

juveniles, neonates, group composition, 

etc.); animal’s closest point of approach 

and estimated time spent within the 

harassment zone; description of any 

marine mammal behavioral observations 

(e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding 

or traveling), including an assessment of 

behavioral responses thought to have 

resulted from the activity (e.g., no 

response or changes in behavioral state 

such as ceasing feeding, changing 

direction, flushing, or breaching); 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected within the harassment zones, 

by species; and 

• Detailed information about any 

implementation of any mitigation 

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

description of specific actions that 

ensued, and resulting changes in 

behavior of the animal(s), if any. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft final 

report would constitute the final report. 

If comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such 

as an injury, serious injury or mortality, 

Haines Borough would immediately 

cease the specified activities and report 

the incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska 

Regional Stranding Coordinator. The 

report would include the following 

information: 

• Description of the incident; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

Beaufort sea state, visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities would not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS would work with Haines 

Borough to determine what is necessary 

to minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. Haines Borough would not 

be able to resume their activities until 

notified by NMFS. 

In the event that Haines Borough 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal, and the lead PSO determines 

that the cause of the injury or death is 

unknown and the death is relatively 

recent (e.g., in less than a moderate state 

of decomposition as described in the 

next paragraph), Haines Borough would 

immediately report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline 

and/or by email to the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinator. The report 

would include the same information 

identified in the paragraph above. 

Activities would be able to continue 

while NMFS reviews the circumstances 

of the incident. NMFS would work with 

Haines Borough to determine whether 

modifications in the activities are 

appropriate. 

In the event that Haines Borough 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal and the lead PSO determines 

that the injury or death is not associated 

with or related to the activities 

authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously 

wounded animal, carcass with moderate 

to advanced decomposition, or 

scavenger damage), Haines Borough 

would report the incident to the Office 

of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or 

by email to the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours 

of the discovery. Haines Borough would 

provide photographs, video footage (if 

available), or other documentation of 

the stranded animal sighting to NMFS 

and the Marine Mammal Stranding 

Network. 

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 8, given that many of the 

anticipated effects of this project on 

different marine mammal stocks are 

expected to be relatively similar in 

nature. Where there are meaningful 

differences between species or stocks, or 

groups of species, in anticipated 

individual responses to activities, 

impact of expected take on the 

population due to differences in 

population status, or impacts on habitat, 

they are described independently in the 

analysis below. 

Pile driving and removal activities 

associated with the project as outlined 

previously, have the potential to disturb 

or displace marine mammals. 

Specifically, the specified activities may 

result in take, in the form of Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

from underwater sounds generated from 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 78329 

pile driving and removal. Potential takes 

could occur if individuals of these 

species are present in zones ensonified 

above the thresholds for Level A or 

Level B harassment identified above 

when these activities are underway. 

Take by Level A and Level B 

harassment would be due to potential 

behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. 

No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or proposed for 

authorization given the nature of the 

activity and measures designed to 

minimize the possibility of injury to 

marine mammals. Take by Level A 

harassment is only anticipated for 

harbor porpoise, Steller sea lions, and 

harbor seal. Take by Level A harassment 

of the ESA-listed western DPS of Steller 

sea lions is expected to be a very small 

portion of the overall DPS (<0.1 

percent). Impacts to affected individuals 

of the western DPS are not expected to 

result in population-level impacts. The 

potential for harassment is minimized 

through the construction method (i.e. 

use of direct pull removal or vibratory 

methods to the extent practical) and the 

implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures (see Proposed 

Mitigation section). 

In addition to the expected effects 

resulting from Level B harassment, we 

anticipate that harbor porpoises, Steller 

sea lions, and harbor seals may sustain 

some limited Level A harassment in the 

form of auditory injury. However, 

animals in these locations that 

experience PTS would likely only 

receive slight PTS, i.e., minor 

degradation of hearing capabilities 

within regions of hearing that align most 

completely with the energy produced by 

pile driving, i.e., the low-frequency 

region below 2 kHz, not severe hearing 

impairment or impairment in the 

regions of greatest hearing sensitivity. If 

hearing impairment occurs, it is most 

likely that the affected animal would 

lose a few decibels in its hearing 

sensitivity, which in most cases is not 

likely to meaningfully affect its ability 

to forage and communicate with 

conspecifics. As described above, we 

expect that marine mammals would be 

likely to move away from a sound 

source that represents an aversive 

stimulus, especially at levels that would 

be expected to result in PTS, given 

sufficient notice through use of soft 

start. 

The project also is not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitat. The 

project activities would not modify 

existing marine mammal habitat for a 

significant amount of time. The 

activities may cause some fish or 

invertebrates to leave the area of 

disturbance, thus temporarily impacting 

marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities in a limited portion of the 

foraging range; but, because of the short 

duration of the activities, the relatively 

small area of the habitat that may be 

affected, and the availability of nearby 

habitat of similar or higher value, the 

impacts to marine mammal habitat are 

not expected to cause significant or 

long-term negative consequences. The 

haulout location at Taiya Point would 

be affected by the project for foraging 

Steller sea lions and occasionally harbor 

seals. Currently, the Taiya Point haulout 

location is not known to be a pupping 

location for Steller sea lions or harbor 

seals but are important areas throughout 

the year. Steller sea lions and to a lesser 

extent harbor seals at this haulout 

would likely result in repeated exposure 

of the same animals. Repeated 

exposures of individuals to this pile 

driving activity could cause Level A and 

Level B harassment but are unlikely to 

considerably disrupt foraging behavior 

or result in significant decrease in 

fitness, reproduction, or survival for the 

affected individuals. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect any of 

the species or stocks through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• Any Level A harassment exposures 

(i.e., to harbor seals, harbor porpoise, 

and Steller sea lions, only) are 

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

of a few decibels), within the lower 

frequencies associated with pile driving; 

• The anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment would consist of, at worst, 

temporary modifications in behavior 

that would not result in fitness impacts 

to individuals; 

• The ensonifed areas from the 

project are very small relative to the 

overall habitat ranges of all species and 

stocks; 

• The lack of anticipated significant 

or long-term negative effects to marine 

mammal habitat or any other areas of 

known biological importance; with the 

exception of the haulout location at 

Taiya Point; and 

• The proposed mitigation measures 

are expected to reduce the effects of the 

specified activity to the level of least 

practicable adverse impact. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted previously, only take of 

small numbers of marine mammals may 

be authorized under sections 

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

specified activities other than military 

readiness activities. The MMPA does 

not define small numbers and so, in 

practice, where estimated numbers are 

available, NMFS compares the number 

of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one-third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

Table 8 demonstrates the number of 

animals that could be exposed to the 

received noise levels that could cause 

harassment for the proposed work in 

Lutak Inlet. Our analysis shows that less 

than 6.8 percent of each affected stock 

could be taken by harassment. The 

numbers of animals proposed to be 

taken for these stocks would be 

considered small relative to the relevant 

stock’s abundances, even if each 

estimated taking occurred to a new 

individual—an extremely unlikely 

scenario. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals would be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78330 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2023 / Notices 

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. 

In the Haines area sea lions and 

harbor seals are available for subsistence 

harvest under the MMPA. Limited 

subsistence harvests of marine 

mammals near the community of Haines 

has occurred in the past, with the most 

recent recorded/documented harvests of 

marine mammals in Haines in 2012 and 

in nearby Klukwan in 2014. The 

proposed activity will take place in 

Lutak Inlet, and no activities overlap 

with current subsistence hunting areas; 

therefore, there are no relevant 

subsistence uses of marine mammals 

adversely impacted by this action. The 

proposed project is not likely to 

adversely impact the availability of any 

marine mammal species or stocks that 

are commonly used for subsistence 

purposes or to impact subsistence 

harvest of marine mammals in the 

region. 

Based on the description of the 

specified activity, the measures 

described to minimize adverse effects 

on the availability of marine mammals 

for subsistence purposes, and the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that there will not be an 

unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from Haines Borough’s 

proposed activities. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with the Alaska Regional 

Office. 

NMFS is proposing to authorize take 

of Mexico DPS of humpback whales and 

western DPS of Steller sea lions, which 

are listed under the ESA. 

The Office of Protected Resources 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 Haines Borough for 

conducting pile driving and removal 

activities in, Lutak Alaska from 1-year of 

the date of issuance of the final IHA, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. A draft 

of the proposed IHA can be found at: 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHA for the proposed action. 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); and 

• 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. 

Dated: November 8, 2023. 

Shannon Bettridge, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25097 Filed 11–14–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD516] 

Marine Mammals and Endangered 

Species 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of permits and 

permit amendments. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

permits and permit amendments have 

been issued to the following entities 

under the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA) and the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), as applicable. 

ADDRESSES: The permits and related 

documents are available for review 

upon written request via email to 

NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., (Permit No. 

27155), Amy Hapeman (Permit No. 

22156–05), and Jennifer Skidmore 

(Permit No. 27459); at (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notices 

were published in the Federal Register 

on the dates listed below that requests 

for a permit or permit amendment had 

been submitted by the below-named 

applicants. To locate the Federal 

Register notice that announced our 

receipt of the application and a 

complete description of the activities, go 

to https://www.federalregister.gov and 

search on the permit number provided 

in Table 1 below. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1