2584 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 

8Commerce is exercising its discretion under 19 

CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) to alter the time limit for the 

filing of case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). 

9See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

10We use the term ‘‘issue’’ here to describe an 

argument that Commerce would normally address 

in a comment of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

11See Administrative Protective Order, Service, 

and Other Procedures in Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings; Final Rule, 88 FR 

67069 (September 29, 2023). 

12See 19 CFR 351.216(e). 

13See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from 

Canada: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, 

of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 

2021, 88 FR 50103 (August 1, 2023). 

is a public document and is on file 

electronically via Enforcement and 

Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (ACCESS). 

ACCESS is available to registered users 

at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a 

complete version of the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly at https://access.trade.gov/ 

public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results of 

this CCR in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). Comments may be 

submitted to Commerce no later than 10 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice.8 Rebuttal comments may be filed 

with Commerce no later than five days 

after the comments are filed. Interested 

parties who submit case briefs or 

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must 

submit: (1) a table of contents listing 

each issue; and (2) a table of 

authorities.9

As provided under 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior 

proceedings we have encouraged 

interested parties to provide an 

executive summary of their brief that 

should be limited to five pages total, 

including footnotes. In this CCR, we 

instead request that interested parties 

provide at the beginning of their briefs 

a public, executive summary for each 

issue raised in their briefs.10 Further, we 

request that interested parties limit their 

executive summary of each issue to no 

more than 450 words, not including 

citations. We intend to use the executive 

summaries as the basis of the comment 

summaries included in the issues and 

decision memorandum that will 

accompany the final results in this CCR. 

We request that interested parties 

include footnotes for relevant citations 

in the executive summary of each issue. 

Note that Commerce has amended 

certain of its requirements pertaining to 

the service of documents in 19 CFR 

351.303(f).11 All submissions must be 

filed electronically using the 

Enforcement and Compliance’s 

ACCESS. An electronically filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety in ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the due date set forth 

in this notice. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing must submit a written request to 

the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance, filed electronically via 

ACCESS, within ten days of publication 

of this notice in the Federal Register. 

Requests should contain: (1) the party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of issues to be discussed. Issues 

raised in the hearing will be limited to 

those raised in the respective case 

briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, 

Commerce intends to hold the hearing 

at a time and date to be determined. 

Parties should confirm the date and the 

time of the hearing two days before the 

scheduled date. 

Final Results of the Changed 

Circumstances Review 

Commerce will issue the final results 

of this CCR, which will include its 

analysis of any written comments, no 

later than 270 days after the date on 

which this review was initiated.12 The 

current requirement for cash deposits of 

estimated antidumping and 

countervailing duties on all entries of 

subject merchandise will not change as 

the result of this preliminary CCR 

determination. As noted in the Initiation 

Notice and Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum, the purpose of this CCR 

does not include identifying the 

applicable cash deposit rates, but rather 

making determinations of crossownership. Furthermore, we note that 

Interfor Corporation, EACOM Timber 

Corporation, Chaleur Forest Products 

Inc., and Chaleur Forest Products LP are 

all already receiving the same cash 

deposit rate assigned to non-selected 

companies.13

Notification to Interested Parties 

These preliminary results of a CCR 

and this notice are published in 

accordance with sections 751(b) and 

777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, 

and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3). 

Dated: January 9, 2024. 

Abdelali Elouaradia, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in 

the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Order 

IV. Preliminary Determination of CrossOwnership 

V. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2024–00660 Filed 1–12–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XC959] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Pile Driving and 

Removal To Improve the Auke Bay 

East Ferry Terminal 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to 

Alaska Department of Transportation 

and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) to 

incidentally harass, by Level A and 

Level B harassment, marine mammals 

during construction activities associated 

with a pile driving project for 

improvements to the Auke Bay East 

Ferry Terminal in Juneau, Alaska. 

DATES: This authorization is effective 

from October 1, 2024 through 

September 30, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: 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/action/incidental-takeauthorization-alaska-departmenttransportation-pile-driving-andremoval. In case of problems accessing 

these documents, please call the contact 

listed above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Cockrell, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

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

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

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 2585 

1Averaged values from Navy (2012, 2013) and 

Miner (2020). 

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 or, if the 

taking is limited to harassment, a notice 

of a issued 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. 

Summary of Request 

On September 13, 2022, NMFS 

received a request from ADOT&PF for 

an IHA to take marine mammals 

incidental to vibratory and impact pile 

driving to improve the Auke Bay East 

Ferry Terminal. Following NMFS’ 

review of the application, ADOT&PF 

submitted a revised version on January 

11, 2023. The application was deemed 

adequate and complete on February 14, 

2023. NMFS published the proposed 

IHA on April 13, 2023 (88 FR 22411). 

The ADOT&PF’s request is for the 

incidental take of small numbers of 11 

species or stocks of marine mammals, in 

the form of Level B harassment and, for 

harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) and harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), 

including take by Level A harassment. 

Neither ADOT&PF nor NMFS expect 

serious injury or mortality to result from 

this activity and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

Description of Activity 

Overview 

ADOT&PF is completing 

improvements to the existing Alaska 

Marine Highway System (AMHS) Auke 

Bay East Berth marine terminal. The 

activity includes removal of existing 

piles and the installation of both 

temporary and permanent piles of 

various sizes and materials. A total of 

143 piles will be either removed or 

installed. Takes of marine mammals by 

Level A and Level B harassment will 

occur due to both impact installation 

and vibratory pile installation and 

removal. The project will occur in Auke 

Bay, Alaska which is located in 

southeast Alaska in close proximity to 

the city of Juneau. Construction 

activities are expected to over a four 

month period in fall 2023. It is expected 

to take up to 61 nonconsecutive days to 

complete the in-water pile driving 

activities. 

A detailed description of the planned 

construction project is provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (88 FR 22411, April 13, 2023). 

Since that time, no changes have been 

made to the planned activities. 

Therefore, a detailed description is not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for the 

description of the specific activity. 

Comments and Response 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA to ADOT&PF was published in 

the Federal Register on April 13, 2023 

(88 FR 22411). That notice described, in 

detail, ADOT&PF’s activities, the marine 

mammal species that may be affected by 

the activities, and the anticipated effects 

on marine mammals. In that notice, we 

requested public input on the request 

for authorization described therein, our 

analyses, the proposed authorization, 

and any other aspect of the notice of 

proposed IHA, and requested that 

interested persons submit relevant 

information, suggestions, and 

comments. This proposed notice was 

available for a 30-day public comment 

period. 

NMFS received one comment from 

the general public. This comment was 

not related to the activity described in 

the notice and is not discussed further. 

Changes From Proposed IHA to Final 

IHA 

Several changes have been made to 

the Final IHA. These changes are 

summarized below and also identified, 

and expanded upon as necessary, in the 

associated sections of the notice below. 

In the Proposed IHA the extent of the 

Level B harassment zone for vibratory 

installation and removal of 24 in. steel 

piles was inadvertently combined with 

18 in. steel pipe piles. Table 6 has been 

modified to include the correct size of 

the Level B harassment zone size for the 

vibratory installation and removal of 24 

in. steel piles. The Level A and Level B 

harassment zones for 18 in. steel pipe 

piles were not calculated correctly in 

the Proposed IHA. Table 6 has been 

updated, and Level A and Level B 

harassment zones for vibratory 

installation and removal of the existing 

18 in. steel pipe piles have been 

corrected. 

As a result of our consultation under 

Section 7 of the ESA with the NMFS 

Alaska Regional Office, NMFS has 

revised the source levels for vibratory 

driving of 24 in. and 30 inch steel piles. 

In the Proposed IHA, 159 and 154 dB 

RMS re 1mPa were the selected source 

values for 30 in. and 24 in. steel pipe 

pile driving, respectively (Caltrans 

2020). During the comment period for 

the Proposed IHA, NFMS determined 

that measured values from a previous 

project in Auke Bay and other sites with 

similar geology were more appropriate 

than the proposed values. Based on this 

information NMFS has revised our 

analysis to use source proxy values of 

168.8 from Denes et al. (2016) and 163 

dB RMS re 1mPa (NMFS 2023 analysis 1) 

for vibratory driving of 30 in. and 24 in. 

steel pipe piles, respectively. Denes et 

al. (2016) measured a spreading loss 

coefficient (TL) of 16.4 for 30 in. piles, 

which NMFS has applied in the 

harassment zone calculations. These 

values increase the size of the 

harassment zones, shutdown zones, and 

monitoring zones for this project (table 

6, 8, and 9). Due to the larger estimated 

harassment zones, NMFS has increased 

the level of take by Level B harassment 

for some marine mammal species (table 

7). No increase in Level A take occurred 

based on this new analysis because the 

ADOT&PF has agreed to implement shut 

down zones larger than the expected 

Level A harassment zones. The larger 

shutdown and monitoring zones do not 

require any changes to the other 

subsequent mitigation, monitoring, or 

reporting measures from Proposed IHA, 

and thus there have been no changes to 

the mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting sections in this Notice. 

Since the Federal Register notice of 

the proposed IHA was published (April 

13, 2023, 88 FR 22411), NMFS 

published the final 2022 Alaska and 

Pacific Stock Assessment Reports 

(SARs), which describe revised stock 

structures under the MMPA for 

humpback whales and southeast Alaska 

harbor porpoise (Carretta et al., 2023; 

Young et al., 2023). In the notice of 

proposed IHA, we explained that 

although we typically consider updated 

peer-reviewed data provided in draft 

SARs to be the best available science, 

and use the information accordingly, we 

make exception for proposed revised 

stock structures. Upon finalization of 

these revised stock structures, we have 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2586 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 

made appropriate updates, including 

description of the potentially affected 

stocks (see table 1), attribution of take 

numbers to stock (see Estimated Take), 

and by updating our analyses to ensure 

the necessary determinations are made 

for the new stocks (see Negligible 

Impact Analysis and Determination and 

Small Numbers). 

There was also a clerical error in the 

calculation of the percentage of 

humpback whales from each respective 

DPS. The Proposed IHA used 2.4 

percent as the estimated percentage of 

Mexico DPS humpback whales present 

in Southeast Alaska. This was revised to 

2 percent in this notice and the numbers 

of take from each DPS were revised 

accordingly (see Estimated Take). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the IHA 

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, 

incorporated here by reference, instead 

of reprinting the information. 

Additional information regarding 

population trends and threats may be 

found in NMFS’ SARs; 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’ 

website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.

gov/find-species). 

All values presented in table 1 are the 

most recent available at the time of 

publication (including from the draft 

2022 SARs) and are available online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

TABLE 1—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/MMPA status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock 

abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Humpback whale ............. Megaptera novaeangliae ....... Hawai1i ................................... -, -, N 11,278 (0.56, 7,265, 

2020).

127 27.09 

Mexico-North Pacific ............. T, D, Y 918 (0.217, UNK, 

2006).

UND 0.57 

Minke whale .................... Balaenoptera acutorostrada .. Alaska .................................... -/-; N N/A (N/A, N/A, N/A) ..... UND 0 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Killer whale ...................... Orcinus orca .......................... Alaska Resident .................... -/-; N 1,920 (N/A, 1,920, 

2019).

19 1.3 

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

Pacific white-sided dolphin.Lagenorhynchus obliquidens North Pacific .......................... -/-; N 26,880 (N/A, N/A, 

1990).

UND 0 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor Porpoise .............. Phocoena phocoena ............. Northern Southeast Alaska 

Inland Waters.

-, -, N 1,619 (0.26, 1,250, 

2019).

13 5.6 

Dall’s porpoise ................. Phocoenoides dalli ................ Alaska .................................... -/-; N UND (UND, UND, 

2015).

UND 37 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

Steller sea lion ................. Eumetopias jubatus ............... Eastern DPS ......................... -/-; N 43,201 (N/A, 43,201, 

2017).

2,592 112 

Western DPS ........................ E/D; Y 52,932 (N/A, 53,932, 

2019).

318 254 

California sea lion ............ Zalophus californianus .......... U.S. ....................................... -/-; N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 

2014).

14,011 >321 

Northern fur seal ............. Callorhinus ursinus ................ Eastern Pacific ...................... -/-; Y 626,618 (0.2, 530,376, 

2019).

11,403 373 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Harbor seal ...................... Phoca vitulina ........................ Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage.-/-; N 13,388 (N/A, 11,867, 

2016).

214 50 

Northern Elephant Seal ... Mirounga angustirostris ......... California ............................... -/-; N 187,386 (N/A, 85,369, 

2013).

5,122 13.7 

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: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock 

abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 2587 

(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 2. 

TABLE 2—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 

The effects of underwater noise from 

ADOT&PF’s construction activities have 

the potential to result in behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the survey area. The notice 

of proposed IHA (88 FR 22411, April 13, 

2023) included a discussion of the 

effects of anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and the potential effects of 

underwater noise from ADOT&PF’s on 

marine mammals and their habitat. That 

information and analysis is incorporated 

by reference into this final IHA 

determination and is not repeated here; 

please refer to the notice of proposed 

IHA (88 FR 22411, April 13, 2023). 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes for the 

authorization through this IHA, which 

will inform both NMFS’ consideration 

of ‘‘small numbers,’’ and the negligible 

impact determinations. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Authorized takes will primarily be by 

Level B harassment, as use of the 

acoustic sources (i.e., impact and 

vibratory pile driving) has the potential 

to result in disruption of behavioral 

patterns for individual marine 

mammals. There is also some potential 

for auditory injury (Level A harassment) 

to result, primarily for high frequency 

cetaceans and phocids because 

predicted auditory injury zones are 

larger than for other hearing groups. 

Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for 

other groups. The mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

minimize the severity of the taking to 

the extent practicable. 

As described in the proposed notice 

(88 FR 22411, April 13, 2023), no 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take numbers are 

estimated. As noted in the Changes from 

Proposed IHA to Final IHA section some 

of the harassment and monitoring zones 

have changed as well as the estimated 

take number for some marine mammal 

species. 

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 take estimates. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

will be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur permanent 

threshold shift (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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2588 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 

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 (root 

mean square (RMS) sound pressure 

level (SPL)) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 

micropascal (re 1 microPascal (mPa)) for 

continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving) 

and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 mPa for 

non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic 

airguns, impact pile driving) or 

intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) 

sources. Generally speaking, Level B 

harassment take estimates based on 

these behavioral harassment thresholds 

are expected to include any likely takes 

by temporary threshold shifts (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 will not 

otherwise occur. 

ADOT&PF’s activity includes the use 

of continuous (vibratory pile installation 

and removal) and impulsive (impact 

pile driving) sources, and therefore the 

RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB 

re 1 mPa are applicable. 

Level A harassment—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). ADOT&PF’s activity 

includes the use of impulsive (impact 

pile driving) and non-impulsive 

(vibratory pile driving and removal) 

sources. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS’ 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

TABLE 3—ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT (PTS) 

[NMFS 2018] 

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 

project. Marine mammals are expected 

to be affected via sound generated by 

the primary components of the project 

(i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory pile 

driving and removal). The maximum 

(underwater) area ensonified above the 

thresholds for behavioral harassment 

referenced above is 30.7 km2 (11.9 mi2), 

and is governed by the topography of 

Auke Bay and the various islands 

located within and around the bay. This 

underwater area has increased from the 

proposed IHA due to the higher source 

level for 30 inch piles (168.8 dB RMS 

re 1mPa) anticipated in Auke Bay. The 

eastern part of Auke Bay is acoustically 

shadowed by Auke Cape, Coghlan 

Island, and Suedla Island, and will 

inhibit sound transmission from 

reaching the more open waters toward 

Spuhn Island (see Figure 6–2 in the IHA 

application). Additionally, vessel traffic 

and other commercial and industrial 

activities in the project area may 

contribute to elevated background noise 

levels which may mask sounds 

produced by the project. 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 2589 

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*log10[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*log10[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 will lie 

between spherical and cylindrical 

spreading loss conditions. Transmission 

loss can be measured in the field for 

specific sites and activities. 

Since the proposed IHA was 

published, NMFS identified site-specific 

spreading loss data that are applicable 

to Auke Bay. Specifically, Denes et al. 

(2016) measured a spreading loss 

coefficient of 16.4 during the previous 

monitoring of vibratory installation of 

30-in steel pipe piles in Auke Bay. This 

value is applicable for the current 

analysis, and we have therefore used TL 

= 16.4 for determining the harassment 

zones for vibratory installation of 30 

inch steel pipe piles. For all other 

planned pile types and driving methods, 

there are no available site-specific TL 

measurements. NMFS has therefore 

used the default practical spreading 

model (TL = 15) in analysis of all other 

pile types for this project. 

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 thresholds for the 

methods and piles being used in this 

project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring 

data from other locations to develop 

proxy source levels for the various pile 

types, sizes and methods. The project 

includes vibratory and impact pile 

installation and vibratory removal of 

steel pipe piles. Proxy source levels for 

each pile size and driving method are 

presented in table 4. The source levels 

for vibratory and impact installation of 

all pile sizes are based on measured 

values from similar types of piles 

reported in the following sources: 

California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans) in pile driving source level 

compendium documents (Caltrans, 2015 

and 2020); Denes et al. (2016), and mean 

values for other regionally relevant 

reports compiled by NMFS (table 4). 

TABLE 4—PROXY SOUND SOURCE LEVELS FOR PILE SIZES AND DRIVING METHODS

Pile size Method 

Proxy source level 

Literature source 

dB RMS re 1μPa dB SEL re 

1μPa2sec dB peak re 1μPa 

30 in ........................................ Vibratory ................................. * 168.8 N/A N/A Denes et al. 

2016. 

24 in ........................................ Vibratory ................................. * 163 N/A N/A NMFS 2023 

analysis.** 

18 in ........................................ Vibratory ................................. 158 N/A N/A Caltrans 2020. 

30 in ........................................ Impact .................................... 190 177 210 Caltrans 2015, 

2020. 

24 in ........................................ Impact .................................... 190 177 203 Caltrans 2015, 

2020. 

18 in ........................................ Impact .................................... 185 175 200 Caltrans 2015, 

2020. 

* Source levels for vibratory pile installation and removal from the proposed IHA for 30 in. and 24 in. piles were 159 dB RMS re 1μPa and 154 

dB RMS re 1μPa respectively. 

** Navy (2012, 2013) and Miner (2020); averaging methodology followed Navy (2015). 

The ensonified area associated with 

Level A harassment is more technically 

challenging to predict due to the need 

to account for a duration component. 

Therefore, NMFS developed an optional 

User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 

Technical Guidance that can be used to 

relatively simply predict an isopleth 

distance for use in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to help predict potential takes. We note 

that because of some of the assumptions 

included in the methods underlying this 

optional tool, we anticipate that the 

resulting isopleth estimates are typically 

going to be overestimates of some 

degree, which may result in an 

overestimate of potential take by Level 

A harassment. However, this optional 

tool offers the best way to estimate 

isopleth distances when more 

sophisticated modeling methods are not 

available or practical. For stationary 

sources such as impact or vibratory pile 

driving and removal, the optional User 

Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at 

which, if a marine mammal remained at 

that distance for the duration of the 

activity, it will be expected to incur 

PTS. Inputs used in the optional User 

Spreadsheet tool (table 5), and the 

resulting estimated isopleths and the 

calculated Level B harassment isopleth 

(table 6), are reported below. For source 

levels of each pile please refer to table 

4. 

For impact installation of piles, the 

harassment zones were calculated based 

on the number of piles to be installed 

per day. ADOT&PF provided a range of 

one to four piles per day for impact 

installation for all pile sizes. This was 

done to account for more efficient days 

of pile installation as not to limit 

construction activity on those days. If 

more piles per day are installed it is 

likely to reduce the number of days 

impact installation will occur. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2590 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 

TABLE 5—USER SPREADSHEET INPUT PARAMETERS USED FOR CALCULATING LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS

Pile size and installation method Spreadsheet tab used 

Weighting 

factor 

adjustment 

(kHz) 

Number of 

strikes per 

pile 

Number of 

piles per 

day 

Activity 

duration 

(minutes) 

30 in vibratory installation ................. A.1 Vibratory pile driving .................. 2.5 N/A 3 60 

24 in vibratory installation ................. A.1 Vibratory pile driving .................. 2.5 N/A 3 60 

24 in vibratory installation (temporary).A.1 Vibratory pile driving .................. 2.5 N/A 3 30 

24 in vibratory removal (temporary) A.1 Vibratory pile driving .................. 2.5 N/A 3 60 

18 in vibratory installation ................. A.1 Vibratory pile driving .................. 2.5 N/A 3 60 

18 in vibratory removal (existing) ..... A.1 Vibratory pile driving .................. 2.5 N/A 3 30 

30 in impact installation .................... E.1 Impact pile driving ..................... 2 1,000 1–4 N/A 

24 in impact installation .................... E.1 Impact pile driving ..................... 2 1,000 1–4 N/A 

24 in impact installation .................... E.1 Impact pile driving ..................... 2 500 1–4 N/A 

18 in impact installation .................... E.1 Impact pile driving ..................... 2 800 1–4 N/A 

TABLE 6—CALCULATED LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS

Activity 

Level A harassment zone 

(m) 

Level B 

harassment 

zone 

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

30 in vibratory installation ........................ 41 (11) 5 (1) 59 (16) 26 (7) 2 (1) * 9,454 

24 in vibratory installation ........................ 19 (5) 2 (1) 29 (8) 12 (3) 1 (1) * 7,356 

24 in vibratory installation (temporary) .... 12 (4) 1 (1) 18 (5) 7 (2) 1 (1) 

24 in vibratory removal (temporary) ........ 19 (5) 2 (1) 29 (8) 12 (3) 1 (1) 

18 in vibratory installation ........................ 9 1 14 6 1 * 3,415 

18 in vibratory removal (existing) ............ 6 (9) 1 (1) 8 (14) 3 (6) 1 (1) 

30 in impact installation (4 piles per day; 

1,000 strikes per pile) ........................... 1,002 36 1,194 537 39 1,000 

30 in impact installation (3 piles per day; 

1,000 strikes per pile) ........................... 827 30 985 443 33 

30 in impact installation (2 piles per day; 

1,000 strikes per pile) ........................... 632 23 752 338 25 

30 in impact installation (1 pile per day; 

1,000 strikes per pile) ........................... 398 15 474 213 16 

24 in impact installation (4 piles per day; 

1,000 strikes per pile) ........................... 1,002 36 1,194 537 39 1,000 

24 in impact installation (3 piles per day; 

1,000 strikes per pile) ........................... 827 30 985 443 33 

24 in impact installation (2 piles per day; 

1,000 strikes per pile) ........................... 632 23 752 338 25 

24 in impact installation (1 pile per day; 

1,000 strikes per pile) ........................... 398 15 474 213 16 

24 in impact installation (4 piles per day; 

500 strikes per pile) .............................. 632 23 752 338 25 

24 in impact installation (3 piles per day; 

500 strikes per pile) .............................. 521 19 621 279 21 

24 in impact installation (2 piles per day; 

500 strikes per pile) .............................. 398 15 474 213 16 

24 in impact installation (1 pile per day; 

500 strikes per pile) .............................. 251 9 299 134 10 

18 in impact installation (4 piles per day; 

800 strikes per pile) .............................. 636 23 757 340 25 464 

18 in impact installation (3 piles per day; 

800 strikes per pile) .............................. 525 19 625 281 21 

18 in impact installation (2 piles per day; 

800 strikes per pile) .............................. 401 15 477 215 16 

18 in impact installation (1 pile per day; 

800 strikes per pile) .............................. 252 9 301 135 10 

* The Proposed IHA ((88 FR 22411, April 13, 2023) harassment zones for vibratory installation and removal for 30 in., 24 in., and 18 in. steel 

pipe piles were 3,981, 1,848, and 1,848 respectively. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Estimation 

In this section, we provide 

information about the occurrence of 

marine mammals, including density or 

other relevant information that will 

inform the take calculations. As 

described above, since the proposed 

IHA, changes have been made to some 

of the harassment zones. These changes 

have resulted in changes to the amount 

of Level B harassment authorized for all 

species, with the exception of the four 

species that are rarely encountered 

(minke whales, California sea lions, 

Northern fur seals, and Northern 

elephant seals). The changes are 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 2591 

described in the sections below and 

reflected in table 7. 

When available, peer-reviewed 

scientific publications were used to 

estimate marine mammal abundance in 

the project area. Data from monitoring 

reports from previous projects on the 

Auke Bay Ferry Terminal were used as 

well as reports from other projects in 

Juneau, Alaska. However, scientific 

surveys and resulting data, such as 

population estimates, densities, and 

other quantitative information, are 

lacking for some marine mammal 

populations and most areas of southeast 

Alaska, including Auke Bay. Therefore, 

AKDOT&PF gathered qualitative 

information from discussions with 

knowledgeable local people in the Auke 

Bay area. 

Here we describe how the information 

provided is synthesized to produce a 

quantitative estimate of the take that is 

reasonably likely to occur and 

authorized for authorization. Since 

reliable densities are not available, the 

applicant requests take based on the 

maximum number of animals that may 

occur in the harbor in a specified 

measure of time multiplied by the total 

duration of the activity. 

Humpback Whale 

Use of Auke Bay by humpback whales 

is intermittent and irregular year-round. 

During winter, researchers have 

documented 1 to 19 individual 

humpback whales per month in waters 

close to the project area, including Lynn 

Canal (Moran et al., 2018a; Straley et al., 

2018). Group sizes in southeast Alaska 

generally range from one to four 

individuals (Dahlheim et al., 2009). In 

the Proposed IHA NMFS predicted that 

two groups of two humpback whales 

could be exposed to Level B harassment 

during each day of the 61 days of work 

for a total of 244 animals. After revising 

the Level B harassment zones for 30 

inch and 24 inch steel pipe piles, NMFS 

noted that the entrance to Fritz Cove is 

part of the new ensonified area during 

vibratory driving of 24-in and 30-in. 

piles. During winter, Fritz Cove is a 

known aggregation area for humpback 

whales. Thus, NMFS expects that an 

additional two groups of two could 

occur during pile driving activities for a 

total of 488 animals (Wright, S., pers. 

comm.). As described previously, 2 

percent of the humpback whales in 

Southeast Alaska are members of the 

Mexico distinct population segment 

(DPS), and therefore 10 animals will be 

Mexico DPS individuals and the 

remaining 478 animals will be Hawaii 

DPS individuals. 

The largest Level A shutdown zone 

for humpback whales extends 1,002 

meters from the noise source (table 6), 

and will occur only on days when 

impact driving of four 30 in. or 24 in. 

piles are expected. All construction 

work will be shut down prior to a 

humpback whale entering the Level A 

zone specific to the in-water activity 

underway at the time. No take by Level 

A harassment was requested and none 

is authorized for humpback whales. 

Minke Whales 

Dedicated surveys for cetaceans in 

southeast Alaska found that minke 

whales were scattered throughout 

inland waters from Glacier Bay and Icy 

Strait to Clarence Strait, with small 

concentrations near the entrance of 

Glacier Bay. All sightings were of single 

minke whales, except for a single 

sighting of multiple minke whales. 

Surveys took place in spring, summer, 

and fall, and minke whales were present 

in low numbers in all seasons and years 

(Dahlheim et al., 2009). Although minke 

whales are rarely occur in the project 

area NMFS is authorizing take of one 

minke whale per month by Level B 

harassment for a total of four takes over 

the course of the project. 

The Level A harassment zones and 

shutdown protocols for minke whales 

are the same as for humpback whales. 

Therefore, given the low occurrence of 

minke whales combined with the 

mitigation, takes by Level A harassment 

have not been requested and are not 

authorized. 

Killer Whale 

Killer whales are observed 

occasionally during summer throughout 

Lynn Canal, but their presence in Auke 

Bay is unlikely. In the Proposed IHA 

NMFS expected one killer whale 

resident pod and one transient pod to be 

taken by Level B harassment. Since the 

expansion of the new Level B 

harassment zone for vibratory pile 

driving activities now extends out into 

the open waters of the Stephens 

Passage, NMFS is authorizing two killer 

whale resident pods and two transient 

pods to be taken by Level B harassment. 

Group sizes for resident and transient 

pods are likely to be 14 and 44 animals, 

respectively, which will result in 28 and 

88 animals taken by level B harassment 

over the course of the project (Dahlheim 

et al., 2009). 

ADOT&PF will implement shutdown 

zones that encompass the largest Level 

A harassment zones for killer whales 

during all pile driving activities. Killer 

whales are generally conspicuous and 

protected species observers (PSOs) are 

expected to detect killer whales and 

implement a shutdown before the 

animals enter the Level A harassment 

zone. Therefore, takes by Level A 

harassment have not been requested and 

are not authorized. 

Pacific White-Sided Dolphins 

Based on occurrence data ADOT&PF 

requested a total of 92 takes by Level B 

harassment (the median group size 

observed in aerial surveys; range from 

20 to 164 individuals) (Muto et al. 

2022). NMFS proposed this take level by 

Level B harassment based on one group 

of Pacific white-sided dolphins to occur 

over the duration of the project. Similar 

to killer whales, NMFS is authorizing 

higher take levels of Pacific white-sided 

dolphins by Level B harassment due to 

the larger harassment zone. NMFS 

expects two groups of 92 to occur 

during construction activities resulting 

in a total of 184 takes by Level B 

harassment. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for Pacific white-sided dolphins extends 

36 m from the source during impact 

installation of 30-in piles (table 6). 

Pacific white-sided dolphins are 

expected to be seen by PSOs before 

entering this zone and shutdown of 

activity will occur. No take by Level A 

harassment is authorized or anticipated. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Initially ADOT&PF requested a total 

of 122 takes of harbor porpoise over the 

course of the 61 day project. ADOT&PF 

estimated that 25 percent of those takes 

could be Level A exposures which 

would equate to 30 over the project 

duration. After further review of 

previous monitoring results, including 

unpublished data (Wright, S., pers. 

comm.), NMFS proposed authorization 

of four animals per day in the Proposed 

IHA, equating to 244 takes of harbor 

porpoise by Level A and Level B 

harassment. 

Given the larger Level B harassment 

zone, NMFS now expects an additional 

56 takes by Level B harassment. This 

was calculated by doubling the 

estimated abundance of this species for 

the 14 days of vibratory driving of 30 

inch piles. NMFS determined that 

increasing the take in proportion to the 

increased area ensonified was not 

justified because harbor porpoise tend 

to inhabit coastal shallow water and the 

new harassment zone does not 

encompass a substantial amount of new 

shoreline compared to the initial 

proposed harassment zone. The total 

number of takes by Level B harassment 

authorized is 300. NMFS has not 

increased the authorized takes by Level 

A harassment because the increases in 

Level A harassment zones expected 

during vibratory driving of 24-in and 30- 

in steel pipe piles are minimal and the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2592 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 

applicant has agreed to increase the size 

of the shutdown zone for this species 

during these activities to encompass the 

increased Level A isopleths. 

Harbor porpoises are known to be an 

inconspicuous species and are 

challenging for protected species 

observers (PSOs) to sight, making any 

approach to a specific area potentially 

difficult to detect. Because harbor 

porpoises move quickly and elusively, it 

is possible that they may enter the Level 

A harassment zone without detection. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

results from impact driving of 30-in 

piles, and extends 1,194 m from the 

source for high frequency cetaceans 

(table 6). ADOT&PF will implement a 

shutdown zone for harbor porpoises that 

encompasses the largest Level A 

harassment zone (see Mitigation section) 

but given the sighting challenges for 

PSOs some take by Level A harassment 

is expected during impact pile driving. 

Dall’s Porpoise 

No systematic studies of Dall’s 

porpoise abundance or distribution have 

occurred in Auke Bay; however, Dall’s 

porpoises have been consistently 

observed in Lynn Canal, Stephens 

Passage, upper Chatham Strait, 

Frederick Sound, and Clarence Strait 

(Dalheim et al., 2000). ADOT&PF 

initially requested take of one group of 

20 animals per month in the project area 

for a total of 80 takes by Level B 

harassment. After reviewing 

ADOT&PF’s monitoring results from 

Auke Bay in 2021, one lone Dall’s 

porpoise was sighted. Thus, the 

Proposed IHA included a conservative 

estimate of two groups of five animals 

per month, giving a maximum of 30 

takes by Level B harassment throughout 

the course of the project. With the 

increase in the Level B harassment 

zones NMFS expects one additional 

group of 5 for a total of 35 takes by Level 

B harassment. 

ADOT&PF will implement shutdown 

zones for porpoises that encompass the 

largest Level A harassment zones for 

each pile driving activity (see Mitigation 

section). The largest Level A harassment 

zone for Dall’s porpoise extends 1,194 m 

from the source during impact 

installation of 30-in piles (table 6). 

Given the more conspicuous rooster-tail 

generated by swimming Dall’s 

porpoises, which makes them more 

noticeable than harbor porpoises, PSOs 

are expected to detect Dall’s porpoises 

prior to them entering the Level A 

harassment zone (Jefferson 2009). 

Therefore, takes of Dall’s porpoises by 

Level A harassment have not been 

requested and are not authorized. 

Steller Sea Lion 

Based on recent monitoring reports 

for Auke Bay Ferry Terminal and Statter 

Harbor projects (2021 and 2019) it is 

estimated that groups of up to 50 

animals per day could be exposed to 

underwater noise. The Proposed IHA 

predicted a total of 3,050 exposures to 

sound levels at or above the Level B 

harassment threshold could occur over 

the 61 days of construction. Steller sea 

lions have similar habitat usage pattern 

as humpback whales in Fritz Cove. 

Therefore, NMFS is increasing the 

number of takes to 6,100. Given the 1.4 

percent of Steller sea lions belong to the 

western DPS (wDPS) in Auke Bay, 86 

total exposures are expected from the 

wDPS and the remaining 6,015 

exposures of eastern DPS Steller sea 

lions. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for otariid pinnipeds extends 39 m from 

the source (table 6). ADOT&PF is 

planning to implement a larger 

shutdown zones than the Level A 

harassment zones during all pile 

installation and removal activities (see 

Mitigation section), which is expected 

to eliminate the potential for take by 

Level A harassment of Steller sea lions. 

Therefore, no takes of Steller sea lions 

by Level A harassment were requested 

or are authorized. 

California Sea Lion 

California sea lions rarely occur in the 

project area. In 2017, a lone California 

sea lion was spotted in the harbor. 

Recently, monitoring reports from 

similar construction projects did not 

observe any California sea lions in Auke 

Bay. Based on the sighting from 2017, 

ADOT&PF is estimating one animal per 

day of construction which will equate to 

61 takes by Level B harassment. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for otariid pinnipeds extends 39 m from 

the source (table 6). ADOT&PF is 

planning to implement larger shutdown 

zones than the Level A harassment 

zones during all pile installation and 

removal activities (see Mitigation 

section), which is expected to eliminate 

the potential for take by Level A 

harassment of California sea lions. 

Therefore, no takes of California sea 

lions by Level A harassment were 

requested or are authorized. 

Northern Fur Seal 

Although take of Northern fur seal 

was not requested by ADOT&PF, NMFS 

recommended the inclusion of Northern 

fur seals in the take estimation. We 

estimate that up to five northern fur 

seals may be present in the action area 

per month which may result in 15 takes 

by Level B harassment over the course 

of the project. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for otariid pinnipeds extends 39 m from 

the source (table 6). ADOT&PF is 

planning to implement larger shutdown 

zones than the Level A harassment 

zones during all pile installation and 

removal activities (see Mitigation 

section), which is expected to eliminate 

the potential for take by Level A 

harassment of Northern fur seals. 

Therefore, no takes of Northern fur seals 

by Level A harassment were requested 

or are authorized. 

Harbor Seal 

In the Proposed IHA, NMFS based 

take estimates on the monitoring results 

of ADOT&PF’s 2021 project in Auke 

Bay. It was expected that 50 harbor seals 

per day could be taken during the 61 

days of construction (AKDOT&PF, 

2021). NMFS proposed 3,050 takes of 

harbor seals by Level B harassment for 

the duration of the project. Similar to 

harbor porpoise, harbor seals typically 

inhabit costal inland waters. Given the 

larger Level B harassment zones NMFS 

expects, an additional 447 takes by 

Level B harassment over the 14 day of 

vibratory installation of 30-in piles are 

estimated. NMFS is authorizing 3,752 

takes by Level B harassment for the 

duration of the project. NMFS has not 

increased the authorized takes by Level 

A harassment because the increases in 

Level A harassment zones expected 

during vibratory driving of 24-in and 30- 

in steel pipe piles are minimal and the 

applicant has agreed to increase the size 

of the shutdown zones for this species 

during these activities to encompass the 

increased Level A isopleths. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for phocid pinnipeds results from 

impact pile driving of 30-in piles and 

extends 537 m from the source (table 6). 

There are no haulouts located within 

the Level A harassment zone and 

although it is unlikely, it is possible that 

harbor seals may approach and enter the 

Level A harassment zone undetected. 

Two harbor seals are estimated to 

approach the site within 537 m of the 

source each day. Impact pile driving 

may occur on up to 34 days (table 1). 

For this reason, we propose take by 

Level A harassment of two harbor seals 

daily on the 34 days of impact pile 

driving for a total of 68 takes by Level 

A harassment. The largest Level A 

harassment zone for phocid pinnipeds 

from vibratory pile driving extends 30 m 

from the source (table 6). ADOT&PF is 

planning to implement larger shutdown 

zones than the Level A harassment 

zones during all pile installation and 

removal activities (see Mitigation 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 2593 

section), which is expected to eliminate 

the potential for Level A harassment of 

harbor seals from vibratory pile driving. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Given the increase in population size 

and sightings throughout Southeast 

Alaska ADOT&PF requested one 

elephant seal take per week. The project 

is expected to take up to 16 weeks to 

complete which will equate to 16 takes 

by Level B harassment. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for phocid pinnipeds extends 537 m 

from the source (table 6). ADOT&PF is 

planning to implement larger shutdown 

zones than the Level A harassment 

zones during all pile installation and 

removal activities (see Mitigation 

section), which is expected to eliminate 

the potential for take by Level A 

harassment of elephant seals. Therefore, 

no takes of elephant seals by Level A 

harassment were requested or are 

authorized. 

TABLE 7—AUTHORIZED TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES AND STOCK

Common name Stock Stock 

abundance a

Proposed 

IHA 

Final IHA authorized take 

Total 

proposed 

take 

Level A 

harassment 

Level B 

harassment Total take 

Take as 

percentage 

of stock 

Humpback whale .............................. Hawai1i .............................................. 11,278 238 0 476 476 4.2 

Mexico-North Pacific ........................ 918 6 0 10 10 1.1 

Minke whale ...................................... Alaska .............................................. N/A 4 0 4 4 N/A 

Killer Whale ...................................... Alaska Resident ............................... 1,920 41 0 82 82 4.3 

West Coast Transient ...................... 349 14 0 28 28 8.0 

Pacific white-sided dolphin ............... North Pacific ..................................... 931,000 92 0 184 184 0.02 

Harbor porpoise ................................ Northern Southeast Alaska .............. 1,619 244 61 300 361 22.3 

Dall’s porpoise .................................. Alaska .............................................. 83,400 30 0 35 35 0.04 

Steller sea lion .................................. Eastern U.S. ..................................... 43,201 3,008 0 6,015 6,015 13.9 

Western U.S. .................................... 52,932 43 0 86 86 0.16 

California sea lion ............................. U.S. .................................................. 257,606 61 0 61 61 0.02 

Northern fur seal ............................... Eastern Pacific ................................. 626,618 15 0 15 15 <0.01 

Harbor seal ....................................... Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage ....... 13,388 3,050 68 3,752 3,820 28.5 

Northern Elephant Seal .................... California .......................................... 187,386 16 0 16 16 <0.01 

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

Mitigation Measures 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance. NMFS 

regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, NMFS considers two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations. 

In addition to the measures described 

later in this section, ADOT&PF will 

employ the following standard 

mitigation measures: 

• At the start of each day, the 

Contractor(s) will hold a briefing with 

the Lead 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 and B harassment 

zone of pile driving (e.g., if there is 

excessive wind or fog), pile installation 

and removal will be halted. 

The following measures will apply to 

ADOT&PF’s mitigation requirements: 

Implementation of Shutdown Zones 

for Level A Harassment—For all pile 

driving/removal activities, ADOT&PF 

will implement shutdowns within 

designated zones. The purpose of a 

shutdown zone is generally to define an 

area within which shutdown of activity 

will occur upon sighting of a marine 

mammal (or in anticipation of an animal 

entering the defined area). 

Implementation of shutdowns will be 

used to avoid or minimize incidental 

Level A harassment exposures from 

vibratory and impact pile driving for all 

11 species for which take may occur 

(see table 7). ADOT&PF has voluntarily 

implemented a minimum shutdown 

zone of 30 m during all pile driving and 

removal activities (table 8). Shutdown 

zones for impact pile driving activities 

are based on the Level A harassment 

zones and therefore vary by pile size, 

number of piles installed per day, and 

marine mammal hearing group (table 8). 

Shutdown zones for impact pile driving 

will be established each day for the 

greatest number of piles that are 

expected to be installed that day. The 

placement of PSOs during all pile 

driving activities (described in detail in 

the Monitoring and Reporting Section) 

will ensure the full extent of shutdown 

zones are visible to PSOs. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2594 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 

TABLE 8—SHUTDOWN ZONES DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL

Activity Piles per 

day * 

Shutdown zones (m) 

LF 

cetaceans 

MF 

cetaceans 

HF 

cetaceans Phocids Otariids 

All vibratory installation and removal ................................................................ N/A ** 75 30 ** 75 30 30 

30-in impact (1,000 strikes) .............................................................................. 4 1,100 40 1,200 540 40 

3 830 30 990 450 

2 640 760 340 30 

1 400 480 220 

24-in impact (1,000 strikes) .............................................................................. 4 1,100 40 1,200 540 40 

3 830 30 990 450 

2 640 760 340 30 

1 400 480 220 

24-in impact (500 strikes) ................................................................................. 4 640 30 760 340 30 

3 530 630 280 

2 400 480 220 

1 260 300 140 

18-in impact (800 strikes) ................................................................................. 4 640 30 760 340 30 

3 530 630 280 

2 400 480 220 

1 260 300 140 

* The applicant will chose the number of piles to be driven in any given day (and therefore the maximum associated shutdown zone to be implemented that day) 

before work begins. Shutdown zones may not change for a given day once implemented. 

** Zones that have increased from the Proposed IHA (88 FR 22411, April 13, 2023). 

Establishment of Monitoring Zones— 

ADOT&PF has identified monitoring 

zones correlated with the larger of the 

Level B harassment or Level A 

harassment zones. Monitoring zones 

provide utility for observing by 

establishing monitoring protocols for 

areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. 

Monitoring zones enable observers to be 

aware of and communicate the presence 

of marine mammals in the project area 

outside the shutdown zone and thus 

prepare for a potential cease of activity 

should the animal enter the shutdown 

zone. PSOs will monitor the entire 

visible area to maintain the best sense 

of where animals are moving relative to 

the zone boundaries defined in tables 8 

and 9. Placement of PSOs on the 

shorelines around Auke Bay allow PSOs 

to observe marine mammals within and 

near Auke Bay. 

TABLE 9—MARINE MAMMAL

MONITORING ZONE

Activity 

Monitoring 

zone 

(m) 

30-in vibratory installation ..... * 9,454 

24-in 18-in vibratory installation and removal ............... * 7,356 

18-in vibratory installation 

and removal ...................... * 3,415 

30-in and 24 in impact installation .................................. 1,200 

18-in impact installation ........ 760 

* Zones that have increased from the Proposed IHA (88 FR 22411, April 13, 2023). 

Soft Start—The use of soft-start 

procedures are believed to provide 

additional protection to marine 

mammals by providing warning and/or 

giving marine mammals a chance to 

leave the area prior to the hammer 

operating at full capacity. For impact 

pile driving, contractors will be required 

to provide an initial set of strikes from 

the hammer at reduced energy, with 

each strike followed by a 30-second 

waiting period. This procedure will be 

conducted a total of three times before 

impact pile driving begins. Soft start 

will be implemented at the start of each 

day’s impact pile driving and at any 

time following cessation of impact pile 

driving for a period of 30 minutes or 

longer. Soft start is not required during 

vibratory pile driving and removal 

activities. 

Pre-Activity Monitoring—Prior to the 

start of daily in-water construction 

activity, or whenever a break in pile 

driving/removal of 30 minutes or longer 

occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown 

and monitoring zones for a period of 30 

minutes. The shutdown zone will be 

considered cleared when a marine 

mammal has not been observed within 

the zone for that 30-minute period. If a 

marine mammal is observed within the 

shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot 

proceed until the animal has left the 

zone or has not been observed for 15 

minutes. If the monitoring zone has 

been observed for 30 minutes and 

marine mammals are not present within 

the zone, soft-start procedures can 

commence and work can continue even 

if visibility becomes impaired within 

the monitoring zone. When a marine 

mammal permitted for take by Level B 

harassment is present in the Level B 

harassment zone, activities may begin. 

No work may begin unless the entire 

shutdown zone is visible to the PSOs. If 

work ceases for more than 30 minutes, 

the pre-activity monitoring of both the 

monitoring zone and shutdown zone 

will commence. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s mitigation measures, NMFS 

has determined that the 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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 2595 

better understanding of: (1) action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

activity; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and, 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

Monitoring shall be conducted by 

NMFS-approved observers in 

accordance with the monitoring plan 

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 will be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after pile driving/removal activities. In 

addition, observers shall record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and shall document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from piles being driven or 

removed. Pile driving/removal activities 

include the time to install or remove a 

single pile or series of piles, as long as 

the time elapsed between uses of the 

pile driving equipment is no more than 

30 minutes. 

A minimum of two PSOs will be on 

duty during all impact installation and 

a minimum of three PSOs during 

vibratory installation/removal. 

Locations from which PSOs will be able 

to monitor for marine mammals are 

readily available from publicly 

accessible shoreside areas at the Auke 

Bay East Ferry Terminal and, if 

necessary, other public and private 

points along the Glacier and Douglas 

highways. Monitoring locations will be 

selected by the Contractor during preconstruction. PSOs will 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 will scan the waters using 

binoculars, and/or spotting scopes, and 

will use a handheld range-finder device 

to verify the distance to each sighting 

from the project site. All PSOs will be 

trained in marine mammal 

identification and behaviors and are 

required to have no other project-related 

tasks while conducting monitoring. In 

addition, monitoring will be conducted 

by qualified observers, who will 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. ADOT&PF will 

adhere to the following observer 

qualifications: 

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

construction personnel) are required; 

(ii) One PSO will 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) ADOT&PF must submit observer 

Curriculum Vitaes for approval by 

NMFS. 

Additional standard observer 

qualifications include: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were suspended to avoid 

potential incidental injury from 

construction sound of marine mammals 

observed within a defined shutdown 

zone; and marine mammal behavior; 

and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal activities. It 

will include an overall description of 

work completed, a narrative regarding 

marine mammal sightings, and 

associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, 

the report must include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring. 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including the number and type of piles 

driven or removed and by what method 

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

equipment duration for cutting for each 

pile or total number of strikes for each 

pile (impact driving). 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring. 

• Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance; 

• Upon observation of a marine 

mammal, the following information: 

Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) 

and PSO location and activity at time of 

sighting; Time of sighting; Identification 

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

lowest possible taxonomic level, or 

unidentified), PSO confidence in 

identification, and the composition of 

the group if there is a mix of species; 

Distance and bearing of each marine 

mammal observed relative to the pile 

being driven for each sighting (if pile 

driving was occurring at time of 

sighting); Estimated number of animals 

(min/max/best estimate); Estimated 

number of animals by cohort (adults, 

juveniles, neonates, group composition, 

etc.); Animal’s closest point of approach 

and estimated time spent within the 

harassment zone; Description of any 

marine mammal behavioral observations 

(e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding 

or traveling), including an assessment of 

behavioral responses thought to have 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2596 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 

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 will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the 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, 

ADOT&PF will 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 will 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 will not resume until NMFS 

is able to review the circumstances of 

the prohibited take. NMFS will work 

with ADOT&PF to determine what is 

necessary to minimize the likelihood of 

further prohibited take and ensure 

MMPA compliance. ADOT&PF will not 

be able to resume their activities until 

notified by NMFS via letter, email, or 

telephone. 

In the event that ADOT&PF 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), ADOT&PF will 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 will 

include the same information identified 

in the paragraph above. Activities will 

be able to continue while NMFS reviews 

the circumstances of the incident. 

NMFS will work with ADOT&PF to 

determine whether modifications in the 

activities are appropriate. 

In the event that ADOT&PF 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), 

ADOT&PF will 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. ADOT&PF will provide 

photographs, video footage (if available), 

or other documentation of the stranded 

animal sighting to NMFS and the 

Marine Mammal Stranding Network. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any impacts or responses (e.g., 

intensity, duration), the context of any 

impacts or responses (e.g., critical 

reproductive time or location, foraging 

impacts affecting energetics), as well as 

effects on habitat, and the likely 

effectiveness of the mitigation. We also 

assess the number, intensity, and 

context of estimated takes by evaluating 

this information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the regulatory status of the 

species, population size and growth rate 

where known, ongoing sources of 

human-caused mortality, or ambient 

noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, the majority of 

our analysis applies to all the species 

listed in table 7, given that many of the 

anticipated effects of this project on 

different marine mammal stocks are 

expected to be relatively similar in 

nature. Where there are meaningful 

differences between species or stocks, or 

groups of species, in anticipated 

individual responses to activities, 

impact of expected take on the 

population due to differences in 

population status, or impacts on habitat, 

they are described independently in the 

analysis below. 

Pile driving and removal activities 

associated with the project as outlined 

previously, have the potential to disturb 

or displace marine mammals. 

Specifically, the specified activities may 

result in take, in the form of Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

from underwater sounds generated from 

pile driving and removal. Potential takes 

could occur if individuals of these 

species are present in zones ensonified 

above the thresholds for Level A or 

Level B harassment identified above 

when these activities are underway. 

Take by Level A and Level B 

harassment will be due to potential 

behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. 

No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized given the 

nature of the activity and measures 

designed to minimize the possibility of 

injury to marine mammals. Take by 

Level A harassment is only anticipated 

for harbor porpoise and harbor seal. The 

potential for harassment is minimized 

through the construction method and 

the implementation of the mitigation 

measures (see Mitigation section). 

Based on reports in the literature as 

well as monitoring from other similar 

activities, behavioral disturbance (i.e., 

Level B harassment) will 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 will 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 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 southeast Alaska, which 

have taken place with no observed 

severe responses of any individuals or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 2597 

known long-term adverse consequences. 

Level B harassment will 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 project may 

produce sound at distances of many 

kilometers from the project site, thus 

overlapping with some likely lessdisturbed habitat, the project site itself 

is located in a busy harbor and the 

majority of sound fields produced by 

the specified activities are close to the 

harbor. Animals disturbed by project 

sound would be expected to avoid the 

area and use nearby higher-quality 

habitats. 

In addition to the expected effects 

resulting from authorized Level B 

harassment, we anticipate that harbor 

porpoises and harbor seals may sustain 

some limited Level A harassment in the 

form of auditory injury. However, 

animals in these locations that 

experience PTS will likely only receive 

slight PTS, i.e., minor degradation of 

hearing capabilities within regions of 

hearing that align most completely with 

the energy produced by pile driving, not 

severe hearing impairment or 

impairment in the regions of greatest 

hearing sensitivity. If hearing 

impairment occurs, it is most likely that 

the affected animal will lose a few 

decibels in its hearing sensitivity, which 

in most cases is not likely to 

meaningfully affect its ability to forage 

and communicate with conspecifics. As 

described above, we expect that marine 

mammals will be likely to move away 

from a sound source that represents an 

aversive stimulus, especially at levels 

that would be expected to result in PTS, 

given sufficient notice through use of 

soft start. 

The project also is not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitat. The 

project activities will 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. 

Nearly all inland waters of southeast 

Alaska, including Auke Bay, are 

considered Biological Important Areas 

(BIA) for feeding at some time of the 

year (Wild et al. 2023), and most are 

considered ephemeral, as humpback 

whale distribution in southeast Alaska 

varies by season and waterway 

(Dahlheim et al., 2009). The BIA that 

overlaps closest to the project are active 

from April through October while the 

project is scheduled to occur between 

October and March, so overlap with 

during one month of the active BIA is 

expected. Additionally, pile driving 

associated with the project is expected 

to take only 61 days, further reducing 

the temporal overlap with the BIA. 

Therefore, the project is not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on the 

foraging of Alaska humpback whales. 

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 determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect any of the 

species or stocks through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• Any Level A harassment exposures 

(i.e., to harbor porpoises and harbor 

seals, only) are anticipated to result in 

slight PTS (i.e., of a few decibels), 

within the lower frequencies associated 

with pile driving; 

• The anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment will consist of, at worst, 

temporary modifications in behavior 

that will not result in fitness impacts to 

individuals; 

• The area impacted by the specified 

activity is very small relative to the 

overall habitat ranges of all species, 

does not include ESA-designated 

critical habitat; and 

• The mitigation measures are 

expected to reduce the effects of the 

specified activity to the level of least 

practicable adverse impact. 

In combination, we believe that these 

factors, as well as the available body of 

evidence from other similar activities, 

demonstrate that the potential effects of 

the specified activities will have only 

minor, short-term effects on individuals. 

The specified activities are not expected 

to affect the reproduction or survival of 

any individual marine mammals and, 

therefore, will not result in impacts on 

rates of recruitment or survival for any 

species or stock. 

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 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the 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 7 demonstrates the number of 

animals that could be exposed to 

received noise levels that could cause 

Level A and Level B harassment for the 

work in Auke Bay. Our analysis shows 

that less than 28.5 percent of each 

affected stock could be taken by 

harassment. The numbers of animals to 

be taken for these stocks will 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 activity (including the 

mitigation and monitoring measures) 

and the anticipated take of marine 

mammals, NMFS finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2598 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 

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. 

The project is not known to occur in 

an area important for subsistence 

hunting. It is a developed area with 

regular marine vessel traffic. However, 

ADOT&PF plans to provide advanced 

public notice of construction activities 

to reduce construction impacts on local 

residents, ferry travelers, adjacent 

businesses, and other users of the Auke 

Bay ferry terminal and nearby areas. 

This will include notification to local 

Alaska Native tribes that may have 

members who hunt marine mammals for 

subsistence. Of the marine mammals 

considered in this IHA application, only 

harbor seals are known to be used for 

subsistence in the project area. If any 

tribes express concerns regarding 

project impacts to subsistence hunting 

of marine mammals, further 

communication between will take place, 

including provision of any project 

information, and clarification of any 

mitigation and minimization measures 

that may reduce potential impacts to 

marine mammals. 

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 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS has determined that there will 

not be an unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from ADOT&PF’s 

activities. 

Endangered Species Act 

There are two marine mammal 

species (western DPS Steller sea lion 

and Mexico DPS humpback whale) with 

confirmed occurrence in the project area 

that is listed as endangered and 

threatened respectively under the ESA. 

The NMFS Alaska Regional Office 

Protected Resources Division issued a 

Biological Opinion on December 22, 

2023 under section 7 of the ESA, on the 

issuance of an IHA to ADOT&PF under 

section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the 

NMFS Permits and Conservation 

Division. The Biological Opinion 

concluded that this action is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

western DPS Steller sea lions or Mexico 

DPS humpback whale, and is not likely 

to destroy or adversely modify western 

DPS Steller sea lion or Mexico DPS 

humpback whale critical habitats. 

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 evaluate our action 

(i.e., the issuance of an IHA) and 

alternatives 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 will preclude this 

categorical exclusion. Accordingly, 

NMFS has determined that the issuance 

of this IHA qualifies to be categorically 

excluded from further NEPA review. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to 

ADOT&PF for the potential harassment 

of small numbers of 11 marine mammal 

species incidental to the construction 

project in Auke Bay, Alaska, that 

includes the previously explained 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

requirements. The issued IHA can be 

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

gov/action/incidental-takeauthorization-alaska-departmenttransportation-pile-driving-andremoval. 

Dated: January 9, 2024. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00622 Filed 1–12–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

Review and Approval; Comment 

Request; Cooperative Game Fish 

Tagging Report 

AGENCY: National Oceanic & 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of information collection, 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), invites the general public and 

other Federal agencies to comment on 

proposed, and continuing information 

collections, which helps us assess the 

impact of our information collection 

requirements and minimize the public’s 

reporting burden. The purpose of this 

notice is to allow for 60 days of public 

comment preceding submission of the 

collection to OMB. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, 

comments regarding this proposed 

information collection must be received 

on or before March 18, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments to 

Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, 

at Adrienne.thomas@noaa.gov. Please 

reference OMB Control Number 0648– 

0247 in the subject line of your 

comments. Do not submit Confidential 

Business Information or otherwise 

sensitive or protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

specific questions related to collection 

activities should be directed to Eric 

Orbesen, Research Fish Biologist, 

NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science 

Center, 75 Virginia Beach Dr., Miami, 

FL 33149, ((800) 437 3936), 

Eric.Orbesen@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

This request is for extension of a 

current information collection. 

The Cooperative Game Fish Tagging 

Program was initiated in 1971 as part of 

a comprehensive research program 

resulting from passage of Public Law 

86–359, Study of Migratory Game Fish, 

and other legislative acts under which 

the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) operates. The Cooperative 

Tagging Center attempts to determine 

the migration patterns of, and other 

biological information for, billfish, 

tunas, and swordfish. The Fish Tag 

Issue Report card is a necessary part of 

the tagging program. Fishermen 

volunteer to tag and release their catch. 

When requested, NMFS provides the 

volunteers with fish tags for their use 

when they release their fish. Usually a 

group of five tags is sent at one time, 

each attached to a Report card, which is 

pre-printed with the first and last tag 

numbers received, and has spaces for 

the respondent’s name, address, date, 

and club affiliation (if applicable). He/ 

she fills out the card with information 

when a fish is tagged and mails it to 

NMFS. 

Information on each species is used 

by NMFS to determine migratory 

patterns, distance traveled, stock 

boundaries, age, and growth. These data 

are necessary input for developing 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1