104090 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 

should be directed to Mr. Kris 

Kleinschmidt (kris.kleinschmidt@

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

days prior to the meeting date. 

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

Dated: December 17, 2024. 

Rey Israel Marquez, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30476 Filed 12–19–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XE184] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to U.S. Coast 

Guard Fast Response Cutter 

Homeporting in Seward and Sitka, 

Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental 

harassment authorizations. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued two incidental 

harassment authorizations (IHAs) to the 

United States Coast Guard (USCG) to 

incidentally harass marine mammals 

during construction activities associated 

with fast response cutter (FRC) 

homeporting in Seward and Sitka, 

Alaska. 

DATES: These authorizations are 

effective from September 1, 2026, 

through August 31, 2027, and from 

March 1, 2027, through February 29, 

2028. 

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/national/ 

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

these documents, please call the contact 

listed below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alyssa Clevenstine, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

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

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

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

proposed or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA 

is provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of the takings. The definitions 

of all applicable MMPA statutory terms 

cited above are included in the relevant 

sections below. 

Summary of Request 

On January 19, 2024, NMFS received 

a request from the USCG for two IHAs 

to take marine mammals incidental to 

pile driving (installation and removal) 

associated with construction of two FRC 

homeporting docks in Seward and Sitka, 

Alaska. Following NMFS’ review of the 

application, the USCG submitted 

revised versions on April 3, 2024, June 

6, 2024, and June 11, 2024. The 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on June 11, 2024. The USCG’s 

request is for take of 11 species (18 

stocks) of marine mammals by Level B 

harassment and, for a subset of 5 of 

these species, Level A harassment. 

Neither the USCG nor NMFS expect 

serious injury or mortality to result from 

this activity and, therefore, IHAs are 

appropriate. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

The USCG plans to construct shoreside facilities and associated 

infrastructure at Moorings Seward to 

homeport one FRC located in the 

Seward Marine Industrial Center (SMIC) 

boat basin, and demolishing and 

constructing shore-side facilities at 

Moorings Sitka in Sitka Harbor to 

support a second FRC. The shore-side 

facilities and associated infrastructure 

for Moorings Seward will be 

constructed parallel to the existing 

SMIC dock. Construction of a new 

floating dock at Moorings Sitka will be 

attached to the existing pier. The 

projects are needed to provide adequate 

vessel berthing capability to support 

modern USCG cutters and ultimately, 

readiness as part of the USCG’s overall 

mission. The USCG plans to use a 

variety of methods, including impact, 

down-the-hole (DTH), and vibratory pile 

driving, to install and remove piles, 

including concrete, steel, plastic, and 

timber piles. These methods of pile 

driving will introduce underwater 

sounds that may result in take, by Level 

A and Level B harassment, of marine 

mammals. Pile removal may occur by 

vibratory, cutting, or clipping methods. 

Cutting and clipping are not anticipated 

to have the potential to result in 

incidental take of marine mammals 

because they are either above water, do 

not last for sufficient duration to present 

the reasonable potential for disruption 

of behavioral patterns, do not produce 

sound levels with likely potential to 

result in marine mammal harassment, or 

some combination of the above. 

Each IHA will be effective for 1 year 

from the date of issuance. Pile 

extraction and installation activities at 

Moorings Seward will occur for a total 

of 22 non-consecutive days, of which 

pile removal is anticipated to take 2 

days and pile installation is anticipated 

to take a maximum of 20 days (15 days 

to complete installation plus 5 

additional days to account for potential 

weather-related delays). Pile removal 

and installation activities at Moorings 

Sitka will occur for a total of 117 nonconsecutive days, of which pile removal 

is anticipated to take 3 days and pile 

installation is anticipated to take a 

maximum of 114 days (89 days to 

complete installation plus 25 additional 

days to account for potential weatherrelated delays). 

A detailed description of the planned 

construction project is provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (89 FR 60359, July 25, 2024). 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 104091 

Planned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Mitigation and Monitoring and 

Reporting sections). 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

two IHAs to the USCG was published in 

the Federal Register on July 25, 2024 

(89 FR 60359). That notice described, in 

detail, the USCG’s activity, the marine 

mammal species that may be affected by 

the activity, and the anticipated effects 

on marine mammals. In that notice, we 

requested public input on the request 

for authorizations described therein, our 

analyses, the proposed authorizations, 

and any other aspect of the notice of 

proposed IHAs, and requested that 

interested persons submit relevant 

information, suggestions, and 

comments. 

During the 30-day public comment 

period, NMFS did not receive any 

substantive comments on the proposed 

IHAs. 

Changes From the Proposed IHA to 

Final IHA 

There were two changes from the 

proposed IHAs: the dates for planned 

work at both locations and the estimated 

take at both locations (four species (four 

stocks) at Moorings Seward, four species 

(five stocks) at Moorings Sitka). The 

former was made upon the applicant’s 

request and resulted in changes to the 

dates planned for in-water work at 

Moorings Seward to occur from March 

1, 2027, through February 29, 2028, and 

at Moorings Sitka to occur from 

September 1, 2026, through August 31, 

2027. 

Changes to estimated take were made 

as a result of NMFS’ incorporation of 

the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Updated Technical 

Guidance; NMFS, 2024). On May 3, 

2024, NMFS published and solicited 

public comment on its draft Updated 

Technical Guidance (89 FR 36762), 

which included updated thresholds and 

weighting functions to inform auditory 

injury (AUD INJ) estimates. The 2024 

Updated Technical Guidance was 

finalized on October 24, 2024 (89 FR 

84872) and represents the best available 

science, replacing the 2018 Technical 

Guidance (NMFS, 2018). To best ensure 

we have considered an appropriate 

estimate of take by Level A harassment, 

in consideration of the best available 

science, we conducted basic 

comparative calculations using the 2024 

Updated Technical Guidance for the 

purposes of understanding the number 

of takes by Level A harassment (AUD 

INJ) that would be predicted. The 

relevant updated thresholds and 

weighting functions may be found in the 

executive summary of the 2024 Updated 

Technical Guidance, on pages 3 through 

6. We also considered whether 

modifications to mitigation zones would 

be appropriate in light of the 2024 

Updated Technical Guidance. Based on 

the outcome of these comparisons using 

the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, 

updated take numbers are presented in 

tables 11 and 12 of this notice (see 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

section). For the purposes of the 

negligible impact analyses for a given 

species or stock, the higher of any two 

Level A harassment estimates is 

considered. No updates were made to 

planned mitigation zones in 

consideration of the 2024 Updated 

Technical Guidance (see Mitigation 

section). 

The use of the 2024 Updated 

Technical Guidance resulted in an 

increase in the size of the Level A 

harassment isopleth(s) for certain 

species groups, which therefore 

increased take by Level A harassment 

for the following species, for which we 

relied on density data and the estimated 

ensonified areas: harbor porpoise at 

Moorings Seward and Dall’s porpoise at 

Moorings Sitka. It also resulted in an 

increase in the size of the Level A 

harassment isopleth and resulting take 

by Level A harassment of Steller sea 

lions at both locations, for which we 

relied on occurrence data. Take by Level 

A harassment of low-frequency 

cetaceans was not expected under the 

2018 Technical Guidance and is not 

expected under the 2024 Updated 

Technical Guidance; the Level A 

harassment isopleth during DTH 

activities for this group decreased. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. NMFS fully considered 

all of this information, and we refer the 

reader to these descriptions, instead of 

reprinting the information. Additional 

information regarding population trends 

and threats may be found in NMFS’ 

Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments) 

and more general information about 

these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’ website (https://

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

Table 1 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and authorized 

for the specified activities at Seward 

and Sitka, and summarizes information 

related to the population or stock, 

including regulatory status under the 

MMPA and Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. PBR is defined by 

the MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’ SARs). While no 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species or stocks and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

either NMFS’ U.S. Alaska SARs or U.S. 

Pacific SARs. All values presented in 

table 1 are the most recent available at 

the time of publication (including from 

the draft 2023 SARs) and are available 

online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
104092 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES 1 LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 2

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 3

PBR Annual 

M/SI 4

Family Eschrichtiidae 

Gray Whale ............................. Eschrichtius robustus ............. Eastern North Pacific ............. -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 2016) .. 801 131 

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals) 

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

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

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

Minke Whale 5 ......................... Balaenoptera acutorostrata .... Alaska ..................................... -, -, N N/A (N/A, N/A, N/A) ............... UND 0 

Family Delphinidae 

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

Resident.

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

Killer Whale ............................. Orcinus orca ........................... Eastern North Pacific Gulf of 

Alaska, Aleutian Islands 

and Bering Sea Transient.

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

Killer Whale ............................. Orcinus orca ........................... Eastern Northern Pacific 

Northern Resident.

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

Killer Whale ............................. Orcinus orca ........................... 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) 

Dall’s Porpoise 6 ...................... Phocoenoides dalli ................. Alaska ..................................... -, -, N UND (UND, UND, 2015) ........ UND 37 

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

Harbor Porpoise 7 .................... Phocoena phocoena .............. Yakutat/Southeast Alaska Offshore Waters.-, -, N N/A (N/A, N/A, 1997) ............. UND 22.2 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

Northern Fur Seal .................... Callorhinus ursinus ................. Eastern Pacific ....................... -, D, Y 626,618 (0.2, 530, 376, 2019) 11,403 373 

Steller Sea Lion ....................... Eumetopias jubatus ................ Western .................................. E, D, Y 49,837 (N/A, 49,837, 2022) ... 299 267 

Steller Sea Lion ....................... Eumetopias jubatus ................ Eastern ................................... -, -, N 36,308 (N/A, 36,308, 2022) ... 2,178 93.2 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor Seal ............................. Phoca vitulina ......................... Prince William Sound ............. -, -, N 44,756 (N/A, 41,776, 2015) ... 1,253 413 

Harbor Seal ............................. Phoca vitulina ......................... Sitka/Chatham Strait .............. -, -, N 13,289 (N/A, 11,883, 2015) ... 356 77 

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

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

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

as depleted and as a strategic stock. 3 NMFS marine mammal SARs online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region. CV 

is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 4These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, vessel strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 5 No population estimates have been made for the number of minke whales in the entire North Pacific. Some information is available on the numbers of minke 

whales in some areas of Alaska, but in the 2009, 2013, and 2015 offshore surveys, so few minke whales were seen during the surveys that a population estimate for 

the species in this area could not be determined (Rone et al., 2017). Therefore, this information is N/A (not available). 6Previous abundance estimates covering the entire stock’s range are no longer considered reliable and the current estimates presented in the SARs and reported 

here only cover a portion of the stock’s range. Therefore, the calculated Nmin and PBR is based on the 2015 survey of only a small portion of the stock’s range. PBR 

is considered to be biased low since it is based on the whole stock whereas the estimate of mortality and serious injury is for the entire stock’s range. 7Abundance estimates assumed that detection probability on the trackline was perfect; work is underway on a corrected estimate. Additionally, preliminary data results based on environmental DNA analysis show genetic differentiation between harbor porpoise in the northern and southern regions on the inland waters of southeast Alaska. Geographic delineation is not yet known. Data to evaluate population structure for harbor porpoise in Southeast Alaska have been collected and are currently being analyzed. Should the analysis identify different population structure than is currently reflected in the Alaska SARs, NMFS will consider how to best revise 

stock designations in the future. 

As indicated above, all 11 species 

(with 18 managed stocks) in table 1 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activities to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur at either 

location. All species that could 

potentially occur in the project areas are 

included in section 4 and tables 3–1 and 

3–2 of the USCG’s IHA application. 

A detailed description of the species 

likely to be affected by the USCG 

project, including brief introductions to 

the species and relevant stocks as well 

as available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

information regarding local occurrence, 

were provided in the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (89 FR 

60359, July 25, 2024); since that time, 

we are not aware of any changes in the 

status of these species and stocks; 

therefore, detailed descriptions are not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for these 

descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS’ 

website (https://

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

generalized species accounts. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I 

I I I I 

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 104093 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

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

and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 

2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. 

(2007, 2019) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into hearing 

groups based on directly measured 

(behavioral auditory or auditory evoked 

potential techniques) or estimated 

hearing ranges (behavioral response 

data, anatomical modeling, etc.). NMFS 

(2018) described generalized hearing 

ranges for these marine mammal hearing 

groups and, in 2024, updated the 

hearing group terminology (NMFS, 

2024). Generalized hearing ranges were 

chosen based on the approximately 65- 

decibel (dB) threshold from the 

composite audiograms, previous 

analysis in NMFS (2018), and/or data 

from Southall et al. (2007) and Southall 

et al. (2019). Marine mammal hearing 

groups and their associated hearing 

ranges based on the Updated Technical 

Guidance are provided in table 2. 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING

GROUPS

[NMFS, 2024] 

Hearing group ∧

Generalized 

hearing 

range * 

Low-frequency (LF) 

cetaceans (baleen whales).

7 Hz to 36 ** 

kHz. 

High-frequency (HF) 

cetaceans (dolphins, 

toothed whales, beaked 

whales, bottlenose whales).

150 Hz to 160 

kHz. 

Very High-frequency (VHF) 

cetaceans (true porpoises, 

Kogia, river dolphins, 

cephalorhynchid, 

Lagenorhynchus cruciger & 

L. australis).

200 Hz to 165 

kHz. 

Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals).40 Hz to 90 

kHz. 

Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and 

fur seals).

60 Hz to 68 

kHz. 

∧Southall et al. (2019) indicates that as 

more data become available there may be 

separate hearing group designations for Very 

Low-Frequency cetaceans (blue, fin, right, and 

bowhead whales) and Mid-Frequency 

cetaceans (sperm, killer, and beaked whales). 

However, at this point, all baleen whales are 

part of the LF cetacean hearing group, and 

sperm, killer, and beaked whales are part of 

the HF cetacean hearing group. Additionally, 

recent data indicates that as more data become available for Monachinae seals, separate hearing group designations may be appropriate for the two phocid subfamilies 

(Ruscher et al., 2021; Sills et al., 2021). 

* 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 the ∼65-dB threshold from composite audiogram, previous analysis in NMFS 

(2018), and/or data from Southall et al. (2007) 

and Southall et al. (2019). Additionally, animals are able to detect very loud sounds 

above and below that ‘‘generalized’’ hearing 

range. 

** NMFS is aware that the National Marine 

Mammal Foundation successfully collected 

preliminary hearing data on two minke whales 

during their third field season (2023) in Norway. These data have implications for not only 

the generalized hearing range for low-frequency cetaceans but also on their weighting 

function. However, at this time, no official results have been published. Furthermore, a 

fourth field season (2024) has concluded, 

where more data were collected. Thus, it is 

premature for us to propose any changes to 

our current Updated Technical Guidance. 

However, mysticete hearing data is identified 

as a special circumstance that could merit reevaluating the acoustic criteria in this document. Therefore, we anticipate that once the 

data from both field seasons are published, it 

will likely necessitate updating this document 

(i.e., likely after the data gathered in the summer 2024 field season and associated analysis are published). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2024) for a review of 

available information. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

the USCG’s construction activities have 

the potential to result in harassment of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

project areas. The notice of proposed 

IHA (89 FR 60359, July 25, 2024) 

included a discussion of the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and the potential effects of 

underwater noise from the USCG’s 

construction activities on marine 

mammals and their habitat. That 

information and analysis is referenced 

in this final IHA determination and is 

not repeated here; please refer to the 

notice of proposed IHA (89 FR 60359, 

July 25, 2024). 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through the IHAs, which 

informed NMFS’ consideration of 

‘‘small numbers,’’ the negligible impact 

determinations, and impacts on 

subsistence uses. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as use of the 

acoustic sources (i.e., vibratory and 

impact pile driving, DTH) has the 

potential to result in disruption of 

behavioral patterns for individual 

marine mammals. There is also some 

potential for AUD INJ (Level A 

harassment) to result, primarily for 

high-frequency species and phocids, 

because predicted AUD INJ zones are 

large and these species could enter the 

Level A harassment zones and remain 

undetected for a sufficient duration to 

incur AUD INJ due to their small size 

and inconspicuous nature. Although 

AUD INJ could occur for low-frequency 

species due to large predicted AUD INJ 

zones associated with DTH, due to their 

large size, conspicuous nature, and 

planned mitigation (i.e., large shutdown 

zones, boat-based protected species 

observers (PSOs)), it is assumed that all 

low-frequency species would be 

visually detected and, therefore, taking 

by Level A harassment would be 

eliminated. The planned mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

minimize the severity of the taking to 

the extent practicable. 

As described previously, no serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the authorized take 

numbers are estimated. 

For acoustic impacts, generally 

speaking, we estimate take by 

considering: (1) acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and (4) the number of days of activities. 

We note that while these factors can 

contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of potential 

takes, additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Below, we describe the factors 

considered here in more detail and 

present the authorized take estimates. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
104094 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur AUD INJ 

(which includes, but is not limited to, 

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; Southall et 

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

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a metric that is both 

predictable and measurable for most 

activities, NMFS typically uses a 

generalized acoustic threshold based on 

received level to estimate the onset of 

behavioral harassment. NMFS generally 

predicts that marine mammals are likely 

to be behaviorally harassed in a manner 

considered to be Level B harassment 

when exposed to underwater 

anthropogenic noise above root-meansquared pressure received levels (RMS 

SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 

microPascal (re 1 mPa)) for continuous 

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

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

airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. Generally speaking, 

Level B harassment take estimates based 

on these behavioral harassment 

thresholds are expected to include any 

likely takes by temporary threshold shift 

(TTS) as, in most cases, the likelihood 

of TTS occurs at distances from the 

source less than those at which 

behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of 

a sufficient degree can manifest as 

behavioral harassment, as reduced 

hearing sensitivity and the potential 

reduced opportunities to detect 

important signals (conspecific 

communication, predators, prey) may 

result in changes in behavior patterns 

that would not otherwise occur. 

The USCG’s planned activity includes 

the use of continuous (vibratory and 

DTH) and impulsive (impact driving 

and DTH) sources, and therefore the 120 

and 160 dB re 1 mPa (RMS) thresholds, 

respectively, are applicable. 

Level A harassment—NMFS’ 2024 

Updated Technical Guidance (NMFS, 

2024) identifies dual criteria to assess 

AUD INJ (Level A harassment) to five 

different marine mammal groups (based 

on hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). The USCG’s planned 

activity includes the use of impulsive 

(impact driving and DTH) and nonimpulsive (vibratory and DTH) sources. 

These criteria are provided in table 3 

below. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the thresholds are described in the 

2024 Updated Technical Guidance, 

which may be accessed at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidanceother-acoustic-tools. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF MARINE MAMMAL AUD INJ ONSET CRITERIA

[NMFS, 2024] 

Hearing group 

AUD INJ onset criteria * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 1: Lp,0-pk,flat: 222 dB; LE,p,LF,24h: 183 dB .................. Cell 2: LE,p,LF,24h: 197 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 3: Lp,0-pk,flat: 230 dB; LE,p,HF,24h: 193 dB ................. Cell 4: LE,p,HF,24h: 201 dB. 

Very High-Frequency (VHF) Cetaceans .......................... Cell 5: Lp,0-pk,flat: 202 dB; LE,p,VHF,24h: 159 dB ............... Cell 6: LE,p,VHF,24h: 181 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 7: Lp,0-pk,flat: 223 dB; LE,p,PW,24h: 183 dB ................ Cell 8: LE,p,PW,24h: 195 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9: Lp,0-pk,flat: 230 dB; LE,p,OW,24h: 185 dB ................ Cell 10: LE,p,OW,24h: 199 

dB. 

* Dual metric criteria for impulsive sounds: Use whichever criteria results in the larger isopleth for calculating AUD INJ onset. If a non-impulsive 

sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level criteria associated with impulsive sounds, the PK SPL criteria are recommended for consideration for non-impulsive sources. 

Note: Peak sound pressure level (Lp,0-pk) has a reference value of 1 μPa (underwater) and 20 μPa (in air), and weighted cumulative sound exposure level (LE,p) has a reference value of 1μPa2s (underwater) and 20 μPa2s (in air). In this table, criteria are abbreviated to be more reflective 

of International Organization for Standardization standards (ISO, 2017; ISO, 2020). The subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound 

pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range of marine mammals underwater (i.e., 7 Hz to 165 kHz) or in air 

(i.e., 42 Hz to 52 kHz). The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level criteria indicates the designated marine mammal auditory 

weighting function (LF, HF, and VHF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The 

weighted cumulative sound exposure level criteria 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 criteria 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 (TL) 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, vibratory pile removal, and 

DTH). 

In order to calculate distances to the 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment thresholds for the methods 

and piles planned for this project, 

NMFS used acoustic monitoring data 

from other locations to develop source 

levels for the various pile types, sizes, 

and methods (tables 4–7). 

NMFS recommends treating DTH 

systems as both impulsive and 

continuous, non-impulsive sound 

source types simultaneously. Thus, 

impulsive thresholds are used to 

evaluate Level A harassment, and 

continuous thresholds are used to 

evaluate Level B harassment. With 

regards to DTH mono-hammers, NMFS 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 104095 

recommends proxy levels for Level A 

harassment based on available data 

regarding DTH systems of similar sized 

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

and Miner, 2020; Heyvaert and Reyff, 

2021; Reyff, 2020; Reyff and Heyvaert, 

2019). 

TABLE 4—OBSERVED NON-IMPULSIVE SOUND LEVELS AND DURATIONS FOR IN-WATER ACTIVITIES LIKELY TO OCCUR AT

MOORINGS SEWARD

In-water activity Pile size and type 

RMS SPL 

(dB re 1 μPa) 

at 10 m 

Average 

duration per 

pile 

(seconds) 

Piles per 

day 

Vibratory Pile Extraction a ..................................... 14-inch steel guide pile ........................................ 160 1,800 5 

Vibratory Pile Settling a ......................................... 30-inch concrete guide pile .................................. 163 600 2 

Rock socket drill b (non-impulsive component) .... 30-inch concrete guide pile .................................. 174 c 10,800 2 

Note: Abbreviations: dB re 1 μPa = decibels referenced to a pressure of 1 microPascal, m = meters. a NMFS, 2024. 

b NMFS, 2022. 

c Rock socket drilling is a DTH activity with multiple strikes per second. DTH activities produce sounds that simultaneously contain both nonimpulsive and impulsive components. 

TABLE 5—OBSERVED IMPULSIVE SOUND LEVELS AND DURATIONS FOR PILE INSTALLATION ACTIVITIES LIKELY TO OCCUR

AT MOORINGS SEWARD

Installation method Pile size and type 

Peak 

(dB re 1 μPa) 

at 10 m 

RMS 

(dB re 1 μPa) 

at 10 m 

SELsingle-strike

(dB re 1 μPa2s) 

at 10 m 

Strikes per 

day 

Maximum 

strikes per 

pile 

Piles per 

day 

Rock socket drill a ......................... 30-inch concrete guide pile ......... 194 174 164 c 216,000 108,000 2 

Impact hammer proofing b ............ 30-inch concrete guide pile ......... 198 186 173 10 5 2 

Note: Abbreviations: dB re 1 μPa = decibels referenced to a pressure of 1 microPascal, m = meters. a NMFS, 2022. 

b NMFS, 2024. 

c Rock socket drilling is a DTH activity with multiple strikes per second. DTH activities produce sounds that simultaneously contain both non-impulsive and impulsive 

components. 

TABLE 6—OBSERVED NON-IMPULSIVE SOUND LEVELS AND DURATIONS FOR IN-WATER ACTIVITIES LIKELY TO OCCUR AT

MOORINGS SITKA

In-water activity Pile size and type 

RMS SPL 

(dB re 1 μPa) 

at 10 m 

Average 

duration 

per pile 

(seconds) 

Piles per 

day 

Vibratory Pile Extraction a ..................................... 12-inch timber piles .............................................. 162 1,800 5 

Vibratory Pile Settling b ......................................... 30-inch concrete guide and structure pile ............ 163 600 2 

Rock socket drill c (non-impulsive component) ..... 30-inch concrete guide and structure pile ............ 174 10,800 2 

Note: Abbreviations: dB re 1 μPa = decibels referenced to a pressure of 1 microPascal, m = meters. a NMFS, 2024. 

b NMFS, 2022. 

c Rock socket drilling is a DTH activity with multiple strikes per second. DTH activities produce sounds that simultaneously contain both nonimpulsive and impulsive components. 

TABLE 7—OBSERVED IMPULSIVE SOUND LEVELS AND DURATIONS FOR PILE INSTALLATION ACTIVITIES LIKELY TO OCCUR

AT MOORINGS SITKA

Installation method Pile size and type 

Peak 

(re 1 μPa) at 

10 m 

RMS 

(dB re 1 μPa) 

at 10 m 

SELsingle-strike

(dB re 1 μPa2s) 

at 10 m 

Strikes per 

day 

Maximum 

strikes per 

pile 

Piles per 

day 

Impact drive a ................................ 13-inch plastic fender pile ............ 177 153 NA 200 100 2 

Impact drive a ................................ 14-inch timber guide pile ............. 180 170 160 320 160 2 

Rock socket drill b ......................... 30-inch concrete guide pile ......... 194 174 164 d 216,000 108,000 2 

Impact hammer proofing c ............. 30-inch concrete guide pile ......... 198 186 173 10 5 2 

Note: Abbreviations: dB re 1 μPa = decibels referenced to a pressure of 1 microPascal, m = meters. a Caltrans, 2020. 

b NMFS, 2022. 

c NMFS, 2024. 

d Rock socket drilling is a DTH activity with multiple strikes per second. DTH activities produce sounds that simultaneously contain both non-impulsive and impulsive 

components. 

Level B Harassment Zones—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: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I 
104096 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical 

spreading equals 15 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement. 

The recommended TL coefficient for 

most nearshore environments is the 

practical spreading value of 15 (-4.5 dB 

per doubling of distance). This value 

results in an expected propagation 

environment that would lie between 

spherical and cylindrical spreading loss 

conditions, which is the most 

appropriate assumption for the USCG’s 

planned activities. This analysis uses 

practical spreading loss, a standard 

assumption regarding sound 

propagation for similar environments, to 

estimate transmission of sound through 

water. The Level B harassment zones 

and approximate amount of area 

ensonified for the planned underwater 

activities are shown in tables 8 and 9. 

Level A Harassment Zones—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 

Updated 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. A weighting adjustment factor of 

2.5 or 2, a standard default value for 

vibratory pile driving and removal or 

impact driving and DTH respectively, 

was used to calculate Level A 

harassment areas. We note that because 

of some of the assumptions included in 

the methods underlying this optional 

tool, we anticipate that the resulting 

isopleth estimates are typically going to 

be overestimates of some degree, which 

may result in an overestimate of 

potential take by Level A harassment. 

However, this optional tool offers the 

best way to estimate isopleth distances 

when more sophisticated modeling 

methods are not available or practical. 

For stationary sources such as pile 

driving and DTH, the optional Updated 

User Spreadsheet tool predicts the 

distance at which, if a marine mammal 

remained at that distance for the 

duration of the activity, it would be 

expected to incur AUD INJ. Inputs used 

in the optional Updated User 

Spreadsheet tool (e.g., number of piles 

per day, duration and/or strikes per 

pile) are presented in tables 4–7, and the 

resulting estimated isopleths and total 

ensonified areas are reported below in 

tables 8 and 9. 

TABLE 8—PROJECTED DISTANCES TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS USING 2018 AND 2024 TECHNICAL GUIDANCE

AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS BY MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUP AT MOORINGS SEWARD

Activity Distance to level A for LF Distance to 

level A for HF 

Distance to 

level A for 

VHF 

Distance to level 

A for PW 

Distance to 

level A for 

OW 

Level B 

Distance 

(m) 

Total 

ensonified 

area 

(km2) 

Vibratory pile extraction ................ 10.8 m ..........................................

(14.6 m) .......................................

1 m 

(5.6 m) 

16 m 

(11.9 m) 

6.6 m 

(18.8 m) 

0.5 m 

(6.3 m) 

4,641.6 1.94 

DTH (Impulsive component) concrete.1,945.5 .........................................

(1,938.5 m) ..................................

69.2 

(247.3 m) 

2,317.4 

(2,999.8 m) 

1,041.2 (1,722.1 

m) 

75.8 

(641.9 m) 

39,810.7 * 2.26 

Vibratory settling concrete ........... 4.5 m ............................................

(6 m) ............................................

0.4 m 

(2.3 m) 

6.6 m 

(4.9 m) 

2.7 m 

(7.8 m) 

0.2 m 

(2.6 m) 

7,356.4 * 2.26 

Impact driver proofing concrete ... 10 m ............................................. 0.4 m 

(1.3 m) 

11.9 m 

(15.4 m) 

5.3 m 

(8.8 m) 

0.4 m 

(3.3 m) 

541.2 0.11 

Note 1: Abbreviations: LF = low-frequency cetaceans, HF = high-frequency cetaceans, VHF = very high-frequency cetaceans, PW = phocid pinnipeds in water, OW 

= otariid pinnipeds in water. 

Note 2: Isopleths based on NMFS (2018) are shown above updated isopleths from NMFS (2024), which are italicized in parentheses below the original isopleths. 

* Total harassment areas are the same despite having varying radii because the maximum distance intersects with the other side of Resurrection Bay near Seward 

resulting in the same areal extent. 

TABLE 9—PROJECTED DISTANCES TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS USING 2018 AND 2024 TECHNICAL GUIDANCE

AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS BY MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUP AT MOORINGS SITKA

Activity Distance to 

level A for LF 

Distance to 

level A for HF 

Distance to 

level A for VHF 

Distance to 

level A for PW 

Distance to 

level A for OW 

Level B 

distance 

(m) 

Total ensonified 

area 

(km2) 

Vibratory pile extraction.14.7 m .............

(19.8 m) ...........

1.3 m ...............

(7.6 m) .............

21.7 m .............

(16.2 m) ...........

6.9 m ...............

(25.5 m) ...........

0.6 m ...............

(8.6 m) .............

6,309.6 m ........ 4.17 

Impact drive 

plastic.

13.6 m .............

(13.5 m) ...........

0.5 m ...............

(1.7 m) .............

16.2 m .............

(21 m) ..............

7.3 m ...............

(12 m) ..............

0.5 m ...............

(4.5 m) .............

3.4 m ............... 0 

Impact drive timber.13.7 m .............

(13.6 m) ...........

0.5 m ...............

(1.7 m) .............

16.3 m .............

(21.1 m) ...........

7.3 m ...............

(12.1 m) ...........

0.5 m ...............

(4.5 m) .............

46.4 m ............. 0.01 

DTH (Impulsive 

component).

1,945.5 m ........

(1,938.5 m) ......

69.2 m .............

(247.3 m) .........

2,317.4 m ........

(2,999.8 m) ......

1,041.2 m ........

(1,722.1 m) ......

75.8 m .............

(641.9 m) .........

39,810.7 m ...... 6.31 

Vibratory settling 

concrete.

4.5 m ...............

(6 m) ................

0.4 m ...............

(2.3 m) .............

6.6 m ...............

(4.9 m) .............

2.7 m ...............

(7.8 m) .............

0.2 m ...............

(2.6 m) .............

7,356.4 m ........ 4.89 

Impact driver 

proofing concrete.

10 m ................ 0.4 m ...............

(1.3 m) .............

11.9 m .............

(15.4 m) ...........

5.3 m ...............

(8.8 m) .............

0.4 m ...............

(3.3 m) .............

541.2 m ........... 0.33 

Note 1: Abbreviations: LF = low-frequency cetaceans, HF = high-frequency cetaceans, VHF = very high-frequency cetaceans, PW = phocid 

pinnipeds in water, OW = otariid pinnipeds in water. 

Note 2: Isopleths based on NMFS (2018) are shown with updated isopleths from NMFS (2024) are italicized in parentheses. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide information 

about the occurrence of marine 

mammals, including density or other 

relevant information which informed 

the take calculations. Available 

information regarding marine mammal 

occurrence and density in the project 

areas includes monitoring data, prior 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 104097 

incidental take authorizations, and ESA 

consultations on previous projects. 

When local density information was not 

available, data aggregated in the Navy’s 

Marine Mammal Species Density 

Database (Navy, 2019; Navy, 2020) for 

the Northwest or Gulf of Alaska Testing 

and Training areas or nearby proxies 

from the monitoring data were used. 

Daily occurrence probability of each 

marine mammal species is based on 

consultation with previous monitoring 

reports, local researchers and marine 

professionals. Occurrence probability 

estimates at Moorings Sitka are based on 

conservative density approximations for 

each species and factor in historic data 

of occurrence, seasonality, and group 

size in Sitka Sound and Sitka Channel. 

A summary of occurrence is shown in 

table 10. Group size is based on the best 

available published research for these 

species and their presence in the project 

areas. 

TABLE 10—ESTIMATED SPECIES OCCURRENCE OR DENSITY VALUES

Species Stock Moorings Seward Moorings Sitka 

Steller sea lion a b ........................... Western ........................................ 2 individuals/day ........................... 2 groups of 2 individuals/day of 

either stock 

Steller sea lion a b ........................... Eastern ......................................... 0 .................................................... 2 groups of 2 individuals/day of 

either stock 

Northern fur seal ............................ Eastern Pacific .............................. 0 .................................................... 1 individual/month 

Harbor seal .................................... Prince William Sound ................... 48.95 individuals/day .................... 0 

Harbor seal a .................................. Sitka/Chatham Strait ..................... 0 .................................................... 2 groups of 2.1 individuals/day 

Killer whale .................................... Alaska Resident ............................ 1 group of 7 individuals/week of 

either stock.

1 group of 6.6 individuals/week of 

any stock 

Killer whale .................................... Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, 

and Bering Sea Transient.

1 group of 7 individuals/week of 

either stock.

1 group of 6.6 individuals/week of 

any stock 

Killer whale .................................... Northern Resident ........................ 0 .................................................... 1 group of 6.6 individuals/week of 

any stock 

Killer whale .................................... West Coast Transient ................... 0 .................................................... 1 group of 6.6 individuals/week of 

any stock 

Pacific white-sided dolphin ............ North Pacific ................................. 3 individuals/day ........................... 0 

Harbor porpoise ............................. Gulf of Alaska ............................... 0.4547 individuals/km2 ................. 0 

Harbor porpoise ............................. Yakutat/Southeast Alaska Offshore Waters.0 .................................................... 1 group of 5 individuals/week 

Dall’s porpoise ............................... Alaska ........................................... 0.25 individuals/day ...................... 0.121 individuals/km2

Sperm whale .................................. North Pacific ................................. 0 .................................................... 0.002 individuals/km2

Humpback whale c ......................... Hawai’i .......................................... 1 individual/day of either stock ..... 1 group of 3.4 individuals/week of 

either stock 

Humpback whale c ......................... Mexico-North Pacific ..................... 1 individual/day of either stock ..... 1 group of 3.4 individuals/week of 

either stock 

Gray whale ..................................... Eastern North Pacific .................... 0.0155 individuals/km2 ................. 1 group of 3.5 individuals/2 weeks 

Fin whale ....................................... Northeast Pacific .......................... 0.068 individuals/km2 ................... 0.0001 individuals/km2

Minke whale ................................... Alaska ........................................... 0.006 individuals/km2 ................... 1 group of 3.5 individuals/2 weeks 

Note: Occurrence value presented as individuals per unit time; density value presented as individuals per square kilometer. a Likelihood of one group per day in the Level A harassment zone and likelihood of two groups per day in the Level B harassment zone. bSteller sea lion stock attribution is 100 percent Western DPS at Moorings Seward; 97.8 percent Eastern DPS and 2.2 percent Western DPS 

at Moorings Sitka. c Humpback whale stock attribution is 89 percent Hawai’i and 11 percent Mexico-North Pacific at Moorings Seward; 98 percent Hawai’i and 2 

percent Mexico-North Pacific at Moorings Sitka. 

Gray whale—Members of the ENP 

stock have a small chance to occur at 

the northern end of Resurrection Bay 

near Moorings Seward, with an 

estimated density of 0.0155 individuals/ 

km2. 

During 190 hours of observation from 

1994 to 2002 from Sitka’s Whale Park, 

only three gray whales were observed 

(Straley et al., 2017). However, Straley 

and Wild (unpublished data) note that 

since 2014, the number of gray whale 

sightings in Sitka Sound has increased 

to an estimated 150–200 individuals in 

2021 and 2022. Based on this and recent 

monitoring data collected near Sitka, the 

estimated occurrence of gray whales at 

Moorings Sitka is one group of 3.5 

individuals every 2 weeks. 

Fin whale—Fin whales have the 

potential to occur at both Moorings 

Seward and Moorings Sitka. Based on 

survey data, fin whales in the vicinity 

of Moorings Seward are anticipated to 

occur at a density of 0.068/km2 and fin 

whales in the vicinity of Moorings Sitka 

are anticipated to occur at a density of 

0.0001/km2. 

Humpback whale—Humpback whales 

found in the project areas are 

predominantly members of the Hawai1i 

DPS (89 percent at Moorings Seward, 98 

percent probability at Moorings Sitka), 

which is not listed under the ESA. 

However, based on a comprehensive 

photo-identification study, members of 

the Mexico DPS, which is listed as 

threatened, have a small potential to 

occur in all project locations (11 percent 

at Moorings Seward, 2 percent at 

Moorings Sitka) (Wade, 2016), and it is 

estimated that one individual per day of 

either stock may occur at Moorings 

Seward while one group of 3.5 

individuals per 2 weeks of either stock 

may occur at Moorings Sitka. 

Minke whale—Minke whales are 

generally found in shallow, coastal 

waters within 200 m (656 ft) of shore 

(Zerbini et al., 2006). 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. 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). Additionally, 

minke whales were observed during the 

Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project 

at the mouth of Sitka Sound (Turnagain 

Marine Construction, 2018). Minke 

whale density at Moorings Seward is 

estimated as 0.006 individuals/km2

while estimated occurrence at Moorings 

Sitka is one group of 3.5 individuals 

every 2 weeks. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
104098 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 

Killer whale—Killer whales occur 

along the entire coast of Alaska (Braham 

and Dahlheim, 1982) and four stocks 

may be present in the project areas as 

follows: (1) Alaska Resident stock—both 

locations; (2) Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian 

Islands, and Bering Sea Transient 

stock—both locations; (3) Northern 

Resident—Sitka only; and (4) West 

Coast Transient stock—Sitka only. 

The Alaska Resident stock occurs 

from southeast Alaska to the Aleutian 

Islands and Bering Sea. The Gulf of 

Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea 

Transient stock occurs from the 

northern British Columbia coast to the 

Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea. The 

Northern Resident stock occurs from 

Washington north through part of 

southeast Alaska. The West Coast 

Transient stock occurs from California 

north through southeast Alaska (Muto et 

al., 2020). One group of seven 

individuals per week from either the 

Alaska Resident stock or the Gulf of 

Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea 

Transient stock are estimated to occur at 

Moorings Seward. One group of 6.6 

individuals per week from any of the 

four stocks are estimated to occur at 

Moorings Sitka. 

Pacific white-sided dolphin—Pacific 

white-sided dolphins are anticipated to 

occur in the vicinity of Moorings 

Seward only. Previous construction 

monitoring reported by NOAA as an 

appropriate proxy for Moorings Seward 

is three individuals per day. During 8 

years of surveys near Sitka, Straley et al. 

(2017) only documented seven Pacific 

white-sided dolphins, therefore, we do 

not reasonably expect the species to 

occur in the vicinity of Moorings Sitka. 

Dall’s porpoise—Dall’s porpoise are 

anticipated to occur in the vicinity of 

both locations. At Moorings Seward, the 

expected occurrence rate is 

approximately 0.25 animals per day, 

and the average group size throughout 

Alaskan waters is estimated to be 

between 2 and 12 individuals. We 

therefore estimate that approximately 

one group of up to six individuals could 

occur over 22 non-consecutive days of 

in-water work. At Moorings Sitka, the 

estimated density of Dall’s porpoise is 

0.121 individuals/km2. 

Harbor porpoise—Only the Yakutat/ 

Southeast Alaska Offshore Waters stock 

and the Gulf of Alaska stock are 

expected to be encountered in the 

project areas. The Gulf of Alaska stock 

range includes Moorings Seward while 

the Yakutat/Southeast Alaska Offshore 

Waters stock’s range includes Moorings 

Sitka. The estimated density of harbor 

porpoises at Moorings Seward is 0.4547/ 

km2 and the estimated occurrence at 

Moorings Sitka is one group of five 

individuals every week. 

Northern fur seal—Northern fur seals 

are not expected near Moorings Seward 

and one individual per month is 

estimated to occur at Moorings Sitka. 

Steller sea lion—Only the Western 

stock of Steller sea lion is expected to 

occur at Moorings Seward with an 

estimated occurrence of two individuals 

per day. Both the Western and Eastern 

stocks may occur at Moorings Sitka, 

which is located in the Central Outer 

Coast population mixing zone 

delineated by Hastings et al. (2020). 

Based on these data, 2.2 percent of 

Steller sea lions near Sitka are expected 

to be from the Western stock while 97.8 

percent are expected to be from the 

Eastern stock (Hastings et al., 2020), and 

it is estimated that two groups of two 

individuals per day may occur at 

Moorings Sitka in the Level A 

harassment zone. 

Harbor seal—There are 12 stocks of 

harbor seals in Alaska, 2 of which occur 

in the project areas: (1) the Prince 

William Sound stock ranges from 

Elizabeth Island off the southwest tip of 

the Kenai Peninsula to Cape 

Fairweather, including Moorings 

Seward; and (2) the Sitka/Chatham 

Strait stock ranges from Cape Bingham 

south to Cape Ommaney, extending 

inland to Table Bay on the west side of 

Kuiu Island and north through Chatham 

Strait to Cube Point off the west coast 

of Admiralty Island, and as far east as 

Cape Bendel on the northeast tip of 

Kupreanof Island, which includes 

Moorings Sitka. Daily occurrence of 

harbor seals at Moorings Sitka is 

estimated as 48.95 individuals/day and 

at Moorings Sitka 2 groups of 2.1 

individuals/day are estimated based on 

previous monitoring in the vicinity, 

with a likelihood of 2 groups per day in 

the Level A harassment zone. 

Take Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above was synthesized to 

produce a quantitative estimate of the 

take that is reasonably likely to occur 

and is authorized. 

Neither the applicant nor NMFS have 

fine-scale data to quantitatively assess 

the number of animals in the relatively 

small predicted Level A harassment 

zones at either location. Therefore, we 

assumed that, for cryptic species (e.g., 

Steller sea lion, Pacific white-sided 

dolphin (Moorings Seward only), harbor 

seal, harbor porpoise), up to 25 percent 

of the animals that entered the Level B 

harassment zone could enter the Level 

A harassment zone undetected, 

potentially accumulating sound 

exposure that rises to the level of Level 

A harassment. 

For species with observational data, 

the following equation was used to 

estimate take by Level B harassment, 

where daily occurrence is measured as 

individuals per day: 

Estimated take = (daily occurrence × 

number of days)¥Level A 

harassment takes 

For species with observational data, 

the following equation was used to 

estimate take by Level A harassment, 

where daily occurrence is multiplied by 

the number of days of work, which is 

then multiplied by 25 percent: 

Estimated take = (daily occurrence × 

number of days) × 25 percent 

For species with density data, the 

following equation was used to estimate 

take by Level B harassment, where 

ensonified area is measured as km2: 

Estimated take = (species density × daily 

ensonified Level B harassment area 

× number of days)—Level A 

harassment takes 

For species with density data, the 

following equation was used to estimate 

take by Level A harassment, where 

species density is multiplied by the 

daily ensonified Level A harassment 

area multiplied by the number of days 

of work: 

Estimated take = species density × daily 

ensonified Level A harassment area 

× number of days 

Table 11 summarizes the amount of 

take authorized by both Level A and 

Level B harassment, as well as the 

percentage of each stock expected to be 

taken, at Moorings Seward. 

TABLE 11—AUTHORIZED TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT AT MOORINGS SEWARD

Species Stock Level A Level B Total SAR 

abundance 

Percentage of 

population 

Steller sea lion ............................ Western ...................................... 10 34 44 49,837 0.09 

Harbor seal ................................. Prince William Sound ................. 245 833 1078 44,756 2.41 

Killer whale * ............................... Alaska Resident ......................... 0 21 21 1,920 1.09 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 104099 

TABLE 11—AUTHORIZED TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT AT MOORINGS SEWARD— 

Continued 

Species Stock Level A Level B Total SAR 

abundance 

Percentage of 

population 

Killer whale * ............................... Eastern North Pacific Gulf of 

Alaska, Aleutian Islands and 

Bering Sea Transient.

0 7 7 587 1.19 

Pacific white-sided dolphin ......... North Pacific ............................... 15 51 66 26,880 0.25 

Harbor porpoise .......................... Gulf of Alaska ............................. 8 15 23 31,046 0.07 

Dall’s porpoise ............................ Alaska ......................................... 1 5 6 UND UND 

Humpback whale ........................ Hawai1i ........................................ 0 20 20 11,278 0.18 

Humpback whale ........................ Mexico-North Pacific .................. 0 2 2 N/A N/A 

Gray whale .................................. Eastern North Pacific ................. 0 1 1 26,960 0 

Fin whale .................................... Northeast Pacific ........................ 0 3 3 UND UND 

Note: Humpback whale stock attribution: 89 percent Hawai1i and 11 percent Mexico-North Pacific. 

* Percent of stock impacted for killer whales was estimated assuming each stock is taken in proportion to its population size at each location 

from the total take. At Moorings Seward, the Alaska Resident and Gulf of Alaska stocks are the only stocks present. Of these, the Alaska Resident stock represents approximately 76 percent of the available animals, while the Gulf of Alaska stock represents approximately 23 percent. 

Takes were then calculated for each site based on the proportional representation of available stocks, so for Moorings Seward, this results in 21 

Level B harassment takes of the Alaska Resident stock of killer whale and 7 Level B harassment takes of the Gulf of Alaska stock of killer whale. 

Total takes for each stock are shown as a percentage of the stock size. 

Table 12 summarizes amount of take 

authorized by both Level A and Level B 

harassment, as well as the percentage of 

each stock expected to be taken, at 

Moorings Sitka. 

TABLE 12—AUTHORIZED TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT AT MOORINGS SITKA

Species Stock Level A Level B Total SAR 

abundance 

Percentage of 

population 

Steller sea lion .................... Western .............................. 2 6 8 49,837 0.02 

Steller sea lion .................... Eastern ............................... 82 270 352 36,308 0.97 

Northern fur seal ................. Eastern Pacific ................... 0 3 3 626,618 0 

Harbor seal ......................... Sitka/Chatham Strait .......... 88 272 360 13,289 2.71 

Killer whale * ........................ Alaska Resident ................. 0 55 55 1,920 2.86 

Killer whale * ........................ Eastern North Pacific Gulf 

of Alaska, Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea 

Transient.

0 17 17 587 2.90 

Killer whale * ........................ Northern Resident .............. 0 8 8 302 2.65 

Killer whale * ........................ West Coast Transient ........ 0 10 10 349 2.87 

Harbor porpoise .................. Yakutat/Southeast Alaska 

Offshore Waters.

15 20 35 N/A N/A 

Dall’s porpoise .................... Alaska ................................. 24 42 66 UND UND 

Humpback whale ................ Hawai1i ................................ 0 43 43 11,278 0.38 

Humpback whale ................ Mexico-North Pacific .......... 0 1 1 N/A N/A 

Gray whale .......................... Eastern North Pacific ......... 0 22 22 26,960 0.08 

Minke whale ........................ Alaska ................................. 0 22 22 N/A N/A 

Note: Steller sea lion stock attribution: 97.8 percent Eastern DPS and 2.2 percent Western DPS at Moorings Sitka. Humpback whale stock attribution: 98 percent Hawai1i and 2 percent Mexico-North Pacific. 

* Percent of stock impacted for killer whales was estimated assuming each stock is taken in proportion to its population size at each location 

from the total take. At Moorings Sitka, the Alaska Resident, Gulf of Alaska, Northern Resident, and West Coast Transient stocks are expected, 

and the Alaska Resident stock represents approximately 60 percent of the available animals, the Gulf of Alaska stock represents approximately 

19 percent, the Northern Resident stock represents approximately 10 percent, and the West Coast Transient represents approximately 11 percent. Takes were then calculated based on the proportional representation of available stocks, which results in 55 Level B harassment takes of 

the Alaska Resident stock, 17 Level B harassment takes of the Gulf of Alaska stock, 8 Level B harassment takes of the Northern Resident stock, 

and 10 Level B harassment takes of the West Coast Transient stock. Total takes for each stock are shown as a percentage of the stock size. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses. 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, NMFS considers two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
104100 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat, as well as 

subsistence uses. This considers the 

nature of the potential adverse impact 

being mitigated (likelihood, scope, 

range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, and 

impact on operations. 

For each IHA, the USCG must: 

• Ensure that construction 

supervisors and crews, the monitoring 

team, and relevant USCG staff are 

trained prior to the start of all pile 

driving and DTH activity, so that 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, monitoring protocols, and 

operational procedures are clearly 

understood. New personnel joining 

during the project must be trained prior 

to commencing work; 

• Employ one to five PSOs and 

establish monitoring locations as 

described in the application and the 

IHA. The USCG must monitor the 

project area to the maximum extent 

possible based on the required number 

of PSOs, required monitoring locations, 

and environmental conditions. For all 

pile driving and removal at least one 

PSO must be used. The PSO will be 

stationed as close to the activity as 

possible; 

• The placement of the PSOs during 

all pile driving and removal and DTH 

activities will ensure that the entire 

shutdown zone is visible during pile 

installation; 

• Monitoring must take place from 30 

minutes prior to initiation of pile 

driving or DTH activity (i.e., pre-activity 

monitoring) through 30 minutes postactivity of pile driving or DTH activity; 

• Pre-activity monitoring must be 

conducted during periods of visibility 

sufficient for the lead PSO to determine 

that the shutdown zones indicated in 

table 13 are clear of marine mammals. 

Pile driving and DTH may commence 

following 30 minutes of observation 

when the determination is made that the 

shutdown zones are clear of marine 

mammals; 

• The USCG must use soft start 

techniques when impact pile driving. 

Soft start requires contractors to provide 

an initial set of three strikes at reduced 

energy, followed by a 30-second waiting 

period, then two subsequent reducedenergy strike sets. A soft start must 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; and 

• If a marine mammal is observed 

entering or within the shutdown zones 

indicated in table 13, pile driving and 

DTH must be delayed or halted. If pile 

driving is delayed or halted due to the 

presence of a marine mammal, the 

activity may not commence or resume 

until either the animal has voluntarily 

exited and been visually confirmed 

beyond the shutdown zone (table 13) or 

15 minutes have passed without redetection of the animal. 

As proposed by the applicant, inwater activities will take place only 

between civil dawn and civil dusk 

(generally 30 minutes after sunrise and 

up to 45 minutes before sunset), and 

work may not begin without sufficient 

daylight to conduct pre-activity 

monitoring, and may extend up to 3 

hours past sunset, as needed to either 

completely remove an in-process pile or 

to embed a new pile far enough to safely 

leave piles in place until work can 

resume the next day; during conditions 

with a Beaufort Sea State of four or less; 

and when the entire shutdown zones are 

visible. 

Protected Species Observers 

The placement of PSOs during all pile 

driving activities (described in 

Monitoring and Reporting) will ensure 

that the entire shutdown zone is visible. 

Should environmental conditions 

deteriorate such that the entire 

shutdown zone will not be visible (e.g., 

fog, heavy rain), pile driving will be 

delayed until the PSO is confident 

marine mammals within the shutdown 

zone could be detected. 

PSOs will monitor the full shutdown 

zones and the Level B harassment zones 

to the extent practicable. 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 areas 

outside the shutdown zones and thus 

prepare for a potential cessation of 

activity should the animal enter the 

shutdown zone. 

Pre- and Post-Activity Monitoring 

Monitoring must take place from 30 

minutes prior to initiation of pile 

driving activities (i.e., pre-clearance 

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

start of daily in-water construction 

activity, or whenever a break in pile 

driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, 

PSOs 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 a 30-minute period. If a 

marine mammal is observed within the 

shutdown zones listed in table 9, pile 

driving activity will be delayed or 

halted. If work ceases for more than 30 

minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of 

the shutdown zones will commence. A 

determination that the shutdown zone is 

clear must be made during a period of 

good visibility (i.e., the entire shutdown 

zone and surrounding waters must be 

visible to the naked eye). 

Soft-Start Procedures for Impact Driving 

Soft-start procedures 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. If impact pile 

driving is necessary to achieve required 

tip elevation, the USCG is required to 

provide an initial set of three strikes 

from the hammer at reduced energy, 

followed by a 30-second waiting period, 

then two subsequent reduced-energy 

strike sets. Soft-start must 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. 

Shutdown Zones 

The USCG must establish shutdown 

zones for all pile driving activities. The 

purpose of a shutdown zone is generally 

to define an area within which 

shutdown of the activity would occur 

upon sighting of a marine mammal (or 

in anticipation of an animal entering the 

defined area). Shutdown zones are 

based upon the Level A harassment 

thresholds for each pile size/type and 

driving method where applicable, as 

shown in table 13. During all in-water 

piling activities, the USCG plans to 

implement a minimum 30-m shutdown 

zone, larger than NMFS’ typical 

requirement of a minimum 10-m 

shutdown zone, with the addition of 

larger zones during DTH. These 

distances exceed the estimated Level A 

harassment isopleths described in tables 

8 and 9. Adherence to this expanded 

shutdown zone will reduce the potential 

for the take of marine mammals by 

Level A harassment but, due to the large 

zone sizes and small, inconspicuous 

nature of five species (Steller sea lion, 

Pacific white-sided dolphin (Moorings 

Seward only), harbor seal, harbor 

porpoise, Dall’s porpoise), the potential 

for Level A harassment cannot be 

completely avoided. If a marine 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 104101 

mammal is observed entering, or 

detected within, a shutdown zone 

during pile driving activity, the activity 

must be stopped until there is visual 

confirmation that the animal has left the 

zone or the animal is not sighted for a 

period of 15 minutes. Shutdown zones 

for each activity type are shown in table 

13. 

All marine mammals would be 

monitored in the Level B harassment 

zones and throughout the area as far as 

visual monitoring can take place. If a 

marine mammal enters the Level B 

harassment zone, in-water activities will 

continue and PSOs will document the 

animal’s presence within the estimated 

harassment zone. 

TABLE 13—SHUTDOWN ZONES AND HARASSMENT ZONES

Activity 

Shutdown 

zone (m) for 

LF 

Shutdown 

zone (m) for 

HF 

Shutdown 

zone (m) for 

VHF 

Shutdown 

zone (m) for 

PW 

Shutdown 

zone (m) for 

OW 

Level B 

harassment 

zone (m) at 

Seward 

Level B 

harassment 

zone (m) at 

Sitka 

Vibratory pile extraction .................................................... 30 30 30 30 30 4,645 6,310 

Impact drive plastic pile .................................................... 30 30 30 30 30 N/A 5 

Impact drive timber pile ..................................................... 30 30 30 30 30 N/A 50 

DTH (Impulsive component) concrete pile ....................... 1,955 85 2,325 1,050 85 39,815 39,815 

Vibratory concrete pile settling .......................................... 30 30 30 30 30 7,360 7,360 

Impact drive concrete pile proofing ................................... 30 30 30 30 30 545 545 

Note: Level A (AUD INJ onset) harassment will only potentially result from DTH rock socket drilling activities that will generate underwater noise in exceedance of 

Level A harassment thresholds for all marine mammal hearing groups beyond the 30-m shutdown zone that will be implemented for all in-water activities. Therefore, 

larger shutdown zones will be implemented during DTH activities and at least two additional PSOs will be assigned to a captained vessel at one or more monitoring 

locations that provide full views of the shutdown zones and as much of the monitoring zones as possible. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s planned measures, NMFS 

has determined that the planned 

mitigation measures provide the means 

of effecting the least practicable impact 

on the affected species or stocks and 

their habitat, paying particular attention 

to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas 

of similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present while conducting the activities. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

activity; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

Marine mammal monitoring must be 

conducted in accordance with the 

conditions in this section and this IHA. 

Marine mammal monitoring during pile 

driving activities would be conducted 

by up to five PSOs meeting NMFS’ 

standards and in a manner consistent 

with the following: 

• PSOs must be independent of the 

activity contractor (for example, 

employed by a subcontractor) and have 

no other assigned tasks during 

monitoring periods; 

• At least one PSO would have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; 

• Other PSOs may substitute other 

relevant experience, education (degree 

in biological science or related field), or 

training for prior experience performing 

the duties of a PSO during construction 

activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued 

incidental take authorization; 

• A team of three PSOs (up to five 

PSOs) at up to three locations (including 

two PSOs on a captained vessel in the 

case of a five-member team) will 

conduct the marine protected species 

monitoring depending on the activity 

and size of the relevant shutdown and 

monitoring zones; 

• Where a team of three or more PSOs 

is required, a lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator must be 

designated. The lead observer must have 

prior experience performing the duties 

of a PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; 

• For activities with monitoring zones 

beyond the visual range of a single PSO 

(i.e., DTH), additional monitoring 

locations or the use of a vessel with 

captain and up to three other PSOs 

(depending on size of the monitoring 

zones) will conduct monitoring; and 

• PSOs must be approved by NMFS 

prior to beginning any activity subject to 

the IHA. 

PSOs should have the following 

additional qualifications: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
104102 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior; and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

For all pile driving activities, at least 

one PSO must be stationed at the best 

possible vantage point to monitor the 

shutdown zones and as much of the 

Level B harassment zones as possible. A 

team of three or five PSOs at up to three 

locations (including two PSOs on a 

captained vessel in the case of a fivemember team) would conduct marine 

mammal monitoring depending on the 

activity and size of monitoring zones. 

PSOs would be equipped with high 

quality binoculars for monitoring and 

radios or cells phones for maintaining 

contact with work crews. Monitoring 

would be conducted 30 minutes before, 

during, and 30 minutes after all in-water 

construction activities. In addition, 

PSOs would record all incidents of 

marine mammal occurrence, regardless 

of distance from activity, and would 

document any behavioral reactions in 

concert with distance from piles being 

driven or removed. Pile driving 

activities include the time to install or 

remove a single pile or series of piles, 

as long as the time elapsed between uses 

of the pile driving equipment is no more 

than 30 minutes. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal activities for 

each IHA, or 60 days prior to a 

requested date of issuance from any 

future IHAs for projects at the same 

location, whichever comes first. The 

report will include an overall 

description of work completed, a 

narrative regarding marine mammal 

sightings, and associated PSO data 

sheets. The USCG must submit all PSO 

data electronically in a format that can 

be queried such as a spreadsheet or 

database (i.e., digital images of data 

sheets are not sufficient). 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, vibratory, DTH) and the 

total equipment duration for vibratory 

removal 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: 

Æ Name of PSO who sighted the 

animal(s) and PSO location and activity 

at the time of sighting; 

Æ Time of sighting; 

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

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentifiable), PSO 

confidence in identification, and the 

composition of the group if there is a 

mix of species; 

Æ 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); 

Æ Estimated number of animals (min/ 

max/best estimate); 

Æ Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, 

group composition, sex class, etc.); 

Æ Animal’s closest point of approach 

and estimated time spent within the 

harassment zone; and 

Æ Description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses thought to have resulted from 

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

in behavioral state such as ceasing 

feeding, changing direction, flushing, or 

breaching); 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected within the harassment zones 

and shutdown zones; by species; and 

• Detailed information about any 

implementation of any mitigation 

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

description of specific actions that 

ensured, and resulting changes in 

behavior of the animal(s), if any. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft reports 

will constitute the final reports. 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 event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

USCG must immediately cease the 

specified activities and report the 

incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources (PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@

noaa.gov and ITP.clevenstine@

noaa.gov), NMFS, and to the Alaska 

Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon 

as feasible. If the death or injury was 

clearly caused by the specified activity, 

the USCG must immediately cease the 

specified activities until NMFS is able 

to review the circumstances of the 

incident and determine what, if any, 

additional measures are appropriate to 

ensure compliance with the terms of the 

IHA. The IHA-holder must not resume 

their activities until notified by NMFS. 

The report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

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, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 104103 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the regulatory status of the 

species, population size and growth rate 

where known, ongoing sources of 

human-caused mortality, or ambient 

noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, the discussion of 

our analysis applies to all the species 

listed in table 1 at both project 

locations, given that the anticipated 

effects of this activity on these different 

marine mammal stocks are expected to 

be similar in Seward and Sitka. There is 

little information about the nature or 

severity of the impacts, or the size, 

status, or structure of any of these 

species or stocks that would lead to a 

different analysis for this activity. 

Pile driving and DTH activities 

associated with the specified activities, 

as described previously, have the 

potential to disturb or displace marine 

mammals. Specifically, the specified 

activities may result in take in the form 

of Level B harassment only for all 

species other than the Steller sea lion, 

harbor seal, Pacific white-sided dolphin, 

harbor porpoise, and Dall’s porpoise 

from underwater sounds generated from 

pile driving and DTH. Potential takes 

could occur if individual marine 

mammals are present in the ensonified 

areas when pile driving or DTH is 

occurring. 

No serious injury or mortality would 

be expected, even in the absence of 

required mitigation measures, given the 

nature of the activities. For all species 

other than Steller sea lion, harbor seal, 

Pacific white-sided dolphin, harbor 

porpoise, and Dall’s porpoise, no Level 

A harassment is anticipated due to the 

confined nature of the facilities, ability 

to position PSOs at stations from which 

they can observe the entire shutdown 

zones, and the high visibility of the 

species expected to be present at each 

site. The potential for injury is small for 

mid- and low-frequency cetaceans and 

sea lions, and is expected to be 

essentially eliminated through 

implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures—soft start (for 

impact driving), and shutdown zones. 

Further, no take by Level A harassment 

is anticipated for killer whales, 

humpback whales, gray whales, fin 

whales, or minke whales due to the 

application of planned mitigation 

measures and the small Level A 

harassment zones (for killer whales 

only). The potential for harassment will 

be minimized through the construction 

method and the implementation of the 

planned mitigation measures (see 

Mitigation section). 

Take by Level A harassment is 

authorized for Steller sea lion, harbor 

seal, Pacific white-sided dolphin, harbor 

porpoise, and Dall’s porpoise. Due to 

their inconspicuous nature, it is 

possible individuals of these species 

could enter the Level A harassment 

zone undetected and remain within that 

zone for a duration long enough to incur 

AUD INJ. Any take by Level A 

harassment is expected to arise from, at 

most, a small degree of AUD INJ (i.e., 

minor degradation of hearing 

capabilities within regions of hearing 

that align most completely with the 

energy produced by impact pile driving 

such as the low-frequency region below 

2 kHz), not severe hearing impairment 

or impairment within the ranges of 

greatest hearing sensitivity. Animals 

would need to be exposed to higher 

levels and/or longer duration than are 

expected to occur here in order to incur 

any more than a small degree of AUD 

INJ. 

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; 

• Level A harassment would be very 

small amounts and of low degree; 

• Level B harassment would be 

primarily in the form of behavioral 

disturbance, resulting in avoidance of 

the project areas around where piling is 

occurring, with some low-level TTS that 

may limit the detection of acoustic cues 

for relatively brief amounts of time in 

relatively confined footprints of the 

activities; 

• The ensonified areas are very small 

relative to the overall habitat ranges of 

all species and stocks, and would not 

adversely affect ESA-designated critical 

habitat for any species or any areas of 

known biological importance; 

• The amount of take authorized 

accounts for no more than, at most, 3 

percent of any stock that may occur in 

the project areas; 

• The lack of anticipated significant 

or long-term negative effects to marine 

mammal habitat; and 

• The implementation of mitigation 

measures to minimize the number of 

marine mammals exposed to injurious 

levels of sound and ensure take by Level 

A harassment is, at most, a small degree 

of AUD INJ. 

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 

planned 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. 

The amount of take NMFS has 

authorized is below one-third of the 

estimated stock abundance of all species 

and stocks (take of individuals is less 

than 3 percent of the abundance of the 

affected stocks at Moorings Seward and 

Moorings Sitka; see tables 11 and 12). 

This is likely a conservative estimate 

because it assumes all takes are of 

different individual animals, which is 

likely not the case. Some individuals 

may return multiple times in a day but 

PSOs would count them as separate 

takes if they cannot be individually 

identified. 

There are no valid abundance 

estimates available for humpback 

whales (Mexico-North Pacific stock), fin 

whales (Northeast Pacific stock), minke 

whales (Alaska stock), Dall’s porpoises 

(Alaska stock), and harbor porpoises 

(Yakutat/Southeast Alaska Offshore 

Waters stock). There is no recent stock 

abundance estimate for the MexicoNorth Pacific stock of humpback whale 

and the minimum population is 

considered unknown (Young et al., 

2023). There are 2 minimum population 

estimates for this stock that are over 15 

years old: 2,241 (Martı ́nez-Aguilar, 

2011) and 766 (Wade, 2021). Using 

either of these estimates, the three takes 

by Level B harassment authorized (two 

at Moorings Seward, one at Moorings 

Sitka) represent small numbers of the 

stock. Muto et al. (2021) estimate the 

minimum stock size for the Northeast 

Pacific stock of fin whale for the areas 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
104104 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 

surveyed is 2,554 individuals. 

Therefore, the three takes by Level B 

harassment of this stock at Moorings 

Seward represent small numbers of this 

stock. There is also no current 

abundance estimate of the Alaska stock 

of minke whale but over 2,000 

individuals were documented in areas 

recently surveyed (Muto et al., 2021). 

Therefore, the 22 takes by Level B 

harassment at Moorings Sitka represent 

small numbers of this stock, even if each 

take occurred to a new individual. 

The most recent stock abundance 

estimate of the Alaska stock of Dall’s 

porpoise was 83,400 animals and, 

although the estimate is more than 8 

years old, it is unlikely this stock has 

drastically declined since that time. 

Therefore, the 72 takes authorized, 15 

by Level A and 57 by Level B 

harassment (6 total at Moorings Seward, 

66 total at Moorings Sitka), represent 

small numbers of this stock. A current 

stock-wide abundance estimate for the 

Yakutat/Southeast Alaska Offshore 

Waters stock of harbor porpoises in 

offshore waters (which includes 

Moorings Sitka) is not available (Young 

et al., 2023). However, Muto et al. 

(2021) estimate the minimum stock size 

for the areas surveyed is 1,057 

individuals. Therefore, the 35 takes 

authorized at Moorings Sitka (3 by Level 

A harassment, 32 by Level B 

harassment) represent small numbers of 

this stock. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the activity (including the 

planned mitigation and monitoring 

measures) and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals 

would be taken relative to the 

population size of the affected species 

or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must 

find that the specified activity will not 

have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ 

on the subsistence uses of the affected 

marine mammal species or stocks by 

Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity: (1) That is likely to 

reduce the availability of the species to 

a level insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 

hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing 

subsistence users; or (iii) Placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; 

and (2) That cannot be sufficiently 

mitigated by other measures to increase 

the availability of marine mammals to 

allow subsistence needs to be met. 

There are two species of marine 

mammals analyzed herein that have 

been taken as part of subsistence 

harvests in Resurrection Bay and 

southeast Alaska: Steller sea lion and 

harbor seal. The most recent data on 

subsistence-harvested marine mammals 

near Seward is of harbor seals in 2002, 

and the most recent data near Sitka is 

of both harbor seals and Steller sea lions 

in 2013 (ADFG, 2013). The most recent 

subsistence hunt survey data available 

indicated approximately 11 percent of 

Sitka households used subsistencecaught marine mammals (Sill and 

Koster, 2013) and no data is available 

since that time. 

The project is not likely to adversely 

impact the availability of any marine 

mammal species or stocks that are 

commonly used for subsistence 

purposes or impact subsistence harvest 

of marine mammals in the region. 

Although the activities are located in 

regions where subsistence harvests have 

occurred historically, subsistence 

harvest of marine mammals is rare in 

the project areas and local subsistence 

users have not expressed concern about 

this project. Both locations are adjacent 

to heavily traveled industrialized 

waterways and all project activities will 

take place within closed and secured 

waterfronts where subsistence activities 

do not generally occur. The project also 

will not have an adverse impact on the 

availability of marine mammals for 

subsistence use at locations farther 

away, where the construction activities 

are not expected to take place. Some 

minor, short-term harassment of Steller 

sea lions and harbor seals could occur, 

but any effects on subsistence harvest 

activities in the project areas will be 

minimal, and not have an adverse 

impact. 

Based on the description of the 

specified activity and the measures 

described to minimize adverse effects 

on the availability of marine mammals 

for subsistence purposes, and the 

planned mitigation and monitoring 

measures, NMFS has determined that 

there will not be an unmitigable adverse 

impact on subsistence uses from the 

USCG’s activities. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each 

Federal agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with the Alaska Regional 

Office. 

There are three marine mammal 

species (Western DPS Steller sea lion, 

Mexico-North Pacific stock of 

humpback whale, and the Northeast 

Pacific stock of fin whale) with 

confirmed occurrence in the project 

areas that are listed as endangered 

under the ESA. The NMFS Alaska 

Regional Office Protected Resources 

Division issued a Biological Opinion on 

December 3, 2024, under section 7 of 

the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to 

the USCG under section 101(a)(5)(D) of 

the MMPA by the NMFS Permits and 

Conservation Division. The Biological 

Opinion concluded that the proposed 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of Western DPS 

Steller sea lion, Mexico DPS of 

humpback whale, the Western North 

Pacific DPS of humpback whale, or the 

Northeast Pacific stock of fin whale, and 

is not likely to destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat for Western DPS 

Steller sea lion, Mexico DPS of 

humpback whale, the Western North 

Pacific DPS of humpback whale, or the 

Northeast Pacific stock of fin whale. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NAO 216– 

6A, which do not individually or 

cumulatively have the potential for 

significant impacts on the quality of the 

human environment and for which we 

have not identified any extraordinary 

circumstances that would preclude this 

categorical exclusion. Accordingly, 

NMFS has determined that the issuance 

of these IHAs qualify to be categorically 

excluded from further NEPA review. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued 2 IHAs to the USCG 

for the potential harassment of small 

numbers of 11 marine mammal species 

incidental to construction of FRC 

homeporting docks in Seward and Sitka, 

Alaska, that includes the previously 

explained mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 104105 

Dated: December 17, 2024. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30455 Filed 12–19–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XE514] 

Endangered Species; File No. 21516 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for 

permit modification and request for 

public comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS received a request from 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

doing business as (d.b.a), Dominion 

Virginia Power (Dominion) for 

modification of an incidental take 

permit, pursuant to the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) for activities 

associated with the otherwise lawful 

continued operation and maintenance of 

the Dominion Chesterfield Power 

Station in Chesterfield, VA. We are 

publishing this notice to inform the 

public that we are considering reissuing the permit, with modifications, 

to authorize additional take of Atlantic 

sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus) from the Chesapeake Bay 

Distinct Population Segment. 

DATES: To allow for timely processing of 

the permit application, we must receive 

your comments no later than January 21, 

2025. 

ADDRESSES: The application is available 

for download and review at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

endangered-species-conservation/ 

incidental-take-permits and at https://

www.regulations.gov. The application is 

also available upon request (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

You may submit comments, identified 

by NOAA–NMFS–2024–0125, by either 

of the following methods. 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal https://

www.regulations.gov and type NOAA– 

NMFS–2024–0125 in the Search box. 

Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Email: Submit information to 

Lynn.Lankshear@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the specified period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on https://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.) 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information submitted voluntarily by 

the sender is publicly accessible. NMFS 

will accept anonymous comments (enter 

‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish 

to remain anonymous). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lynn Lankshear, Lynn.Lankshear@

noaa.gov or (978) 282–8473. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dominion 

is requesting modification of their 

Incidental Take Permit (ITP) (No. 

21516–01) to include the annual 

incidental capture of up to 18,363 

Atlantic sturgeon eggs for the duration 

of the permit (i.e., through December 30, 

2025). All of the eggs would belong to 

the Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population 

Segment (DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon that 

is listed as endangered. 

Atlantic sturgeon spawn in welloxygenated, flowing freshwater over 

hard substrate with interstitial spaces 

(e.g., gravel, cobble) of tidally-affected 

rivers. Male and female Atlantic 

sturgeon must spawn (i.e., release milt 

and eggs, respectively) in close 

proximity to each other and at the same 

time for fertilization of some eggs to 

occur. The eggs become sticky within 

minutes of being fertilized and adhere to 

the substrate for the relatively short and 

temperature-dependent period of 

development prior to hatching (Ryder 

1888; Dees 1961; Murawski and Pacheco 

1977; Hilton et al. 2016; Siddique et al. 

2016). 

Unfertilized eggs that float away from 

the spawning site are not expected to be 

fertilized at a later time because milt 

released elsewhere by a male sturgeon 

would be quickly dispersed and diluted 

by the flowing river water making a 

chance encounter between an 

unfertilized egg and an Atlantic 

sturgeon sperm cell highly unlikely. 

Male Atlantic sturgeon move to the 

spawning grounds before females and 

then search for or follow females as each 

female moves onto the spawning 

grounds (Hilton et al. 2016; NOAA 

2017; Breece et al. 2021). The scrapes 

and abrasions observed on male Atlantic 

sturgeon captured during the spawning 

season support that, similar to Gulf 

sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

and other sturgeon species, male 

Atlantic sturgeon rub against the female 

during spawning which induces the 

female to release her eggs at the same 

time as the male is releasing milt (Ryder 

1888; Bruch and Binkowski 2002; Sulak 

and Randall 2009; Sulak 2014; Balazik 

and Musick 2015). The simultaneous 

release of eggs and milt in the same 

location maximizes the number of eggs 

that are fertilized before river currents 

disperse the eggs and dilute the milt. 

Fertilized eggs that do not adhere to 

the substrate or that become dislodged 

from the substrate before hatching are 

not expected to survive because the 

environmental conditions at the 

spawning site are necessary for egg and 

early life stage survival. The hatchedout embryos and the subsequent larvae 

need well-oxygenated freshwater, and 

the substrate used for spawning 

provides interstitial spaces where the 

early life stages shelter from predators 

(Bain et al. 2000; Kynard and Horgan 

2002; Niklitschek and Secor 2009). A 

number of fish species have been 

identified as likely feeding on the early 

Atlantic sturgeon life stages in the James 

River and in the other Chesapeake Bay 

tributaries (Hilton et al. 2016; Bunch et 

al. 2021; Secor et al. 2022). 

As described above, the best available 

information supports that free-floating 

sturgeon eggs are non-viable. However, 

the take of eggs from Atlantic sturgeon 

listed under the ESA is prohibited 

unless authorized in a permit in 

accordance with 50 CFR 222.307 or 

222.308 or exempted in accordance with 

50 CFR 402. 

NMFS published notice in the 

Federal Register on January 11, 2021 

(86 FR 1945), that we had issued an ITP 

(No. 21516) to Dominion pursuant to the 

ESA of 1973, as amended, for the 

incidental take of Atlantic sturgeon 

larvae (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus) associated with the 

otherwise lawful operation of the 

Dominion Chesterfield Power Station 

(CPS) in Chesterfield, VA. All of the 

larvae would belong to the Chesapeake 

Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon based on 

where CPS is located. The permit was 

issued for a duration of five years. 

In September 2021, Dominion 

captured three Atlantic sturgeon eggs 

belonging to the Chesapeake Bay DPS 

while it was carrying out required 

entrainment monitoring at CPS during a 

high river flow event. Take of Atlantic 

sturgeon eggs was not anticipated or 

authorized in the 2021 permit. 

Dominion presumed that the eggs were 

in the vicinity of CPS because of the 

high river flow event. Therefore, 

Dominion requested modification of 

their permit to authorize the incidental 

take of up to 36,985 Atlantic sturgeon 

eggs belonging to the Chesapeake Bay 

DPS during anticipated high river flow 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1