88874 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 

Recommendations for a New For-hire 

Data Collection Program, revisit the AP 

charge, evaluate desired program goals 

and objectives and wrap-up 

recommendations to Council. 

The committee will discuss Other 

Business items, and receive Public 

Comments before the meeting adjourns. 

The Agenda is subject to change, and 

the latest version along with other 

meeting materials will be posted on 

https://www.gulfcouncil.org. 

Although other non-emergency issues 

not on the agenda may come before this 

group for discussion, in accordance 

with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

those issues may not be the subject of 

formal action during this meeting. 

Actions will be restricted to those issues 

specifically identified in the agenda and 

any issues arising after publication of 

this notice that require emergency 

action under Section 305(c) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

provided the public has been notified of 

the Council’s intent to take-action to 

address the emergency. 

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

Dated: December 20, 2023. 

Alyssa Lynn Weigers, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–28411 Filed 12–22–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD515] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Trident 

Seafoods Bunkhouse Dock 

Replacement Project, Kodiak, 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 Trident Seafoods Corporation 

(Trident) for authorization to take 

marine mammals incidental to pile 

driving and removal activities 

associated with the Bunkhouse Dock 

replacement project in Kodiak, Alaska. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to incidentally take 

marine mammals during the specified 

activities. NMFS is also requesting 

comments on a possible one-time, 1- 

year renewal that could be issued under 

certain circumstances and if all 

requirements are met, as described in 

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 January 25, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service and should be 

submitted via email to 

ITP.wachtendonk@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. 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: 

Rachel Wachtendonk, 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 June 15, 2023, NMFS received a 

request from Trident for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to vibratory 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 88875 

and impact pile driving to replace the 

Bunkhouse Dock at their facility in 

Kodiak, Alaska. Following NMFS’ 

review of the application, Trident 

submitted a revised version on 

September 1, 2023. The application was 

deemed adequate and complete on 

October 26, 2023. Trident’s request is 

for take of six species of marine 

mammals by Level B harassment only. 

Neither Trident nor NMFS expect 

serious injury or mortality to result from 

this activity and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

Trident proposes to remove and 

replace the Bunkhouse Dock on the 

shore of Near Island Channel in Kodiak, 

Alaska. The purpose of this project is to 

remove the degraded dock and replace 

it with a new structure to provide safe 

housing and waterfront infrastructure 

for seafood processing. The activity 

includes the removal of existing piles 

and the installation of both temporary 

and permanent piles of various sizes. 

Takes of marine mammals by Level B 

harassment would occur due to downthe-hole (DTH) drilling and vibratory 

pile driving and removal. This project 

would occur Kodiak, Alaska along the 

western shore of Near Island Channel 

within Township 27S. Construction 

activities are expected to occur over 8 

weeks starting in March 2024. 

Dates and Duration 

The proposed activities are expected 

to start in March 2024 and last 8 weeks. 

It is expected to take 94 hours over 55 

non-consecutive days. All pile driving 

and removal would be completed 

during daylight hours. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The proposed activities would take 

place at the Trident Seafoods facility 

along the City of Kodiak’s downtown 

working waterfront. It is located on the 

western shore of Near Island Channel in 

Kodiak, Alaska within Township 27S. 

All construction would occur within the 

footprint of the existing Trident-owned 

Bunkhouse Dock. The timing of this 

work is planned to not interfere with the 

commercial fishing season. 

Detailed Description of the Specified 

Activity 

The Bunkhouse Dock replacement 

will include the removal of 100 14-inch 

(in) (36 centimeter (cm)) diameter 

timber piles, 75 14-in (36-cm) steel Hpiles, and 60 16-in (41 cm) diameter 

steel pipe piles. Once the existing piles 

are removed, 26 16-in (41 cm) diameter 

steel pipe piles and 52 24-in (61 cm) 

diameter steel pipe piles would be 

installed to support the new pier. The 

installation and removal of 52 

temporary 24-in (61 cm) diameter steel 

pipe piles would be completed to 

support permanent pile installation. All 

piles will be removed with the deadpull 

method with the vibratory hammer 

being used if the deadpull method is 

unsuccessful. Temporary and 

permanent piles will be initially 

installed with the vibratory hammer 

followed by the DTH drill to embed 

them to their final depth. The work 

would be completed within the 

footprint of the existing Bunkhouse 

Dock in Kodiak, Alaska. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN26DE23.000</GPH>

Figure 1-- Project Location 
88876 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 

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

Existing pipe 

pile removal 

(steel) 

Existing H-pile 

removal 

(steel) 

Existing pile 

removal 

(timber) 

Temporary pile 

installation 

(steel) 

Temporary pile 

removal 

(steel) 

Permanent 

pipe pile 

installation 

(steel) 

Permanent 

pipe pile 

installation 

(steel) 

Pile Diameter size (in) ................................... 16 14 14 24 24 16 24 

Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal 

Total Quantity ................................................ 60 75 100 20 20 26 52 

Max # of Piles per day .................................. 20 20 25 6 8 5 4 

Vibratory time per pile (min) ......................... 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Number of Days ............................................ 3 4 4 3 3 5 13 

Down the Hole Drilling 

Total Quantity ................................................ n/a n/a n/a 20 n/a 26 52 

Piles per day ................................................. n/a n/a n/a 6 n/a 6 4 

Duration time per pile (min) .......................... n/a n/a n/a 30 n/a 45 60 

Number of Days ............................................ n/a n/a n/a 3 n/a 4 13 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. NMFS fully considered 

all of this information, and we refer the 

reader to these descriptions, instead of 

reprinting the information. Additional 

information regarding population trends 

and threats may be found in NMFS’ 

Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments) 

and more general information about 

these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’ website (https://

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

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for this activity and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. PBR is defined by the 

MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’ SARs). While no 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or proposed to be authorized here, PBR 

and annual serious injury and mortality 

from anthropogenic sources are 

included here as gross indicators of the 

status of the species or stocks and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ U.S. 2022 SARs. All values 

presented in table 2 are the most recent 

available at the time of publication and 

are available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES 4 LIKELY TO OCCUR NEAR THE PROJECT AREA THAT MAY BE TAKEN BY TRIDENT’S

ACTIVITIES

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Artiodactyla—Cetacea—Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Humpback Whale ............. Megaptera novaeangliae ........ Hawai1i 5 .................................. -, -, N 11,278 (0.56, 7,265, 2020) .... 127 27.09 

Mexico-North Pacific 6 ............ 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 7.

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

Eastern North Pacific Gulf of 

Alaska, Aleutian Islands 

and Bering Sea Transient 7.

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

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Dall’s Porpoise ................. Phocoenoides dalli ................. AK8 ........................................ -, -, N UND (UND, UND, 2015) ........ UND 37 

Harbor Porpoise ............... Phocoena phocoena .............. Gulf of Alaska ......................... -, -, Y 31,046 (0.21, N/A, 1998) ....... UND 72 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I I 

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 88877 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES 4 LIKELY TO OCCUR NEAR THE PROJECT AREA THAT MAY BE TAKEN BY TRIDENT’S

ACTIVITIES—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Carnivora—Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

Steller Sea Lion ................ Eumetopias jubatus ................ Western 9 ................................ E, D, Y 52,932 (N/A, 52,932, 2019) ... 318 254 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Harbor Seal ...................... Phoca vitulina ......................... South Kodiak .......................... -, -, N 26,448 (N/A, 22,351, 2017) ... 939 127 

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

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

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

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

mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 4 Information on the classification of marine mammal species can be found on the web page for The Society for Marine Mammalogy’s Committee on Taxonomy 

(https://marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/; Committee on Taxonomy (2022)). 5 New SAR in 2022 following North Pacific humpback whale stock structure changes. 

6Abundance estimates are based upon data collected more than 8 years ago and, therefore, current estimates are considered unknown. 7 Nest is based upon counts of individuals identified from photo-ID catalogs. 

8The best available abundance estimate is likely an underestimate for the entire stock because it is based upon a survey that covered only a small portion of the 

stock’s range. 9Nest is best estimate of counts, which have not been corrected for animals at sea during abundance surveys. 9 Nest is best estimate of counts, which have not been corrected for animals at sea during abundance surveys. 

As indicated above, all six species 

(with eight managed stocks) in table 2 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur. All species 

that could potentially occur in the 

proposed project area are included in 

table 5 of the IHA application. While 

gray whales, North Pacific right whales, 

minke whales, fin whales, Cuvier’s 

beaked whales, sperm whales, Pacific 

white-sided dolphins, and northern fur 

seals in the area, the temporal and/or 

spatial occurrence of these species is 

such that take is not expected to occur, 

and they are not discussed further 

beyond the explanation provided here. 

These species are all considered to be 

rare (no sightings in recent years) within 

the project area. Take of these species 

has not been requested nor is proposed 

to be authorized and these species are 

not considered further in this document. 

Additional information relevant to 

our analyses (beyond that included 

above, in the application, and on NMFS 

website) is included below, as 

appropriate. 

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 

4 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 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. 

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 Hawa1i 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). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I I 

I I I I 
88878 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 

Wild et al. (2023) identified the 

waters around and to the East of Kodiak 

Island (including the proposed project 

area) as a Biologically Important Area 

(BIA) for humpback whales for feeding 

during the months of May through 

September, with an importance score of 

1 (the lowest of three possible scores (1, 

2, or 3), reflecting an Intensity score of 

2 (indicating an area of moderate 

comparative significance) and a Data 

Support score of 1 (lower relative 

confidence in the available supporting 

data). While the majority of sightings 

occur outside of the Near Island 

Channel, a singular humpback whale 

was documented transiting the channel 

during the Kodiak Ferry Terminal 

construction in March 2016 (NMFS 

2017). 

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 

Distinct Population Segments (DPSs; 

western and eastern stocks) in 1997 (62 

FR 24345, May 5, 1997). The eastern 

DPS remained classified as threatened 

until it was delisted in November 2013. 

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, and it remains endangered 

today. There is regular movement of 

both DPSs across this 144° W longitude 

boundary (Jemison et al., 2013) 

however, due to the distance from this 

DPS boundary, it is likely that only 

western DPS Steller sea lions are 

present in the project area. Therefore, 

animals potentially affected by the 

project are assumed to be part of the 

western DPS. Sea lions from the eastern 

DPS, are not likely to be affected by the 

proposed activity and are not discussed 

further. 

Steller sea lions do not follow 

traditional migration patterns, but will 

move from offshore rookeries in the 

summer to more protected haulouts 

closer to shore in the winter. They use 

rookeries and haulouts as resting spots 

as they follow prey movements and take 

foraging trips for days, usually within a 

few miles of their rookery or haulout. 

They are generalist marine predators 

and opportunistic feeders based on 

seasonal abundance and location of 

prey. Steller sea lions forage in 

nearshore as well as offshore areas, 

following prey resources. They are 

highly social and are often observed in 

large groups while hauled out but alone 

or in small groups when at sea (NMFS 

2022). 

Steller sea lions are frequent in the 

proposed project area as many have 

become habituated to the human 

activity at the seafood processing 

facilities. Steller sea lions regularly haul 

out on the Dog Bay float in St. Herman 

Harbor, which is approximately 792 m 

(2,600 ft) from the proposed project 

area. A bi-weekly census of Steller sea 

lions at the Dog Bay float conducted 

from November 2015 to June 2016, in 

association with the Kodiak Ferry 

Terminal project, revealed maximum 

numbers (>100) from mid-March 

through mid-June, with 5,111 total 

observations from November 2015 to 

June 2016 (NMFS 2019a). The highest 

average hourly number (11–15/hour) of 

sea lions within the entire Kodiak Ferry 

Terminal observation area occurred 

from February through April 2016 

(NMFS 2019a). 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

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

and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 

2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. 

(2007, 2019) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into hearing 

groups based on directly measured 

(behavioral or auditory evoked potential 

techniques) or estimated hearing ranges 

(behavioral response data, anatomical 

modeling, etc.). Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in table 3. 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

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

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

High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, Cephalorhynchid, ....................................................

Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L. australis) .................................................................................................................................

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

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

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

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

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

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

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section provides a discussion of 

the ways in which components of the 

specified activity may impact marine 

mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take section later in this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 88879 

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 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 vibratory pile driving, vibratory 

pile removal, and DTH drilling. The 

sounds produced by these activities fall 

into one of two general sound types: 

impulsive and non-impulsive. 

Impulsive sounds (e.g., explosions, 

gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile 

driving) are typically transient, brief 

(less than 1 second), broadband, and 

consist of high peak sound pressure 

with rapid rise time and rapid decay 

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

NMFS, 2018). Non-impulsive sounds 

(e.g., aircraft, machinery operations 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems) 

can be broadband, narrowband or tonal, 

brief or prolonged (continuous or 

intermittent), and typically do not have 

the high peak sound pressure with raid 

rise/decay time that impulsive sounds 

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

2018). The distinction between these 

two sound types is important because 

they have differing potential to cause 

physical effects, particularly with regard 

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

al. 2007). 

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 

Trident’s proposed activities on marine 

mammals could involve both nonacoustic 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 

expected to primarily be acoustic in 

nature. 

Acoustic 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. 

Auditory Effects 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
88880 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 

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 

Trident’s proposed activities, vibratory 

pile driving is considered a nonimpulsive source, while DTH drilling 

are considered to have both nonimpulsive 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 

cumulative SEL (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 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 88881 

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 

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. 

Behavioral Effects 

Exposure to noise from pile driving 

and removal also has the potential to 

behaviorally disturb marine mammals. 

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

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

Southall et al., 2021). 

Disturbance may result in changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where sound sources are located. 

Pinnipeds may increase their haul out 

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 is informed by 

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 Near Island Channel. 

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. 

Auditory Masking—Sound can 

disrupt behavior through masking, or 

interfering with, an animal’s ability to 

detect, recognize, or discriminate 

between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., 

those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; 

Erbe et al., 2016). Masking occurs when 

the receipt of a sound is interfered with 

by another coincident sound at similar 

frequencies and at similar or higher 

intensity, and may occur whether the 

sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, 

wind, waves, precipitation) or 

anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar, 

seismic exploration) in origin. The 

ability of a noise source to mask 

biologically important sounds depends 

on the characteristics of both the noise 

source and the signal of interest (e.g., 

signal-to-noise ratio, temporal 

variability, direction), in relation to each 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
88882 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 

other and to an animal’s hearing 

abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency 

range, critical ratios, frequency 

discrimination, directional 

discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), 

and existing ambient noise and 

propagation conditions. Masking of 

natural sounds can result when human 

activities produce high levels of 

background sound at frequencies 

important to marine mammals. 

Conversely, if the background level of 

underwater sound is high (e.g., on a day 

with strong wind and high waves), an 

anthropogenic sound source would not 

be detectable as far away as would be 

possible under quieter conditions and 

would itself be masked. 

Under certain circumstances, marine 

mammals experiencing significant 

masking could also be impaired from 

maximizing their performance fitness in 

survival and reproduction. Therefore, 

when the coincident (masking) sound is 

man-made, it may be considered 

harassment when disrupting or altering 

critical behaviors. It is important to 

distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist 

after the sound exposure, from masking, 

which occurs during the sound 

exposure. Because masking (without 

resulting in TS) is not associated with 

abnormal physiological function, it is 

not considered a physiological effect, 

but rather a potential behavioral effect. 

The frequency range of the potentially 

masking sound is important in 

determining any potential behavioral 

impacts. For example, low-frequency 

signals may have less effect on highfrequency echolocation sounds 

produced by odontocetes but are more 

likely to affect detection of mysticete 

communication calls and other 

potentially important natural sounds 

such as those produced by surf and 

some prey species. The masking of 

communication signals by 

anthropogenic noise may be considered 

as a reduction in the communication 

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

and may result in energetic or other 

costs as animals change their 

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

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

2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et 

al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in 

situations where the signal and noise 

come from different directions 

(Richardson et al., 1995), through 

amplitude modulation of the signal, or 

through other compensatory behaviors 

(Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can 

be tested directly in captive species 

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

populations it must be either modeled 

or inferred from evidence of masking 

compensation. There are few studies 

addressing real-world masking sounds 

likely to be experienced by marine 

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

al., 2013). 

Masking affects both senders and 

receivers of acoustic signals and can 

potentially have long-term chronic 

effects on marine mammals at the 

population level as well as at the 

individual level. Low-frequency 

ambient sound levels have increased by 

as much as 20 dB (more than three times 

in terms of SPL) in the world’s ocean 

from pre-industrial periods, with most 

of the increase from distant commercial 

shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All 

anthropogenic sound sources, but 

especially chronic and lower-frequency 

signals (e.g., from vessel traffic), 

contribute to elevated ambient sound 

levels, thus intensifying masking. 

Background sound levels in the project 

area are generally already elevated due 

to the cruise ships, passenger ferries, 

charter and commercial fishing vessels, 

barges, and freight vessels that frequent 

the area. 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 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 88883 

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 Near Island 

Channel. 

The duration of the construction 

activities is relatively short, with pile 

driving and removal activities expected 

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 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through the IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers,’’ and 

the negligible impact determinations. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to pile driving activities. 

Based on the nature of the activity, 

Level A harassment is neither 

anticipated nor proposed to be 

authorized. 

As described previously, no serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

proposed to be authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

proposed take numbers are estimated. 

For acoustic impacts, generally 

speaking, we estimate take by 

considering: (1) acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) the number of days of activities. 

We note that while these factors can 

contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of potential 

takes, additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Below, we describe the factors 

considered here in more detail and 

present the proposed take estimates. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

factors related to the source or exposure 

context (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle, duration of the exposure, 

signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the 

source), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry, other noises in the area, 

predators in the area), and the receiving 

animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography, life stage, 

depth) and can be difficult to predict 

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

et al., 2012). Based on what the 

available science indicates and the 

practical need to use a threshold based 

on a metric that is both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

typically uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS generally predicts 

that marine mammals are likely to be 

behaviorally harassed in a manner 

considered to be Level B harassment 

when exposed to underwater 

anthropogenic noise above root-meansquared pressure received levels (RMS 

SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 

micropascal (re 1 mPa)) for continuous 

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

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

airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. Generally speaking, 

Level B harassment take estimates based 

on these behavioral harassment 

thresholds are expected to include any 

likely takes by TTS as, in most cases, 

the likelihood of TTS occurs at 

distances from the source less than 

those at which behavioral harassment is 

likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can 

manifest as behavioral harassment, as 

reduced hearing sensitivity and the 

potential reduced opportunities to 

detect important signals (conspecific 

communication, predators, prey) may 

result in changes in behavior patterns 

that would not otherwise occur. 

Trident’s proposed activity includes 

the use of continuous (vibratory pile 

driving) sources, and therefore the RMS 

SPL threshold of 120 dB re 1 mPa is 

applicable. DTH drilling has 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) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

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

includes the use of non-impulsive 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
88884 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 

(vibratory pile driving) sources. As 

described above, DTH includes both 

impulsive and non-impulsive 

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: 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 4—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 1: Lp,0-pk,flat: 219 dB; LE,p, LF,24h: 183 dB ................ Cell 2: LE,p,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3: Lp,0-pk,flat: 230 dB; LE,p, MF,24h: 185 dB ................ Cell 4: LE,p,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5: Lp,0-pk,flat: 202 dB; LE,p,HF,24h: 155 dB ................. Cell 6: LE,p,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 7: Lp,0-pk,flat: 218 dB; LE,p,PW,24h: 185 dB ................ Cell 8: LE,p,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9: Lp,0-pk,flat: 232 dB; LE,p,OW,24h: 203 dB ................ Cell 10: LE,p,OW,24h: 219 

dB. 

* Dual metric 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 are recommended 

for consideration. 

Note: Peak sound pressure level (Lp,0-pk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and weighted cumulative sound exposure level (LE,p) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to be more reflective of International Organization for Standardization standards 

(ISO 2017). The subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing 

range of marine mammals (i.e., 7 Hz to 160 kHz). 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 weighted 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 

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., vibratory pile driving 

and removal, DTH drilling). The 

maximum (underwater) area ensonified 

above the thresholds for behavioral 

harassment referenced above is 125 km2

(48.26 mi2), that would be truncated by 

land masses that would obstruct 

underwater sound transmission and 

would extend into Near Island Channel 

and St. Paul Harbor (see figure 5 in 

Trident’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 

and DTH pile installation of steel pipe 

piles and vibratory removal of steel pipe 

piles, steel H-piles, and timber piles. 

Source levels for each pile size and 

driving method are presented in table 5. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 88885 

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

Pile type Installation or removal RMS SPL 

(re 1 μPa) 

SEL 

(re 1 μPa2-sec) Source 

Vibratory Pile Driving 

14-in timber pile ............................ Removal ....................................... 162 NA Caltrans 2020. 

14-in H-pile .................................... Removal ....................................... 150 Caltrans 2020. 

16-in steel pile ............................... Installation .................................... 161 NAVFAC 2015. 

16-in steel pile ............................... Removal ....................................... NAVFAC 2015. 

24-in steel pile ............................... Installation .................................... NAVFAC 2015. 

DTH Drilling 1

16-in steel pile ............................... Installation .................................... 162 141 Heyvaert & Reyff 2021, Guan & 

Miner 2020. 

24-in steel pile ............................... Installation .................................... 154 Heyvaert & Reyff 2021. 

1Sound source levels for DTH were adjusted by ¥5 dB to reflect the use of the bubble curtain. 

The ensonified area associated with 

Level A harassment is more technically 

challenging to predict due to the need 

to account for a duration component. 

Therefore, NMFS developed an optional 

User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 

Technical Guidance that can be used to 

relatively simply predict an isopleth 

distance for use in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to help predict potential takes. We note 

that because of some of the assumptions 

included in the methods underlying this 

optional tool, we anticipate that the 

resulting isopleth estimates are typically 

going to be overestimates of some 

degree, which may result in an 

overestimate of potential take by Level 

A harassment. However, this optional 

tool offers the best way to estimate 

isopleth distances when more 

sophisticated modeling methods are not 

available or practical. For stationary 

sources such as pile driving, the 

optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts 

the distance at which, if a marine 

mammal remained at that distance for 

the duration of the activity, it would be 

expected to incur PTS. Inputs used in 

the optional User Spreadsheet tool, and 

the resulting estimated isopleths, are 

reported below. 

TABLE 6—NMFS USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS

Pile size and type Spreadsheet tab used 

Weighting 

factor 

adjustment 

(kHz) 

Transmission 

loss coefficient 

Number of 

piles per day 

Activity 

duration 

(minutes) 

14-in timber pile vibratory removal ........ A.1 Vibratory pile driving ....................... 2.5 15 25 2 

14-in steel H-pile vibratory removal ....... A.1 Vibratory pile driving ....................... 2.5 15 20 2 

16-in steel pipe pile vibratory removal ... A.1 Vibratory pile driving ....................... 2.5 15 20 2 

16-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation A.1 Vibratory pile driving ....................... 2.5 15 5 2 

24-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation 

(temporary).

A.1 Vibratory pile driving ....................... 2.5 15 6 2 

24-in steel pipe pile vibratory removal 

(temporary).

A.1 Vibratory pile driving ....................... 2.5 15 8 2 

24-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation A.1 Vibratory pile driving ....................... 2.5 15 4 2 

16-in steel pipe pile DTH installation ..... E.2 DTH pile driving .............................. 2 15 6 45 

24-in steel pipe pile DTH installation 

(temporary).

E.2 DTH pile driving .............................. 2 15 6 30 

24-in steel pipe pile DTH installation ..... E.2 DTH pile driving .............................. 2 15 4 60 

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 Otariids Phocids 

14-in timber pile vibratory removal ........................................... 7.1 0.6 10.4 4.3 0.3 6,310 

14-in steel H-pile vibratory removal .......................................... 1.0 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.0 1,000 

16-in steel pipe pile vibratory removal ...................................... 5.2 0.5 7.7 3.2 0.2 5,415 

16-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation .................................. 2.1 0.2 3.1 1.3 0.1 

24-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation (temporary) .............. 2.3 0.2 3.5 1.4 0.1 

24-in steel pipe pile vibratory removal (temporary) .................. 2.8 0.3 4.2 1.7 0.1 

24-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation .................................. 1.8 0.2 2.6 1.1 0.1 

16-in steel pipe pile DTH installation ........................................ 47.0 1.7 56.0 1.8 25.2 6,310 

24-in steel pipe pile DTH installation (temporary) .................... 264.1 9.4 314.5 10.3 141.3 

24-in steel pipe pile DTH installation ........................................ 319.9 11.4 381.0 12.5 171.2 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
88886 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Estimation 

In this section we provide information 

about the occurrence of marine 

mammals, including density or other 

relevant information which will inform 

the take calculations. 

When available, peer-reviewed 

scientific publications were used to 

estimate marine mammal abundance in 

the project area. Data from monitoring 

reports from projects on the Kodiak 

Ferry Terminal were used as well as 

reports from other projects in Kodiak, 

Alaska. 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is synthesized to 

produce a quantitative estimate of the 

take that is reasonably likely to occur 

and proposed for authorization. Tables 

for each species are presented to show 

the calculation of take during the 

project. Both density and occurrence 

data was considered in incidental take 

estimations. Density data were used 

when there was no occurrence data 

available, or when occurrence and 

density data were similar. The take 

calculations for this project are: 

Incidental take estimate = group size * 

days of pile driving activity 

Or 

Incidental take estimate = (Activity 

Level B harassment area [km2] × 

estimated density [individuals/ 

km2]) × days of pile driving activity 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales are present in 

Kodiak year-round with peaks in the 

spring and fall. They are considered 

common in the project area, meaning 

there are multiple sightings every 

month, so they could occur daily in the 

project’s action. In the proposed project 

area humpback whales are expected to 

occur at a density of 0.093 individuals 

per square kilometer area (Halpin et al. 

2009). Therefore, using the equation 

given above, the total number of Level 

B harassment takes for humpback 

whales would be 14. In the action area 

it is estimated that the majority of 

whales (89 percent) will be from the 

Hawaii DPS, 11 percent will be from the 

Mexico DPS, and 1 percent will be from 

the endangered Western North Pacific 

DPS (Wade 2021; Muto et al. 2022). 

Therefore 13 takes are assumed to be 

from the Hawaii DPS and 1 take from 

the Mexico DPS. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for humpback whales extends 319.9 m 

from the noise source (table 7). 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 are present in Kodiak 

year-round and are considered common 

in the project area, meaning there are 

multiple sightings every month, so they 

could occur daily in the project’s action. 

A single group of up to six killer whales 

are expected to occur in the proposed 

project area daily (Halpin et al. 2009). 

Therefore, using the equation given 

above, the total number of Level B 

harassment takes for killer whales 

would be 330. In the action area it is 

estimated that the majority of killer 

whales (80 percent) will be from the 

Alaska resident stock and 20 percent 

will be from the Gulf of Alaska/Aleutian 

Islands/Bering Sea transient stock (Muto 

et al. 2022). Therefore 264 takes are 

assumed to be from the Alaska resident 

stock and 66 takes firm the Gulf of 

Alaska/Aleutian Islands/Bering Sea 

transient stock. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for killer whales extends 11.4 m from 

the noise source (table 7). All 

construction work would be shut down 

prior to a killer whale entering the Level 

A harassment zone specific to the inwater activity underway at the time. In 

consideration of the small size of the 

Level A harassment zone and proposed 

shutdown requirements, no take by 

Level A harassment is anticipated or 

proposed for killer whale. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises are present in 

Kodiak year-round and are occur 

frequently in the project area, meaning 

there are multiple sightings every year, 

so they could occur monthly in the 

project’s action. In the proposed project 

area harbor porpoises are expected to 

occur at a density of 0.4547 individuals 

per square kilometer area (Marine 

Geospatial Ecology Lab 2021). 

Therefore, using the equation given 

above, the total number of Level B 

harassment takes for harbor porpoises 

would be 65. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for harbor porpoise extends 381 m from 

the noise source (table 7). All 

construction work would be shut down 

prior to a harbor porpoise entering the 

Level A harassment zone specific to the 

in-water activity underway at the time. 

In consideration of the relatively low 

anticipated exposure in the project area 

and the anticipated effectiveness of the 

proposed shutdown requirements, no 

take by Level A harassment is 

anticipated or proposed for harbor 

porpoise. 

Dall’s Porpoise 

Dall’s porpoises are present in Kodiak 

year-round and are occur frequently in 

the project area, meaning there are 

multiple sightings every year, so they 

could occur monthly in the project’s 

action. In the proposed project area 

Dall’s porpoises are expected to occur at 

a density of 0.218 individuals per 

square kilometer area (Marine 

Geospatial Ecology Lab 2021). 

Therefore, using the equation given 

above, the total number of Level B 

harassment takes for Dall’s porpoise 

would be 31. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for Dall’s porpoise extends 381 m from 

the noise source (table 7). All 

construction work would be shut down 

prior to a Dall’s porpoise entering the 

Level A harassment zone specific to the 

in-water activity underway at the time. 

In consideration of the relatively low 

anticipated exposure in the project area 

and the anticipated effectiveness of the 

proposed shutdown requirements, no 

take by Level A harassment is 

anticipated or proposed for Dall’s 

porpoise. 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals are present in Kodiak 

year-round and are considered common 

in the project area, meaning there are 

multiple sightings every month, so they 

could occur daily in the project’s action. 

In the proposed project area Dall’s 

porpoises are expected to occur at a 

density of 0.1689 individuals per square 

kilometer area (Marine Geospatial 

Ecology Lab 2021). Therefore, using the 

equation given above, the total number 

of Level B harassment takes for harbor 

seals would be 24. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for harbor seals extends 171.2 m from 

the noise source (table 7). All 

construction work would be shut down 

prior to a harbor seal entering the Level 

A harassment zone specific to the inwater activity underway at the time. In 

consideration of the relatively low 

anticipated exposure in the project area 

and the anticipated effectiveness of the 

proposed shutdown requirements, no 

take by Level A harassment is 

anticipated or proposed for harbor seals. 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions are present in Kodiak 

year-round and are considered common 

in the project area, meaning there are 

multiple sightings every month, so they 

could occur daily in the project’s action. 

During construction at the Kodiak Ferry 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 88887 

Terminal (82 FR 10894, February 26, 

2017) Steller sea lions were encountered 

daily during construction. Up to 40 

Steller sea lions are expected to occur in 

the proposed project area daily (Marine 

Geospatial Ecology Lab 2021). 

Therefore, using the equation given 

above, the total number of Level B 

harassment takes for Steller sea lions 

would be 2,200. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for harbor seals extends 12.5 m from the 

noise source (table 7). All construction 

work would be shut down prior to a 

Steller sea lion entering the Level A 

harassment zone specific to the in-water 

activity underway at the time. In 

consideration of the small Level A 

harassment isopleth and proposed 

shutdown requirements, no take by 

Level A harassment is anticipated or 

proposed for Steller sea lions. 

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

Common name Stock Stock 

abundance a

Level A 

harassment 

Level B 

harassment 

Total proposed 

take 

Proposed take 

as percentage 

of stock 

Humpback whale ................ Central North Pacific .......... 10,103 0 12 13 0.1 

CA/OR/WA ......................... 4,973 0 2 1 0.07 

Killer Whale ......................... Alaska Resident ................. 1,920 0 264 264 13.8 

Gulf of Alaska/Aleutian Islands/Bering Sea Transient.587 0 66 66 11.2 

Harbor porpoise .................. Gulf of Alaska ..................... 31,946 0 65 65 0.08 

Dall’s porpoise .................... Alaska ................................. 13,110 0 31 31 0.24 

Steller sea lion .................... Western U.S ....................... 52,932 0 2,200 2,200 4.2 

Harbor seal ......................... South Kodiak Island ........... 26,448 0 24 24 0.09 

aStock size is Nbest according to NMFS 2022 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, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses. 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, NMFS considers two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat, as well as 

subsistence uses. This considers the 

nature of the potential adverse impact 

being mitigated (likelihood, scope, 

range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, and 

impact on operations. 

In addition to the measures described 

later in this section, Trident would 

employ the following standard 

mitigation measures: 

• At the start of each day, the 

Contractor(s) would hold a briefing with 

the Lead Protected Species Observer 

(PSO) to outline the activities planned 

for that day. 

• If poor weather conditions restrict 

the PSO’s ability to make observations 

within the Level A harassment zone of 

pile driving (e.g., if there is excessive 

wind or fog), pile installation and 

removal would be halted. 

The following measures would apply 

to Trident’s mitigation requirements: 

Shutdown and Monitoring Zones 

Trident must establish shutdown 

zones and Level B monitoring zones for 

all pile driving activities. The purpose 

of a shutdown zone is generally to 

define an area within which shutdown 

of the activity would occur upon 

sighting of a marine animal (or in 

anticipation of an animal entering the 

defined area). Shutdown zones are 

based on the largest Level A harassment 

zone for each pile size/type and driving 

method, and behavioral monitoring 

zones are meant to encompass Level B 

harassment zones for each pile size/type 

and driving method, as shown in table 

9. A minimum shutdown zone of 10 m 

would be required for all in-water 

construction activities to avoid physical 

interaction with marine mammals. 

Marine mammal monitoring will be 

conducted during all pile driving 

activities to ensure that marine 

mammals do not enter Level A 

shutdown zones, that marine mammal 

presence in the isopleth does not exceed 

authorized take. Proposed shutdown 

zones for each activity type are shown 

in table 9. 

Prior to pile driving, shutdown zones 

and monitoring zones will be 

established based on zones represented 

in table 9. Observers will survey the 

shutdown zones for at least 30 minutes 

before pile driving activities start. If 

marine mammals are found within the 

shutdown zone, pile driving will be 

delayed until the animal has moved out 

of the shutdown zone, either verified by 

an observer or by waiting until 15 

minutes has elapsed without a sighting. 

If a marine mammal approaches or 

enters the shutdown zone during pile 

driving, the activity will be halted. Pile 

driving may resume after the animal has 

moved out of and is moving away from 

the shutdown zone or after at least 15 

minutes has passed since the last 

observation of the animal. 

All marine mammals would be 

monitored in the Level B harassment 

zones and throughout the area as far as 

visual monitoring can take place. If a 

marine mammal enters the Level B 

harassment zone, in-water activities 

would continue and PSOs would 

document the animal’s presence within 

the estimated harassment zone. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
88888 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 

If a species for which authorization 

has not been granted, or a species which 

has been granted but the authorized 

takes are met, is observed approaching 

or within the Level B harassment zone, 

pile driving activities will be shutdown 

immediately. Activities will not resume 

until the animal has been confirmed to 

have left the area or 15 minutes has 

elapsed with no sighting of the animal. 

TABLE 9—SHUTDOWN AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES BY ACTIVITY

Pile size, type, and method 

Minimum shutdown zone Level B 

harassment 

Low-frequency Mid-frequency zone Highfrequency Phocid Otariid 

Barge movements, pile positioning, ect. .. 10 10 10 10 10 10 

14-in timber pile vibratory removal .......... 10 10 15 10 10 6,310 

14-in steel H-pile vibratory removal ......... 10 10 10 10 10 1,000 

16-in steel pipe pile vibratory removal ..... 10 10 10 10 10 5,415 

16-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation 10 10 10 10 10 5,415 

24-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation 

(temporary) ........................................... 10 10 10 10 10 5,415 

24-in steel pipe pile vibratory removal 

(temporary) ........................................... 10 10 10 10 10 5,415 

24-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation 10 10 10 10 10 5,415 

16-in steel pipe pile DTH installation ....... 50 10 60 30 10 6,310 

24-in steel pipe pile DTH installation 

(temporary) ........................................... 265 10 315 145 15 6,310 

24-in steel pipe pile DTH installation ....... 320 15 385 175 15 6,310 

Protected Species Observers 

The placement of PSOs during all pile 

driving activities (described in the 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

section) would ensure that the entire 

shutdown zone is visible. Should 

environmental conditions deteriorate 

such that the entire shutdown zone 

would not be visible (e.g., fog, heavy 

rain), pile driving would be delayed 

until the PSO is confident marine 

mammals within the shutdown zone 

could be detected. 

PSOs would monitor the full 

shutdown zones and as much of the 

Level B harassment zones as possible. 

Monitoring zones provide utility for 

observing by establishing monitoring 

protocols for areas adjacent to the 

shutdown zones. Monitoring enables 

observers to be aware of and 

communicate the presence of marine 

mammals in the project areas outside 

the shutdown zones and thus prepare 

for a potential cessation of activity 

should the animal enter the shutdown 

zone. 

Pre- and Post-Activity Monitoring 

Monitoring must take place from 30 

minutes prior to initiation of pile 

driving activities (i.e., pre-clearance 

monitoring) through 30 minutes postcompletion of pile driving. Prior to the 

start of daily in-water construction 

activity, or whenever a break in pile 

driving 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 a 30-minute period. If a 

marine mammal is observed within the 

shutdown zones, pile driving activity 

would be delayed or halted. If work 

ceases for more than 30 minutes, the 

pre-activity monitoring of the shutdown 

zones would commence. A 

determination that the shutdown zone is 

clear must be made during a period of 

good visibility (i.e., the entire shutdown 

zone and surrounding waters must be 

visible to the naked eye). 

Bubble Curtain 

A bubble curtain must be employed 

during all impact DTH activities to 

interrupt the acoustic pressure and 

reduce impact on marine mammals. The 

bubble curtain must distribute air 

bubbles around 100 percent of the piling 

circumference for the full depth of the 

water column. The lowest bubble ring 

must be in contact with the mudline for 

the full circumference of the ring. The 

weights attached to the bottom ring 

must ensure 100 percent substrate 

contact. No parts of the ring or other 

objects may prevent full substrate 

contact. Air flow to the bubblers must 

be balanced around the circumference 

of the pile. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present while conducting the activities. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

activity; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 88889 

• 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 

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. 

Between one and five PSOs will be on 

duty depending on the size of the 

monitoring zone. Locations from which 

PSOs would be able to monitor for 

marine mammals are readily available 

from publicly accessible shoreside areas 

at the Near Island Channel and 

surrounding waters. Monitoring 

locations would be selected by the 

Contractor during pre-construction. 

PSOs would monitor for marine 

mammals entering the Level B 

harassment zones; the position(s) may 

vary based on construction activity and 

location of piles or equipment. 

PSOs would scan the waters using 

binoculars, and/or spotting scopes, 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. 

Trident would adhere to the following 

observer qualifications: 

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

construction personnel) are required; 

(ii) One PSO would be designated as 

the lead PSO or monitoring coordinator 

and that observer must have prior 

experience working as an observer; 

(iii) Other observers may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience; and 

(iv) Trident must submit observer 

Curriculum Vitaes for approval by 

NMFS. 

Additional standard observer 

qualifications include: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were suspended to avoid 

potential incidental injury from 

construction sound of marine mammals 

observed within a defined shutdown 

zone; and marine mammal behavior; 

and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

Data Collection 

PSOs would use approved data forms 

to record the following information: 

• Dates and times (beginning and 

end) of all marine mammal monitoring. 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring. 

Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including how many and what type of 

piles were driven or removed and by 

what method (i.e., vibratory or DTH). 

• Weather parameters and water 

conditions. 

• The number of marine mammals 

observed, by species, relative to the pile 

location and if pile driving or removal 

was occurring at time of sighting. 

• Distance and bearings of each 

marine mammal observed to the pile 

being driven or removed. 

• Description of marine mammal 

behavior patterns, including direction of 

travel. 

• Age and sex class, if possible, of all 

marine mammals observed. 

• Detailed information about 

implementation of any mitigation 

triggered (such as shutdowns and 

delays), a description of specific actions 

that ensued, and resulting behavior of 

the animal if any. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report would be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal activities. It 

would include an overall description of 

work completed, a narrative regarding 

marine mammal sightings, and 

associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, 

the report must include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring. 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including the number and type of piles 

driven or removed and by what method 

(i.e., vibratory driving) and the total 

equipment duration for cutting for each 

pile. 

• 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
88890 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 

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

lowest possible taxonomic level, or 

unidentified), PSO confidence in 

identification, and the composition of 

the group if there is a mix of species; 

Distance and bearing of each marine 

mammal observed relative to the pile 

being driven for each sighting (if pile 

driving was occurring at time of 

sighting); Estimated number of animals 

(min/max/best estimate); Estimated 

number of animals by cohort (adults, 

juveniles, neonates, group composition, 

etc.); Animal’s closest point of approach 

and estimated time spent within the 

harassment zone; Description of any 

marine mammal behavioral observations 

(e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding 

or traveling), including an assessment of 

behavioral responses thought to have 

resulted from the activity (e.g., no 

response or changes in behavioral state 

such as ceasing feeding, changing 

direction, flushing, or breaching); 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected within the harassment zones, 

by species. 

• Detailed information about any 

implementation of any mitigation 

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

description of specific actions that 

ensued, and resulting changes in 

behavior of the animal(s), if any. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft final 

report would constitute the final report. 

If comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such 

as an injury, serious injury or mortality, 

Trident would immediately cease the 

specified activities and report the 

incident to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator. 

The report would include the following 

information: 

• Description of the incident; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

Beaufort sea state, visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities would not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS would work with Trident to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. Trident would not be able 

to resume their activities until notified 

by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone. 

In the event that Trident 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), Trident would immediately 

report the incident to the Chief of the 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

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 

Trident to determine whether 

modifications in the activities are 

appropriate. 

In the event that Trident 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), 

Trident would report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, 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. Trident 

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 discussion of 

our analysis applies to all the species 

listed in table 2, given that the 

anticipated effects of this activity on 

these different marine mammal stocks 

are expected to be similar. There is little 

information about the nature or severity 

of the impacts, or the size, status, or 

structure of any of these species or 

stocks that would lead to a different 

analysis for this activity. 

Pile driving and removal activities 

associated with the project as outlined 

previously, have the potential to disturb 

or displace marine mammals. 

Specifically, the specified activities may 

result in take, in the form of Level B 

harassment from underwater sounds 

generated from pile driving and 

removal. Level A harassment is 

extremely unlikely given the small size 

of the Level A harassment isopleths and 

the required mitigation measures 

designed to minimize the possibility of 

injury to marine mammals (see 

Proposed Mitigation section). No 

mortality is anticipated given the nature 

of the activity. Pile installation and 

removal activities are likely to result in 

the Level B harassment of marine 

mammals that move into the ensonified 

zone, primarily in the form of 

disturbance or displacement of marine 

mammals. Take would occur within a 

limited, confined area of each stock’s 

range. Level B harassment would be 

reduced to the level of least practicable 

adverse impact through use of 

mitigation measures described herein. 

Further, the amount of take authorized 

is small when compared to stock 

abundance. 

Based on reports in the literature as 

well as monitoring from other similar 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 88891 

activities, behavioral disturbance (i.e., 

level B harassment) would likely be 

limited to reactions such as increased 

swimming speeds, increased surfacing 

time, or decreased foraging (if such 

activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson 

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

2014; ABR, 2016). Most likely for pile 

driving, individuals would simply move 

away from the sound source and be 

temporarily displaced from the areas of 

pile driving, although even this reaction 

has been observed primarily only in 

association with impact pile driving. 

The pile driving activities analyzed here 

are similar to, or less impactful than, 

numerous other construction activities 

conducted in Alaska, which have taken 

place with no observed severe responses 

of any individuals or known long-term 

adverse consequences. Level B 

harassment would be reduced to the 

level of least practicable adverse impact 

through use of mitigation measures 

described herein and, if sound produced 

by project activities is sufficiently 

disturbing, animals are likely to simply 

avoid the area while the activity is 

occurring. While vibratory driving 

associated with the proposed project 

may produce sound at distances of 

many kilometers from the project site, 

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

is located in a busy harbor and the 

majority of sound fields produced by 

the specified activities are close to the 

harbor. Animals disturbed by project 

sound would be expected to avoid the 

area and use nearby higher-quality 

habitats. 

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 waters around Kodiak Island are 

part of the Alaska humpback whale 

feeding BIA (Ferguson et al., 2015). 

Humpback whales are present around 

Kodiak, although the majority of 

sightings have occurred outside of Near 

Island Channel. The area of the BIA that 

may be affected by the proposed project 

is small relative to the overall area of the 

BIA. The humpback whale feeding BIA 

is active between May and November 

while the proposed project is scheduled 

to occur between March and June, 

resulting in only 2 months of overlap. 

Additionally, pile driving associated 

with the project is expected to take only 

55 days, further reducing the temporal 

overlap with the BIA. Therefore, the 

proposed project is not expected to have 

significant adverse effects on the 

foraging of Alaska humpback whale. No 

areas of specific biological importance 

(e.g., ESA critical habitat, other BIAs, or 

other areas) for any other species are 

known to co-occur with the project area. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect any of 

the species or stocks through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury, mortality, or 

Level A harassment is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• The anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment would consist of, at worst, 

temporary modifications in behavior 

that would not result in fitness impacts 

to individuals; 

• 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; 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 

received noise levels that could cause 

Level B harassment for the proposed 

work in Kodiak, Alaska. Our analysis 

shows that less than 14 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 

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 Kodiak area sea lions and 

harbor seals are available for subsistence 

harvest under the MMPA. Limited 

subsistence harvests of marine 

mammals outside of Near Island 

Channel has occurred in the past, with 

the most recent recorded/documented 

harvests of marine mammals in Kodiak 

in 2011. The proposed activity will take 

place in Near Island Channel, and no 

activities overlap with current 

subsistence hunting areas; therefore, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
88892 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2023 / Notices 

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 Trident’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 western DPS of Steller sea lions, 

which are listed under the ESA. The 

Permits and Conservation Division has 

requested initiation of section 7 

consultation with the Alaska Regional 

Office for the issuance of this IHA. 

NMFS will conclude the ESA 

consultation prior to reaching a 

determination regarding the proposed 

issuance of the authorization. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to Trident for conducting 

Bunkhouse Dock replacement project in 

Kodiak, Alaska between March 1, 2024 

and February 29, 2025, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. A draft of the 

proposed IHA can be found at: https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHA for the proposed construction 

project. We also request comment on the 

potential renewal of this proposed IHA 

as described in the paragraph below. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform decisions on the request for 

this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Description of 

Proposed Activity section of this notice 

is planned or (2) the activities as 

described in the Description of 

Proposed Activity section of this notice 

would not be completed by the time the 

IHA expires and a renewal would allow 

for completion of the activities beyond 

that described in the Dates and Duration 

section of this notice, provided all of the 

following conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to the needed 

renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that the renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond 1 year from 

expiration of the initial IHA). 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted under the requested 

renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take). 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: December 19, 2023. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–28336 Filed 12–22–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD546] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental 

To Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to New England 

Wind, Phase 1 Park City Wind Marine 

Site Characterization Surveys 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from Park City Wind, LLC (Park City 

Wind), for the re-issuance of a 

previously issued incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) with the only 

change being effective dates. The initial 

IHA authorized take of marine mammals 

incidental to marine site 

characterization surveys in coastal 

waters off of Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island, Connecticut, and New York. The 

project has been delayed and none of 

the work covered in the initial IHA has 

been conducted. The scope of the 

activities and anticipated effects remain 

the same, authorized take numbers are 

not changed, and the required 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

remains the same as included in the 

initial IHA. NMFS is, therefore, issuing 

a second identical IHA to cover the 

incidental take analyzed and authorized 

in the initial IHA. 

DATES: This authorization is effective 

from March 1, 2024, through February 

28, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the 

final 2022 IHA previously issued to Park 

City Wind, Park City Wind’s 

application, and the Federal Register 

notices proposing and issuing the initial 

IHA may be obtained by visiting https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-park-citywind-llc-new-england-wind-projectphase-1-marine. In case of problems 

accessing these documents, please call 

the contact listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alyssa Clevenstine, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 

16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the 

Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES