1084 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 

initial issuance application package will 

be considered incomplete until the 

required information is submitted. 

NMFS will decline to act on an 

incomplete application. 

NMFS will issue LE DSBG permits to 

approved applicants under tier 9 on a 

first come, first served basis, according 

to the date and time that their 

application was submitted through the 

National Permits System. NMFS will 

issue up to 25 permits each year. If 

NMFS approves more than 25 

applications in a single year, the 

approved applicants above 25 (who 

were not issued a permit) will receive 

priority for permit issuance the 

following year, according to the date 

and time that their complete 

applications were received. 

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

Dated: December 17, 2024. 

Kelly Denit, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30443 Filed 1–6–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XE481] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the City of 

Hoonah’s Cargo Dock Project, Hoonah, 

Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the City of Hoonah (Hoonah) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to pile driving and removal 

activities associated with the Hoonah 

Cargo Dock project in Hoonah, Alaska. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to incidentally take 

marine mammals during the specified 

activities. NMFS is also requesting 

comments on a possible one-time, 1- 

year renewal that could be issued under 

certain circumstances and if all 

requirements are met. NMFS will 

consider public comments prior to 

making any final decision on the 

issuance of the requested MMPA 

authorization and agency responses will 

be summarized in the final notice of our 

decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than February 6, 

2025. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service and should be 

submitted via email to 

ITP.wachtendonk@noaa.gov. Electronic 

copies of the application and supporting 

documents, as well as a list of the 

references cited in this document, may 

be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

these documents, please call the contact 

listed below. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

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

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

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel Wachtendonk, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427– 

8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

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

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

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

proposed or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA 

is provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of the takings. The definitions 

of all applicable MMPA statutory terms 

used above are included in the relevant 

sections below and can be found in 

section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) 

and NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 

216.103. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NAO 216– 

6A, which do not individually or 

cumulatively have the potential for 

significant impacts on the quality of the 

human environment and for which we 

have not identified any extraordinary 

circumstances that would preclude this 

categorical exclusion. Accordingly, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the issuance of the proposed IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

Summary of Request 

May 10, 2024, NMFS received a 

request from Hoonah for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to pile 

driving and removal activities 

associated with the Hoonah Cargo Dock 

project in Hoonah, Alaska. Following 

NMFS’ review of the application, 

Hoonah submitted a revised versions on 

September 10, 2024 and October 15, 

2024. The application was deemed 

adequate and complete on October 22, 

2024. Hoonah’s request is for take of 8 

species of marine mammals by Level B 

harassment and, for a subset of these 

species, Level A harassment. Neither 

Hoonah nor NMFS expect serious injury 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 1085 

or mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

NMFS previously issued an IHA to 

Hoonah for the Hoonah Cargo Dock 

project (86 FR 27410, May 20, 2021), 

and later changed the effective dates of 

the IHA in a re-issuance (87 FR 27571, 

May 9, 2022). However, due to COVID 

and inflation no work under the IHA 

was conducted. Since then, Hoonah has 

made several changes to their project 

plan and, therefore, a new IHA is 

appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

Hoonah is proposing to install a cargo 

dock at the Hoonah Marine Industrial 

Center (HMIC) in Hoonah, Alaska 

(figure 1). The purpose of this project is 

to install a dock that will enable barges 

to land, unload, and load during all 

tidal conditions and seasons. The 

project is needed to allow for the safe, 

reliable, and economical transport of 

freight to and from Hoonah, which is 

only accessible by air and sea. The 

construction of the sheet pile cargo 

dock, barge ramp, and breasting 

dolphins will require impact and 

vibratory pile installation and downthe-hole (DTH) drilling (referred to as 

tension anchoring). 

Sounds resulting from pile driving, 

pile removal, and tension anchoring 

may result in the incidental take of 

marine mammals by Level A and Level 

B harassment in the form of auditory 

injury or behavioral harassment. 

Underwater sound would be 

constrained to Port Fredrick and would 

be truncated by land masses in the inlet. 

Construction activities would start in 

September 2025 and last 5 months. 

Dates and Duration 

The proposed IHA would be effective 

from September 1, 2025 through August 

31, 2026. Vibratory and impact pile 

driving and tension anchoring are 

expected to start in September 2025 and 

take 107 days over a span of 5 months. 

All pile driving and removal would be 

completed during daylight hours. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The project would take place at the 

HMIC in Hoonah, Alaska, which is 

located within Port Fredrick on Icy 

Strait. The proposed dock would be 

constructed at an existing barge ramp, 

adjacent to the Hoonah ferry terminal 

and tank farm. 

Detailed Description of the Specified 

Activity 

The construction of the sheet pile 

cargo dock, barge ramp, and breasting 

dolphins will include the installation of 

542 (330 linear feet (ft), or 100.6 linear 

meters (m)) steel sheet piles, 5 steel wye 

piles, 1 steel X pile, 3 20-inch (in), or 

0.51-m steel fender piles, 2 16-in (0.41 

m) fender piles, 7 H-piles, 4 36-in (0.91 

m) steel pipe piles, and 6 36-in (0.91 m) 

steel batter piles. The installation and 

removal of 50 temporary 24-in (0.61 m) 

steel pipe piles will be completed to 

support the permanent pile installation. 

Piles will be installed with vibratory 

and impact hammers, and temporary 

piles will be removed with a vibratory 

hammer. 8-to-10-in (0.20 to 0.25 m) steel 

pipe casings will be placed in each steel 

pipe/batter piles as tension anchors and 

set with tension anchoring. Table 1 

provides a summary of the pile driving 

activities. 

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

Activity Pile type and size Number 

of piles Method Piles per day 

Total 

days 

Installation ................. 24-in temporary steel pipe pile ...................................................... 50 Vibratory ................... 6 9 

Steel sheet pile .............................................................................. 542 ................................... 30 19 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1EN07JA25.050</GPH>

Figure 1 -- Map of Proposed Project Area in Hoonah, Alaska 

I I I I 
1086 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 

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

Activity Pile type and size Number 

of piles Method Piles per day 

Total 

days 

Steel wye pile ................................................................................ 5 ................................... 2 3 

Steel X pile .................................................................................... 1 ................................... 1 1 

20-in steel fender pile .................................................................... 3 ................................... 3 1 

16-in steel fender pile .................................................................... 2 ................................... 2 1 

Steel H-pile .................................................................................... 7 ................................... 2 4 

36-in steel pipe pile ....................................................................... 4 ................................... 2 2 

36-in steel batter pile ..................................................................... 6 ................................... 2 2 

Steel sheet pile .............................................................................. 542 Impact ....................... 15 36 

Steel wye pile ................................................................................ 5 ................................... 2 3 

Steel X pile .................................................................................... 1 ................................... 1 1 

20-in steel fender pile .................................................................... 3 ................................... 3 1 

16-in steel fender pile .................................................................... 2 ................................... 2 1 

Steel H-pile .................................................................................... 7 ................................... 2 4 

36-in steel pipe pile ....................................................................... 4 ................................... 2 2 

36-in steel batter pile ..................................................................... 6 ................................... 4 2 

8-to-10-in pipe casing drilling ........................................................ 10 Tension Anchoring ... 2 5 

Removal .................... 24-in temporary steel pipe pile ...................................................... 50 Vibratory ................... 6 9 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. NMFS fully considered 

all of this information, and we refer the 

reader to these descriptions, instead of 

reprinting the information. Additional 

information regarding population trends 

and threats may be found in NMFS’ 

Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments) 

and more general information about 

these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’ website (https://

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

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for this activity and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. PBR is defined by the 

MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’ SARs). While no 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or proposed to be authorized here, PBR 

and annual serious injury and mortality 

(M/SI) from anthropogenic sources are 

included here as gross indicators of the 

status of the species or stocks and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ U.S. Alaska and Pacific SARs. 

All values presented in table 2 are the 

most recent available at the time of 

publication and are available online at: 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments. 

TABLE 2—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

Order Artiodactyla—Cetacea—Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals) 

Humpback Whale ...................... Megaptera novaeangliae .......... Mainland Mexico—CA/OR/WA T, D, Y 3,477 (0.101, 3,185, 

2018).

43 22 

Hawai1i ...................................... -, -, N 11,278 (0.56, 7,265, 

2020).

127 27.09 

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

Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae 

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

Resident.

-, -, N 1,920 (N/A, 1,920, 

2019) 6.

19 1.3 

Eastern Northern Pacific Northern Resident.-, -, N 302 (N/A, 302, 2018) 6 .... 2.2 0.2 

West Coast Transient ............... -, -, N 349 (N/A, 349, 2018) 7 .... 3.5 0.4 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I 

I I I 

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 1087 

TABLE 2—SPECIES 1 LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES—Continued 

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

Pacific White-Sided Dolphin ...... Lagenorhynchus obliquidens .... N Pacific .................................... -, -, N 26,880 (N/A, N/A, 1990) UND 0 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

Dall’s Porpoise ........................... Phocoenoides dalli .................... AK ............................................. -, -, N UND (UND, UND, 

2015) 8.

UND 37 

Harbor Porpoise ......................... Phocoena phocoena ................. Northern Southeast Alaska Inland Waters 9.

-, -, N 1,619 (0.26, 1,250, 2019) 13 5.6 

Order Carnivora—Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

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

2022) 10.

299 267 

Eastern ...................................... -, -, N 36,308 (N/A, 36,308, 

2022) 11.

2,178 93.2 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor Seal ................................ Phoca vitulina ........................... Glacier Bay/Icy Strait ................ -, -, N 7,455 (N/A, 6,680, 2017) 120 104 

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. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 4These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated 

mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 5 Reliable population estimates are not available for this stock. Please see Friday et al. (2013) and Zerbini et al. (2006) for additional information on numbers of 

minke whales in Alaska. 6 Nest is based upon counts of individuals identified from photo-ID catalogs. 7 Nest is based upon count of individuals identified from photo-ID catalogs in analysis of a subset of data from 1958–2018. 8The best available abundance estimate is likely an underestimate for the entire stock because it is based upon a survey that covered only a small portion of the 

stock’s range. 9 New stock split from Southeast Alaska stock. 

10 Nest is best estimate of counts, which have not been corrected for animals at sea during abundance surveys. Estimates provided are for the United States only. 

The overall Nmin is 73,211 and overall PBR is 439. 11 Nest is best estimate of counts, which have not been corrected for animals at sea during abundance surveys. Estimates provided are for the United States only. 

As indicated above, all 8 species (with 

12 managed stocks) in table 2 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur. All species 

that could potentially occur in the 

project area are included in table 6 of 

the IHA application. While gray whales 

and sperm whales have been 

documented in the area, the temporal 

and/or spatial occurrence of these 

species is such that take is not expected 

to occur, and they are not discussed 

further beyond the explanation 

provided here. Gray whales are 

considered to be very rare (no local 

knowledge of sightings in the project 

area) and sperm whales are considered 

to be rare (no sightings in recent years) 

within the project area. 

Additional information relevant to 

our analyses (beyond that included 

above, in the application, and on NMFS 

website) is included below, as 

appropriate. In addition, the Northern 

sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) may 

be found in the project area. However, 

sea otters are managed by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and are not 

considered further in this document. 

Humpback Whale 

The Mainland Mexico—CA/OR/WA 

and Hawaii stocks of humpback whale 

occur in the project area. Wild et al. 

(2023) identified Glacier Bay and Icy 

Strait as a Biologically Important Area 

(BIA) for humpback whales for feeding 

during the months of May through 

October, with an importance score of 

two (indicating an area of moderate 

importance), an intensity score of two 

(indicating an area of moderate 

comparative significance) and a data 

support score of three (highest relative 

confidence in the available supporting 

data). Humpback whales have been 

observed within Port Fredrick and Icy 

Strait, with most sightings occurring 

from late May through October 

(SolsticeAK 2024). 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions were listed as 

threatened range-wide under the ESA 

on November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). 

Steller sea lions were subsequently 

partitioned into the western and eastern 

Distinct Population Segments (DPSs; 

western and eastern stocks) in 1997 (62 

FR 24345, May 5, 1997). The eastern 

DPS remained classified as threatened 

until it was delisted in November 2013. 

The western DPS (those individuals 

west of the 144° W longitude or Cape 

Suckling, Alaska) was upgraded to 

endangered status following separation 

of the DPSs, and it remains endangered 

today. There is regular movement of 

both DPSs across this 144° W longitude 

boundary especially within a core 

mixing zone (Jemison et al., 2013). The 

proposed project is located outside of 

the known core mixing zone of eastern 

DPS and western DPS Steller sea lions; 

however, western DPS animals have 

been recorded within the Lynn Canal 

extended mixing zone which includes 

the proposed project area (Hastings et 

al., 2020; Jemison et al., 2013). 

Therefore, while both DPSs could be 

observed within the project area, most 

are expected to be from the unlisted 

eastern DPS. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I 

I I I I 

I I I I 
1088 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 

Steller sea lions do not follow 

traditional migration patterns, but will 

move from offshore rookeries in the 

summer to more protected haulouts 

closer to shore in the winter. They use 

rookeries and haulouts as resting spots 

as they follow prey movements and take 

foraging trips for days, usually within a 

few miles (mi) of their rookery or 

haulout. They are generalist marine 

predators and opportunistic feeders 

based on seasonal abundance and 

location of prey. Steller sea lions forage 

in nearshore as well as offshore areas, 

following prey resources. They are 

highly social and are often observed in 

large groups while hauled out but alone 

or in small groups when at sea (NMFS 

2023b). 

Steller sea lions are common in the 

proposed project area and reside in the 

area year-round. The nearest rookery to 

the proposed project is White Sisters 

(∼72 kilometers (km) (44.5 mi southwest 

of project) and the nearest major haulout 

is The Sisters (13 km (8 mi) northeast 

of project) (AFSC 2023). 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

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

and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 

2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. 

(2007, 2019) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into hearing 

groups based on directly measured 

(behavioral or auditory evoked potential 

techniques) or estimated hearing ranges 

(behavioral response data, anatomical 

modeling, etc.). Generalized hearing 

ranges were chosen based on the ∼65 

decibel (dB) threshold from composite 

audiograms, previous analyses in NMFS 

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

(2007) and Southall et al. (2019). We 

note that the names of two hearing 

groups and the generalized hearing 

ranges of all marine mammal hearing 

groups have been recently updated 

(NMFS 2024) as reflected below in in 

table 3. 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2024a] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

UNDERWATER: 

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. 

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

hearing ranges may not be as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from composite audiogram, previous analysis in NMFS 2018, and/or data from Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2019. Additionally, animals are able to detect very loud sounds above 

and below that ‘‘generalized’’ hearing range. 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2024a) for a review of 

available information. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section provides a discussion of 

the ways in which components of the 

specified activity may impact marine 

mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

section later in this document includes 

a quantitative analysis of the number of 

individuals that are expected to be taken 

by this activity. The Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination section 

considers the content of this section, the 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

section, and the Proposed Mitigation 

section, to draw conclusions regarding 

the likely impacts of these activities on 

the reproductive success or survivorship 

of individuals and whether those 

impacts are reasonably expected to, or 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Description of Sound Sources 

The marine soundscape is comprised 

of both ambient and anthropogenic 

sounds. Ambient sound is defined as 

the all-encompassing sound in a given 

place and is usually a composite of 

sound from many sources both near and 

far. The sound level of an area is 

defined by the total acoustical energy 

being generated by known and 

unknown sources. These sources may 

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

precipitation, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, 

dredging, aircraft, construction). 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

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

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and shipping activity) but 

also on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10 to 20 dB from day to day 

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

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the project would 

include impact pile installation, 

vibratory pile installation and removal, 

and tension anchoring. Impact hammers 

typically operate by repeatedly 

dropping and/or pushing a heavy piston 

onto a pile to drive the pile into the 

substrate. Sound generated by impact 

hammers is impulsive, characterized by 

rapid rise times and high peak levels, a 

potentially injurious combination 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 1089 

(Hastings and Popper, 2005). Vibratory 

hammers install piles by vibrating them 

and allowing the weight of the hammer 

to push them into the sediment. 

Vibratory hammers typically produce 

less sound (i.e., lower levels) than 

impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be 180 

dB or greater but are generally 10 to 20 

dB lower than SPLs generated during 

impact pile driving of the same-sized 

pile (Oestman et al., 2009; California 

Department of Transportation 

(CALTRANS), 2015, 2020). Sounds 

produced by vibratory hammers are 

non-impulsive; the rise time is slower, 

reducing the probability and severity of 

injury, and the sound energy is 

distributed over a greater amount of 

time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; 

Carlson et al., 2005). Tension anchoring 

through DTH systems would also be 

used during the proposed construction. 

A DTH hammer is essentially a drill bit 

that drills through the bedrock using a 

rotating function like a normal drill, in 

concert with a hammering mechanism 

operated by a pneumatic (or sometimes 

hydraulic) component integrated into 

the DTH hammer to increase speed of 

progress through the substrate (i.e., it is 

similar to a ‘‘hammer drill’’ hand tool). 

The sounds produced by the DTH 

methods contain both a continuous nonimpulsive component from the drilling 

action and an impulsive component 

from the hammering effect. Therefore, 

NMFS treats DTH systems as both 

impulsive and continuous, nonimpulsive sound source types 

simultaneously. 

The likely or possible impacts of 

Hoonah’s proposed activity on marine 

mammals could involve both nonacoustic and acoustic stressors. 

Potential non-acoustic stressors could 

result from the physical presence of the 

equipment and personnel; however, any 

impacts to marine mammals are 

expected to be primarily acoustic in 

nature. 

Acoustic Impacts 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile driving is the primary means by 

which marine mammals may be 

harassed from the proposed activity. In 

general, animals exposed to natural or 

anthropogenic sound may experience 

physical and psychological effects, 

ranging in magnitude from none to 

severe (Southall et al., 2007). In general, 

exposure to pile driving and tension 

anchoring noise has the potential to 

result in an auditory threshold shift (TS) 

and behavioral reactions (e.g., 

avoidance, temporary cessation of 

foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive 

behavior). Exposure to anthropogenic 

noise can also lead to non-observable 

physiological responses, such as an 

increase in stress hormones. Additional 

noise in a marine mammal’s habitat can 

mask acoustic cues used by marine 

mammals to carry out daily functions 

such as communication and predator 

and prey detection. The effects of pile 

driving noise on marine mammals are 

dependent on several factors, including, 

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

impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the 

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

male vs. mom with calf), duration of 

exposure, the distance between the pile 

and the animal, received levels, 

behavior at time of exposure, and 

previous history with exposure 

(Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 

2007). Here we discuss physical 

auditory effects (threshold shifts) 

followed by behavioral effects and 

potential impacts on habitat. 

NMFS defines a noise-induced TS as 

a change, usually an increase, in the 

threshold of audibility at a specified 

frequency or portion of an individual’s 

hearing range above a previously 

established reference level (NMFS, 

2018). The amount of TS is customarily 

expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent 

or temporary. As described in NMFS 

(2018), there are numerous factors to 

consider when examining the 

consequence of TS, including, but not 

limited to, the signal temporal pattern 

(e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive), 

likelihood an individual would be 

exposed for a long enough duration or 

to a high enough level to induce a TS, 

the magnitude of the TS, time to 

recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to 

days), the frequency range of the 

exposure (i.e., spectral content), the 

hearing frequency range of the exposed 

species relative to the signal’s frequency 

spectrum (i.e., how an animal uses 

sound within the frequency band of the 

signal; e.g., Kastelein et al., 2014), and 

the overlap between the animal and the 

source (e.g., spatial, temporal, and 

spectral). 

Auditory Injury—NMFS defines 

auditory injury as damage to the inner 

ear that can result in destruction of 

tissue . . . which may or may not result 

in permanent threshold shift (PTS; 

NMFS, 2024a). NMFS defines PTS as a 

permanent, irreversible increase in the 

threshold of audibility at a specified 

frequency or portion of an individual’s 

hearing range above a previously 

established reference level (NMFS, 

2024a). PTS does not generally affect 

more than a limited frequency range, 

and an animal that has PTS has incurred 

some level of hearing loss at the relevant 

frequencies; typically, animals with PTS 

are not functionally deaf (Au and 

Hastings, 2008; Finneran, 2016). 

Available data from humans and other 

terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40- 

dB threshold shift approximates PTS 

onset (see Ward et al., 1958, 1959, 1960; 

Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon 

et al., 1996; Henderson et al., 2008). PTS 

levels for marine mammals are 

estimates, as with the exception of a 

single study unintentionally inducing 

PTS in a harbor seal (Kastak et al., 

2008), there are no empirical data 

measuring PTS in marine mammals 

largely due to the fact that, for various 

ethical reasons, experiments involving 

anthropogenic noise exposure at levels 

inducing PTS are not typically pursued 

or authorized (NMFS, 2018). 

Temporary Threshold Shift—TTS is a 

temporary, reversible increase in the 

threshold of audibility at a specified 

frequency or portion of an individual’s 

hearing range above a previously 

established reference level (NMFS, 

2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS 

measurements (Southall et al., 2007, 

2019), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the 

minimum TS clearly larger than any 

day-to-day or session-to-session 

variation in a subject’s normal hearing 

ability (Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran 

et al., 2000, 2002). As described in 

Finneran (2015), marine mammal 

studies have shown the amount of TTS 

increases with cumulative sound 

exposure level (SELcum) in an 

accelerating fashion: At low exposures 

with lower SELcum, the amount of TTS 

is typically small and the growth curves 

have shallow slopes. At exposures with 

higher SELcum, the growth curves 

become steeper and approach linear 

relationships with the noise SEL. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

a time when communication is critical 

for successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. We 

note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 

a simple function of aging has been 

observed in marine mammals, as well as 

humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 

2007), so we can infer that strategies 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
1090 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 

exist for coping with this condition to 

some degree, though likely not without 

cost. 

Many studies have examined noiseinduced hearing loss in marine 

mammals (see Finneran (2015) and 

Southall et al. (2019) for summaries). 

TTS is the mildest form of hearing 

impairment that can occur during 

exposure to sound (Kryter, 2013). While 

experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold 

rises, and a sound must be at a higher 

level in order to be heard. In terrestrial 

and marine mammals, TTS can last from 

minutes or hours to days (in cases of 

strong TTS). In many cases, hearing 

sensitivity recovers rapidly after 

exposure to the sound ends. For 

pinnipeds in water, measurements of 

TTS are limited to harbor seals, 

elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris), 

bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) and 

California sea lions (Zalophus 

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

Kastelein et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2021, 

2022a, 2022b; Reichmuth et al., 2019; 

Sills et al., 2020). These studies 

examined hearing thresholds measured 

in marine mammals before and after 

exposure to intense or long-duration 

sound exposures. The difference 

between the pre-exposure and postexposure thresholds can be used to 

determine the amount of TS at various 

post-exposure times. 

The amount and onset of TTS 

depends on the exposure frequency. 

Sounds at low frequencies, well below 

the region of best sensitivity for a 

species or hearing group, are less 

hazardous than those at higher 

frequencies, near the region of best 

sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 

2013). At low frequencies, onset-TTS 

exposure levels are higher compared to 

those in the region of best sensitivity 

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

to be louder to cause TTS onset when 

TTS exposure level is higher), as shown 

for harbor porpoises and harbor seals 

(Kastelein et al., 2019a, 2019c). Note 

that in general, harbor seals have a 

lower TTS onset than other measured 

pinniped species (Finneran, 2015). In 

addition, TTS can accumulate across 

multiple exposures, but the resulting 

TTS will be less than the TTS from a 

single, continuous exposure with the 

same SEL (Mooney et al., 2009; 

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

2014, 2015). This means that TTS 

predictions based on the total, SELcum

will overestimate the amount of TTS 

from intermittent exposures, such as 

sonars and impulsive sources. 

Nachtigall et al. (2018) describe 

measurements of hearing sensitivity of 

multiple odontocete species (bottlenose 

dolphin, harbor porpoise, beluga, and 

false killer whale (Pseudorca 

crassidens)) when a relatively loud 

sound was preceded by a warning 

sound. These captive animals were 

shown to reduce hearing sensitivity 

when warned of an impending intense 

sound. Based on these experimental 

observations of captive animals, the 

authors suggest that wild animals may 

dampen their hearing during prolonged 

exposures or if conditioned to anticipate 

intense sounds. Additionally, the 

existing marine mammal TTS data come 

from a limited number of individuals 

within these species. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals, but such 

relationships are assumed to be similar 

to those in humans and other terrestrial 

mammals. PTS typically occurs at 

exposure levels at least several dBs 

above that inducing mild TTS (e.g., a 

40-dB TS approximates PTS onset 

(Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974), while 

a 6-dB TS approximates TTS onset 

(Southall et al., 2007, 2019). Based on 

data from terrestrial mammals, a 

precautionary assumption is that the 

PTS thresholds for impulsive sounds 

(such as impact pile driving pulses as 

received close to the source) are at least 

6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on 

a peak-pressure basis and PTS 

cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than 

TTS cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds (Southall et al., 2007, 2019). 

Given the higher level of sound or 

longer exposure duration necessary to 

cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is 

considerably less likely that PTS could 

occur. 

Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to 

noise from pile driving and removal and 

tension anchoring also has the potential 

to behaviorally disturb marine 

mammals. Available studies show wide 

variation in response to underwater 

sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; National 

Research Council (NRC), 2005). 

Disturbance may result in changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); or avoidance 

of areas where sound sources are 

located. Pinnipeds may increase their 

haulout time, possibly to avoid in-water 

disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific and 

any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

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

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

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

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

depending on characteristics associated 

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

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). In 

general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant 

of, or at least habituate more quickly to, 

potentially disturbing underwater sound 

than do cetaceans, and generally seem 

to be less responsive to exposure to 

industrial sound than most cetaceans. 

Please see appendices B–C of Southall 

et al. (2007) and Gomez et al. (2016) for 

a review of studies involving marine 

mammal behavioral responses to sound. 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

(Wartzok et al., 2004). Animals are most 

likely to habituate to sounds that are 

predictable and unvarying. It is 

important to note that habituation is 

appropriately considered as a 

‘‘progressive reduction in response to 

stimuli that are perceived as neither 

aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as, 

more generally, moderation in response 

to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 

2009). The opposite process is 

sensitization, when an unpleasant 

experience leads to subsequent 

responses, often in the form of 

avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. 

As noted above, behavioral state may 

affect the type of response. For example, 

animals that are resting may show 

greater behavioral change in response to 

disturbing sound levels than animals 

that are highly motivated to remain in 

an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 

1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; National 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 1091 

Research Council (NRC), 2005). 

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals have showed 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud sound 

sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran 

et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild 

marine mammals to loud pulsed sound 

sources (e.g., seismic airguns) have been 

varied but often consist of avoidance 

behavior or other behavioral changes 

(Richardson et al., 1995; Morton and 

Symonds, 2002; Nowacek et al., 2007). 

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal (e.g., 

Erbe et al., 2019). If a marine mammal 

does react briefly to an underwater 

sound by changing its behavior or 

moving a small distance, the impacts of 

the change are unlikely to be significant 

to the individual, let alone the stock or 

population. However, if a sound source 

displaces marine mammals from an 

important feeding or breeding area for a 

prolonged period, impacts on 

individuals and populations could be 

significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 

2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 2005). 

However, there are broad categories of 

potential response, which we describe 

in greater detail here, that include 

alteration of dive behavior, alteration of 

foraging behavior, effects to breathing, 

interference with or alteration of 

vocalization, avoidance, and flight. 

Changes in dive behavior can vary 

widely and may consist of increased or 

decreased dive times and surface 

intervals as well as changes in the rates 

of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., 

Frankel and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 

2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et 

al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a, 

2013b, Blair et al., 2016). Variations in 

dive behavior may reflect interruptions 

in biologically significant activities (e.g., 

foraging) or they may be of little 

biological significance. The impact of an 

alteration to dive behavior resulting 

from an acoustic exposure depends on 

what the animal is doing at the time of 

the exposure and the type and 

magnitude of the response. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. In response to playbacks of 

vibratory pile driving sounds, captive 

bottlenose dolphins showed changes in 

target detection and number of clicks 

used for a trained echolocation task 

(Branstetter et al. 2018). Similarly, 

harbor porpoises trained to collect fish 

during playback of impact pile driving 

sounds also showed potential changes 

in behavior and task success, though 

individual differences were prevalent 

(Kastelein et al. 2019d).As for other 

types of behavioral response, the 

frequency, duration, and temporal 

pattern of signal presentation, as well as 

differences in species sensitivity, are 

likely contributing factors to differences 

in response in any given circumstance 

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

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

A flight response is a dramatic change 

in normal movement to a directed and 

rapid movement away from the 

perceived location of a sound source. 

The flight response differs from other 

avoidance responses in the intensity of 

the response (e.g., directed movement, 

rate of travel). Relatively little 

information on flight responses of 

marine mammals to anthropogenic 

signals exist, although observations of 

flight responses to the presence of 

predators have occurred (Connor and 

Heithaus, 1996; Bowers et al., 2018). 

The result of a flight response could 

range from brief, temporary exertion and 

displacement from the area where the 

signal provokes flight to, in extreme 

cases, marine mammal strandings 

(England et al., 2001). However, it 

should be noted that response to a 

perceived predator does not necessarily 

invoke flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), 

and whether individuals are solitary or 

in groups may influence the response. 

Behavioral disturbance can also 

impact marine mammals in more subtle 

ways. Increased vigilance may result in 

costs related to diversion of focus and 

attention (i.e., when a response consists 

of increased vigilance, it may come at 

the cost of decreased attention to other 

critical behaviors such as foraging or 

resting). These effects have generally not 

been demonstrated for marine 

mammals, but studies involving fishes 

and terrestrial animals have shown that 

increased vigilance may substantially 

reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp 

and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; 

Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition, 

chronic disturbance can cause 

population declines through reduction 

of fitness (e.g., decline in body 

condition) and subsequent reduction in 

reproductive success, survival, or both 

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

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

However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported 

that increased vigilance in bottlenose 

dolphins exposed to sound over a 5-day 

period did not cause any sleep 

deprivation or stress effects. 

Stress Responses—An animal’s 

perception of a threat may be sufficient 

to trigger stress responses consisting of 

some combination of behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

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

Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of energetic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor. Autonomic nervous 

system responses to stress typically 

involve changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 

These responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

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

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

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

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

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

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
1092 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 

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

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002a) and, 

more rarely, studied in wild populations 

(e.g., Romano et al., 2002b). For 

example, Rolland et al. (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. These and 

other studies lead to a reasonable 

expectation that some marine mammals 

will experience physiological stress 

responses upon exposure to acoustic 

stressors and that it is possible that 

some of these would be classified as 

‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal 

experiencing TTS would likely also 

experience stress responses (NRC, 

2003), however distress is an unlikely 

result of this project based on 

observations of marine mammals during 

previous, similar projects in the area. 

Masking—Sound can disrupt behavior 

through masking, or interfering with, an 

animal’s ability to detect, recognize, or 

discriminate between acoustic signals of 

interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Masking occurs when the receipt of a 

sound is interfered with by another 

coincident sound at similar frequencies 

and at similar or higher intensity, and 

may occur whether the sound is natural 

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

precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 

pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic 

exploration) in origin. The ability of a 

noise source to mask biologically 

important sounds depends on the 

characteristics of both the noise source 

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

direction), in relation to each other and 

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

sensitivity, frequency range, critical 

ratios, frequency discrimination, 

directional discrimination, age or TTS 

hearing loss), and existing ambient 

noise and propagation conditions. 

Masking of natural sounds can result 

when human activities produce high 

levels of background sound at 

frequencies important to marine 

mammals. Conversely, if the 

background level of underwater sound 

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

and high waves), an anthropogenic 

sound source would not be detectable as 

far away as would be possible under 

quieter conditions and would itself be 

masked. 

Airborne Acoustic Effects—Although 

pinnipeds are known to haul out 

regularly at two harbor seal haulout 

sites within Port Fredrick, NMFS 

expects that incidents of take resulting 

solely from airborne sound are unlikely 

due to their proximity. One of the 

haulouts (CE79A) is located 

approximately 10 km (6.25 mi) from the 

project site and is outside of the 

ensonfied zone for this action. The other 

(CF39A) is located approximately 3 km 

(2 mi) from the project site and will be 

ensonified during some vibratory and 

impact pile driving activities. Neither of 

these haulouts are listed as a ‘‘key 

haulout,’’ or a haulout with 50 or more 

individuals present at the time of survey 

(AFSC 2024). 

Cetaceans are not expected to be 

exposed to airborne sounds that would 

result in harassment as defined under 

the MMPA. Airborne noise would 

primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that 

are swimming or hauled out near the 

project site within the range of noise 

levels elevated above the acoustic 

criteria. We recognize that pinnipeds in 

the water could be exposed to airborne 

sound that may result in behavioral 

harassment when looking with their 

heads above water. Most likely, airborne 

sound would cause behavioral 

responses similar to those discussed 

above in relation to underwater sound. 

For instance, anthropogenic sound 

could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to 

exhibit changes in their normal 

behavior, such as reduction in 

vocalizations, or cause them to 

temporarily abandon the area and move 

further from the source. However, these 

animals would likely previously have 

been ‘‘taken’’ because of exposure to 

underwater sound above the behavioral 

harassment thresholds, which are 

generally larger than those associated 

with airborne sound. Thus, the 

behavioral harassment of these animals 

is already accounted for in these 

estimates of potential take. Therefore, 

we do not believe that authorization of 

incidental take resulting from airborne 

sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and 

airborne sound is not discussed further 

here. 

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects 

Hoonah’s construction activities 

could have localized, temporary impacts 

on marine mammal habitat by 

increasing in-water SPLs and slightly 

decreasing water quality. No net habitat 

loss is expected, since its proposed 

location is an existing barge ramp that 

already experiences frequent vessel 

traffic and is adjacent to an active road, 

ferry terminal, dock, boat haulout pier, 

and boat yard. Construction activities 

are localized and would likely have 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat through increases in underwater 

sounds. Increased noise levels may 

affect acoustic habitat (see masking 

discussion above) and adversely affect 

marine mammal prey in the vicinity of 

the project area (see discussion below). 

During pile driving activities, elevated 

levels of underwater noise would 

ensonify the project area where both 

fishes and marine mammals may occur 

and could affect foraging success. 

Additionally, marine mammals may 

avoid the area during construction; 

however, displacement due to noise is 

expected to be temporary and is not 

expected to result in long-term effects to 

the individuals or populations. 

Temporary and localized reduction in 

water quality would occur because of 

in-water construction activities as well. 

Most of this effect would occur during 

the installation and removal of piles 

when bottom sediments are disturbed. 

The installation of piles would disturb 

bottom sediments and may cause a 

temporary increase in suspended 

sediment in the project area. In general, 

turbidity associated with pile 

installation is localized to about 25-ft 

(7.6-m) radius around the pile (Everitt et 

al., 1980). Pinnipeds are not expected to 

be close enough to the pile driving areas 

to experience effects of turbidity, and 

could avoid localized areas of turbidity. 

Therefore, we expect the impact from 

increased turbidity levels to be 

discountable to marine mammals and 

do not discuss it further. 

In-Water Construction Effects on 

Potential Foraging Habitat 

The proposed activities would not 

result in permanent impacts to habitats 

used directly by marine mammals 

outside of the actual footprint of the 

constructed dock. The total seafloor area 

affected by pile installation and removal 

is a very small area compared to the vast 

foraging area available to marine 

mammals in Port Fredrick and the 

surrounding waters. Pile extraction and 

installation and tension anchoring may 

have impacts on benthic invertebrate 

species primarily associated with 

disturbance of sediments that may cover 

or displace some invertebrates. The 

impacts would be temporary and highly 

localized, and no habitat would be 

permanently displaced by construction. 

Therefore, it is expected that impacts on 

foraging opportunities for marine 

mammals due to construction of the 

dock would be minimal. 

It is possible that avoidance by 

potential prey (i.e., fish) in the 

immediate area may occur due to 

temporary loss of this foraging habitat. 

The duration of fish avoidance of this 

area after pile driving stops is unknown, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 1093 

but we anticipate a rapid return to 

normal recruitment, distribution and 

behavior. Any behavioral avoidance by 

fish of the disturbed area would still 

leave large areas of fish and marine 

mammal foraging habitat in the nearby 

vicinity in the in the project area and 

surrounding waters. 

Effects on Potential Prey 

Construction activities would produce 

continuous (i.e., vibratory pile driving 

and tension anchoring) and intermittent 

(i.e., impact driving and tension 

anchoring) sounds. Sound may affect 

marine mammals through impacts on 

the abundance, behavior, or distribution 

of prey species (e.g., fish). Marine 

mammal prey varies by species, season, 

and location. Here, we describe studies 

regarding the effects of noise on known 

marine mammal prey. 

Fish utilize the soundscape and 

components of sound in their 

environment to perform important 

functions such as foraging, predator 

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

Zelick et al., 1999; Fay, 2009). 

Depending on their hearing anatomy 

and peripheral sensory structures, 

which vary among species, fishes hear 

sounds using pressure and particle 

motion sensitivity capabilities and 

detect the motion of surrounding water 

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

of noise on fishes depends on the 

overlapping frequency range, distance 

from the sound source, water depth of 

exposure, and species-specific hearing 

sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. 

Key impacts to fishes may include 

behavioral responses, hearing damage, 

barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), 

and mortality. 

Fish react to sounds which are 

especially strong and/or intermittent 

low-frequency sounds, and behavioral 

responses, such as flight or avoidance 

are the most likely effects. Short 

duration, sharp sounds can cause overt 

or subtle changes in fish behavior and 

local distribution. The reaction of fish to 

noise depends on the physiological state 

of the fish, past exposures, motivation 

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

other environmental factors. Hastings 

and Popper (2005) identified several 

studies that suggest fish may relocate to 

avoid certain areas of sound energy. 

Additional studies have documented 

effects of pile driving on fish, although 

several are based on studies in support 

of large, multiyear bridge construction 

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

2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). 

Several studies have demonstrated that 

impulse sounds might affect the 

distribution and behavior of some 

fishes, potentially impacting foraging 

opportunities or increasing energetic 

costs (e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley, 

2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 

1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 

2017). However, some studies have 

shown no or slight reaction to impulse 

sounds (e.g., Pena et al., 2013; Wardle 

et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 

2009; Cott et al., 2012). 

SPLs of sufficient strength have been 

known to cause injury to fishes and fish 

mortality (summarized in Popper et al., 

2014). However, in most fish species, 

hair cells in the ear continuously 

regenerate and loss of auditory function 

likely is restored when damaged cells 

are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen 

et al. (2012a) showed that a TTS of 4 to 

6 dB was recoverable within 24 hours 

for one species. Impacts would be most 

severe when the individual fish is close 

to the source and when the duration of 

exposure is long. Injury caused by 

barotrauma can range from slight to 

severe and can cause death, and is most 

likely for fish with swim bladders. 

Barotrauma injuries have been 

documented during controlled exposure 

to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 

2012b; Casper et al., 2013, 2017). 

Fish populations in the proposed 

project area that serve as marine 

mammal prey could be temporarily 

affected by noise from pile installation 

and removal. The frequency range in 

which fishes generally perceive 

underwater sounds is 50 to 2,000 Hz, 

with peak sensitivities below 800 Hz 

(Popper and Hastings, 2009). Fish 

behavior or distribution may change, 

especially with strong and/or 

intermittent sounds that could harm 

fishes. High underwater SPLs have been 

documented to alter behavior, cause 

hearing loss, and injure or kill 

individual fish by causing serious 

internal injury (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). 

The greatest potential impact to fishes 

during construction would occur during 

impact pile driving and tension 

anchoring. The duration of impact pile 

driving would be limited to the final 

stage of installation (‘‘proofing’’) after 

the pile has been driven as close as 

practicable to the design depth with a 

vibratory driver. Only a total of 10 

tension anchors will be set over a total 

of 5 days of construction. In-water 

construction activities would only occur 

during daylight hours, allowing fish to 

forage and transit the project area in the 

evening. Vibratory pile driving could 

elicit behavioral reactions from fishes 

such as temporary avoidance of the area 

but is unlikely to cause injuries to fishes 

or have persistent effects on local fish 

populations. Construction also would 

have minimal permanent and temporary 

impacts on benthic invertebrate species, 

a marine mammal prey source. 

The area impacted by the project is 

relatively small compared to the 

available habitat in the remainder of 

Port Fredrick and the surrounding areas, 

and there are no areas of particular 

importance that would be impacted by 

this project. Any behavioral avoidance 

by fish of the disturbed area would still 

leave significantly large areas of fish and 

marine mammal foraging habitat in the 

nearby vicinity. As described in the 

preceding, the potential for Hoonah’s 

construction to affect the availability of 

prey to marine mammals or to 

meaningfully impact the quality of 

physical or acoustic habitat is 

considered to be insignificant. 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through the IHA, 

which will inform 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., pile driving and 

tension anchoring) has the potential to 

result in disruption of behavioral 

patterns for individual marine 

mammals. There is also some potential 

for auditory injury (Level A harassment) 

to result, primarily for very high 

frequency species and phocids because 

predicted auditory injury zones are 

larger than for high-frequency species 

and otariids. The proposed mitigation 

and monitoring measures are expected 

to minimize the severity of the taking to 

the extent practicable. 

As described previously, no serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

proposed to be authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

proposed take numbers are estimated. 

For acoustic impacts, generally 

speaking, we estimate take by 

considering: (1) acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
1094 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will likely be behaviorally 

harassed or incur some degree of 

permanent hearing impairment; (2) the 

area or volume of water that will be 

ensonified above these levels in a day; 

(3) the density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

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

We note that while these factors can 

contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of potential 

takes, additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Below, we describe the factors 

considered here in more detail and 

present the proposed take estimates. 

Acoustic Criteria 

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 auditory 

injury of some degree (equated to Level 

A harassment). We note that the criteria 

for auditory injury, as well as the names 

of two hearing groups, have been 

recently updated (NMFS 2024a) as 

reflected below in the Level A 

Harassment section. 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

factors related to the source or exposure 

context (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle, duration of the exposure, 

signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the 

source), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry, other noises in the area, 

predators in the area), and the receiving 

animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography, life stage, 

depth) and can be difficult to predict 

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

et al., 2012). Based on what the 

available science indicates and the 

practical need to use a threshold based 

on a metric that is both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

typically uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS generally predicts 

that marine mammals are likely to be 

behaviorally harassed in a manner 

considered to be Level B harassment 

when exposed to underwater 

anthropogenic noise above root-meansquared pressure received levels (RMS 

SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 

micropascal (re 1 mPa)) for continuous 

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

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

airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. Generally speaking, 

Level B harassment take estimates based 

on these behavioral harassment 

thresholds are expected to include any 

likely takes by TTS as, in most cases, 

the likelihood of TTS occurs at 

distances from the source less than 

those at which behavioral harassment is 

likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can 

manifest as behavioral harassment, as 

reduced hearing sensitivity and the 

potential reduced opportunities to 

detect important signals (conspecific 

communication, predators, prey) may 

result in changes in behavior patterns 

that would not otherwise occur. 

Hoonah’s proposed activity includes 

the use of continuous (vibratory pile 

driving, tension anchoring) and 

impulsive (impact pile driving, tension 

anchoring) sources, and therefore the 

RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB 

re 1 mPa are applicable. Tension 

anchoring has both continuous and 

intermittent components as discussed in 

the Description of Sound Sources 

section above. When evaluating Level B 

harassment, NMFS recommends treating 

tension anchoring as a continuous 

source and applying the RMS SPL 

thresholds of 120 dB re 1 mPa. 

Level A harassment—NMFS’ Updated 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 3.0) 

(Updated Technical Guidance, 2024) 

identifies dual criteria to assess auditory 

injury (Level A harassment) to five 

different underwater marine mammal 

groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as 

a result of exposure to noise from two 

different types of sources (impulsive or 

non-impulsive). Hoonah’s proposed 

activity includes the use of impulsive 

(impact pile driving, tension anchoring) 

and non-impulsive (vibratory pile 

driving, tension anchoring) sources. 

Tension anchoring includes both 

impulsive and non-impulsive 

characteristics. When evaluating Level 

A harassment, NMFS recommends 

treating tension anchoring as an 

impulsive source. 

The 2024 Updated Technical 

Guidance criteria include both updated 

thresholds and updated weighting 

functions for each hearing group. The 

thresholds are provided in the table 

below. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the criteria are described in NMFS’ 

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 4—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF AUDITORY INJURY

Hearing group 

Auditory injury onset acoustic thresholds * 

(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,HF,24h: 193 dB ................. Cell 4: LE,p,HF,24h: 201 dB. 

Very High-Frequency (VHF) Cetaceans ....................... Cell 5: Lpk,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,PW,24h: 185 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 1 μPa2s (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, OW, PA, and OA 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 1095 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that are used in estimating the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, including source levels and 

transmission loss coefficient. 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

proposed project. Vessel traffic and 

other commercial and industrial 

activities in the project area may 

contribute to elevated background noise 

levels which may mask sounds 

produced by the project. Marine 

mammals are expected to be affected via 

sound generated by the primary 

components of the project (i.e., vibratory 

pile driving and removal, impact pile 

driving, and tension anchoring). 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2), 

where 

TL = transmission loss in dB; 

B = transmission loss coefficient; 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement. 

This formula neglects loss due to 

scattering and absorption, which is 

assumed to be zero here. The degree to 

which underwater sound propagates 

away from a sound source is dependent 

on a variety of factors, most notably the 

water bathymetry and presence or 

absence of reflective or absorptive 

conditions including in-water structures 

and sediments. Spherical spreading 

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

or water surface, resulting in a 6-dB 

reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance from the source 

(20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading 

occurs in an environment in which 

sound propagation is bounded by the 

water surface and sea bottom, resulting 

in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for 

each doubling of distance from the 

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

spreading value of 15 is often used 

under conditions, such as the project 

site, where water increases with depth 

as the receiver moves away from the 

shoreline, resulting in an expected 

propagation environment that would lie 

between spherical and cylindrical 

spreading loss conditions. Practical 

spreading loss is assumed here. 

The intensity of pile driving sounds is 

greatly influenced by factors such as the 

type of piles, hammers, and the physical 

environment in which the activity takes 

place. In order to calculate the distances 

to the Level A harassment and the Level 

B harassment sound thresholds for the 

methods and piles being used in this 

project, the applicant and NMFS used 

acoustic monitoring data from other 

locations to develop proxy source levels 

for the various pile types, sizes and 

methods. The project includes vibratory, 

and impact pile installation of steel pipe 

piles and vibratory removal of steel pipe 

piles, steel fender piles, steel sheet 

piles, steel H-piles, steel wye piles, steel 

X piles, and steel batter piles and 

tension anchoring drilling. Source levels 

for each pile size and driving method 

are presented in table 5. 

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. NMFS 

(2022) outlines its recommended source 

levels for DTH systems. NMFS has 

applied that guidance in this analysis 

(see Table 5 for NMFS’ proposed source 

levels). 

TABLE 5—PROXY SOUND SOURCE LEVELS AT 10 m FOR PILE SIZES AND DRIVING METHODS

Pile type RMS SPL 

(re 1 μPa) 

SEL 

(re 1 μPa2- 

sec) 

Peak SPL 

(re 1 μPa) Source 

Vibratory Pile Driving 

Temporary 24-in steel 

pipe piles.

162 NA NA PR1 2023 calculations (cited in NMFS 2023). 

20-in steel fender piles .................... .................... ..........................

Steel sheet piles ........... 160 .................... .......................... Caltrans 2015 (cited in NMFS 2023). 

16-in steel fender piles 155 .................... .......................... PR1 2023 calculations (cited in NMFS 2023). 

H-piles ........................... 150 .................... .......................... PR1 2023 calculations (cited in NMFS 2023).

Wye piles ...................... .................... .................... .......................... NMFS 2024. 

X piles.

36-in steel pile .............. 166 .................... .......................... PR1 2023 calculations (cited in NMFS 2023). 

Impact Pile Driving 

20-in steel fender piles 190 177 203 Caltrans 2015 (cited in NMFS 2023). 

Steel sheet piles ........... 190 180 205 Caltrans 2015 (cited in NMFS 2023). 

16-in steel fender piles 185 175 200 Caltrans 2020 (cited in NMFS 2023). 

H-piles ........................... 183 170 210 Caltrans 2015 (cited in NMFS 2023). 

Wye piles.

X piles.

36-in steel pile .............. 193 183 210 Caltrans 2015 & 2020 (cited in NMFS 2023). 

Tension Anchoring 

6–8 in anchor hole ........ 156 144 170 NMFS 2022. 

All Level B harassment isopleths are 

reported in Table 6 below. The 

maximum (underwater) area ensonified 

above the thresholds for behavioral 

harassment is 43 km2 (16.6 mi2). 

However, that zone would be truncated 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
1096 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 

by land masses that would obstruct 

underwater sound transmission and 

would be limited to Port Fredrick (see 

figure 4 in Trident’s application). 

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 

2024 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. We note that because of 

some of the assumptions included in the 

methods underlying this optional tool, 

we anticipate that the resulting isopleth 

estimates are typically going to be 

overestimates of some degree, which 

may result in an overestimate of 

potential take by Level A harassment. 

However, this optional tool offers the 

best way to estimate isopleth distances 

when more sophisticated modeling 

methods are not available or practical. 

For stationary sources such as pile 

driving, the optional User Spreadsheet 

tool predicts the distance at which, if a 

marine mammal remained at that 

distance for the duration of the activity, 

it would be expected to incur auditory 

injury. Inputs used in the optional User 

Spreadsheet tool, and the resulting 

estimated isopleths, are reported below. 

TABLE 6—NMFS USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS

Pile size and type Spreadsheet tab 

used 

Weighting factor 

adjustment 

(kHz) 

Transmission loss 

coefficient 

Number of piles 

per day 

Activity 

duration 

per pile 

(minutes) 

Number of 

strikes per 

pile 

Vibratory Pile Driving 

Temporary 24-in steel pipe piles ......................... A.1 Vibratory pile 

driving.

2.5 15 6 15 NA 

20-in steel fender piles ........................................ ............................... 2.5 15 3 30 NA 

Steel sheet piles .................................................. ............................... 2.5 15 30 15 NA 

16-in steel fender piles ........................................ ............................... 2.5 15 2 30 NA 

H-piles .................................................................. ............................... 2.5 15 2 30 NA 

Wye piles ............................................................. ............................... 2.5 15 3 30 NA 

X piles .................................................................. ............................... 2.5 15 1 30 NA 

36-in steel pipe pile .............................................. ............................... 2.5 15 2 60 NA 

36-in steel batter pile ........................................... ............................... 2.5 15 2 60 NA 

Impact Pile Driving 

20-in steel fender piles ........................................ E.1. Impact pile 

driving.

2 15 3 30 600 

Steel sheet piles .................................................. ............................... 2 15 15 30 200 

16-in steel fender piles ........................................ ............................... 2 15 2 30 600 

H-piles .................................................................. ............................... 2 15 2 30 600 

Wye piles ............................................................. ............................... 2 15 2 30 200 

X piles .................................................................. ............................... 2 15 1 30 200 

36-in steel pipe pile .............................................. ............................... 2 15 2 60 1,200 

36-in steel batter pile ........................................... ............................... 2 15 4 60 1,200 

Tension Anchoring 

6–8 in anchor hole ............................................... E.2 DTH pile driving.2 15 2 60 108,000 

TABLE 7—CALCULATED LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS

Activity 

Level A harassment zone (m) Level B 

harassment 

zone 

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

Vibratory Pile Driving 

Temporary 24-in steel pipe piles .............................................. 16.4 6.3 13.4 21.1 7.1 7,356.4 

20-in steel fender piles .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Steel sheet piles ........................................................................ 30.3 11.6 24.8 39.0 13.1 4,641.6 

16-in steel fender piles .............................................................. 3.7 1.4 3.0 4.4 1.6 2,154.4 

H-piles ....................................................................................... 1.7 0.7 1.4 2.2 0.7 1,000.0 

Wye piles ................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

X piles ....................................................................................... 1.1 0.4 0.9 1.4 0.5 

36-in steel pipe pile ................................................................... 31.5 12.1 25.8 40.6 13.7 11,659.1 

36-in steel batter pile ................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Impact Pile Driving 

20-in steel fender piles .............................................................. 586.1 74.8 907.1 520.7 194.1 1,000.0 

Steel sheet piles ........................................................................ 1,305.9 166.6 2,020.9 1,160.1 432.4 ........................

16-in steel fender piles .............................................................. 329.1 42.0 509.2 292.3 109.0 462.2 

H-piles ....................................................................................... 152.7 19.5 236.4 135.7 50.6 341.5

Wye piles ................................................................................... 73.4 9.4 113.6 65.2 24.3 ........................

X piles ....................................................................................... 46.3 5.9 71.6 41.1 15.3 ........................

36-in steel pipe pile ................................................................... 1,783.6 227.6 2,760.1 1,584.5 590.6 1,584.9 

36-in steel batter pile ................................................................ 2,831.3 361.2 4,381.4 2,515.2 937.6 ........................


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 1097 

TABLE 7—CALCULATED LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS—Continued 

Activity 

Level A harassment zone (m) Level B 

harassment 

zone 

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

Tension Anchoring 

6–8 in anchor hole .................................................................... 90.0 11.5 139.2 79.9 29.8 2,512.0 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Estimation 

In this section we provide information 

about the occurrence of marine 

mammals, including density or other 

relevant information which will inform 

the take calculations. 

Consultation with the Hoonah 

Harbormaster, applications and reports 

from other nearby in water construction 

projects, and available scientific 

literature are used to estimate the 

occurrence of marine mammals in the 

action area. Daily occurrence probability 

of each marine mammal species in the 

action area is based on historic data of 

occurrence, seasonality, and group size 

in Port Frederick and Icy Strait, and 

other nearby waters. 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is synthesized to 

produce a quantitative estimate of the 

take that is reasonably likely to occur 

and proposed for authorization. Tables 

for each species are presented to show 

the calculation of take during the 

project. NMFS used the following 

equations to estimate take. 

Incidental take estimate (daily) = group 

size * groups per day * days of pile 

driving activity (107 days) 

Incidental take estimate (monthly) = 

group size * groups per month 

(considered 30 days) * months of 

pile driving activity (107 days/30 

days per month) 

Minke Whale 

There are a few sightings of minke 

whales every year, so they could occur 

every month during the project. They 

typically occur in groups of two to three 

individuals (NMFS 2023d). Up to one 

group of three minke whales are 

expected to occur in the project area per 

month. Therefore, using the monthly 

equation above, NMFS proposes to 

authorize 11 takes by Level B 

harassment of minke whales. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for minke whales extends 2,831 m from 

the sound source (table 7). All 

construction work would be shut down 

prior to a minke whale entering the 

Level A harassment zone specific to the 

in-water activity underway at the time. 

In consideration of the infrequent 

occurrence of minke whales in the 

project area and proposed shutdown 

requirements, no take by Level A 

harassment of minke whales is 

anticipated or proposed for 

authorization. 

Humpback Whale 

There are multiple sightings of 

humpback whales every month, and 

they could occur every day during the 

project. They typically occur in groups 

of one to two individuals (Dahlheim et 

al., 2009). Up to one group of two 

humpback whales are expected to occur 

in the project area per day. Therefore, 

using the daily equation above, NMFS 

proposes to authorize 214 takes by Level 

B harassment of humpback whales. In 

the project area, it is estimated that the 

majority of whales (98 percent) would 

be from the Hawaii DPS and 2 percent 

will be from the Mexico DPS (Wade 

2021; Muto et al. 2022). Therefore, of 

the 214 takes by Level B harassment, 

NMFS anticipates that 210 takes would 

be of individuals from the Hawaii DPS 

and 4 takes of individuals from the 

Mexico DPS. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for humpback whales extends 2,831 m 

from the sound source (table 7). All 

construction work would be shut down 

prior to a humpback whale entering the 

Level A harassment zone specific to the 

in-water activity underway at the time. 

In consideration that humpback whales 

are most often seen in Icy Strait and the 

mouth of Port Fredrick and proposed 

shutdown requirements, no take by 

Level A harassment is anticipated or 

proposed for authorization for 

humpback whales. 

Killer Whale 

There are multiple sightings of killer 

whales every year, and they could occur 

every month during the project. They 

typically occur in groups of one to five 

individuals (NMFS 2023e). Up to four 

groups of five killer whales (i.e., 20 

killer whales total) are expected to occur 

in the project area per month. Therefore, 

using the monthly equation given above, 

NMFS proposes to authorize 72 takes by 

Level B harassment of killer whales. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for killer whales extends 361 m from the 

sound source (table 7). All construction 

work would be shut down prior to a 

killer whale entering the Level A 

harassment zone specific to the in-water 

activity underway at the time. In 

consideration of the small size of the 

Level A harassment zone and proposed 

shutdown requirements, no take by 

Level A harassment of killer whales is 

anticipated or proposed for 

authorization. 

Pacific White-Sided Dolphin 

There are a few sightings of Pacific 

white-sided dolphins every year, but 

there are no sightings from recent years. 

However, to avoid underestimating 

potential impacts from the project, in 

estimating take, NMFS assumes they 

could occur every other month (i.e., one 

group every 60 days) during the project. 

They occur in groups of 2 to 153 

individuals, but are most commonly 

seen in groups of 23–26 individuals 

(Dahlheim et al., 2009). NMFS 

anticipates that up to one group of 26 

Pacific white-sided dolphins could 

occur in the project area every other 

month. Using the monthly equation 

above suggests that there could be 47 

takes by Level B harassment of Pacific 

white-sided dolphins. However, since 

these dolphins can occur in large 

groups, NMFS proposes to authorize 

153 takes by Level B harassment in case 

a larger pod is observed. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for Pacific white-sided dolphins extends 

361 m from the sound source (table 7). 

All construction work would be shut 

down prior to a Pacific white-sided 

dolphin entering the Level A 

harassment zone specific to the in-water 

activity underway at the time. In 

consideration of the small size of the 

Level A harassment zone, proposed 

shutdown requirements, and infrequent 

occurrence of Pacific white-sided 

dolphins, no take by Level A 

harassment of Pacific white-sided 

dolphins is anticipated or proposed for 

authorization. 

Dall’s Porpoise 

There are multiple sightings of Dall’s 

porpoises every year, and they could 

occur every month during the project. 

They typically occur in groups of two to 

five individuals (Dahlheim et al., 2009). 

NMFS anticipates that up to four groups 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I 
1098 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 

of five Dall’s porpoises (i.e., 20 Dall’s 

porpoises total) could occur in the 

project area per month. Therefore, using 

the monthly equation given above, 

NMFS proposes to authorize 72 takes by 

Level B harassment of Dall’s porpoises. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for Dall’s porpoises extends 4,381 m 

from the sound source (table 7) during 

impact pile driving. Hoonah would be 

required to implement shutdowns 

during all pile driving activities. 

However, during impact pile driving of 

the 20-in fender piles, 16-in fender 

piles, sheet piles, and 36-in piles, the 

Level A harassment zones for Dall’s 

porpoise extend beyond the shutdown 

zones, and NMFS anticipates that Level 

A harassment could occur. Hoonah 

estimates, and NMFS concurs, that up to 

four groups of two Dall’s porpoises 

could occur in the Level A harassment 

zone for a duration long enough to incur 

auditory injury during each month of 

impact pile driving (42 days of pile 

driving). Using the monthly equation 

above, NMFS proposes to authorize 12 

takes by Level A harassment of Dall’s 

porpoises. 

Harbor Porpoise 

There are multiple sightings of harbor 

porpoises every month, and they could 

occur every day during the project. They 

typically occur in groups of one to three 

individuals (Dahlheim et al., 2009). Up 

to one group of three harbor porpoises 

are expected to occur in the project area 

per day. Therefore, using the daily 

equation given above, NMFS proposes 

to authorize 321 takes by Level B 

harassment of harbor porpoises. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for harbor porpoises extends 4,381 m 

from the sound source (table 7) during 

impact pile driving. Hoonah would be 

required to implement shutdowns 

during all pile driving activities. 

However, during impact pile driving of 

the 20-in fender piles, 16-in fender 

piles, sheet piles, and 36-in piles, the 

Level A harassment zones for the harbor 

porpoise extend beyond the shutdown 

zone, and NMFS anticipates that Level 

A harassment could occur. Hoonah 

expects, and NMFS concurs, that up to 

one group of two harbor porpoises could 

be present in the Level A harassment 

zone for each day of impact pile driving 

(42 days of pile driving). Using the daily 

equation given above, NMFS proposes 

to authorize 84 takes by Level A 

harassment of harbor porpoises. 

Harbor Seal 

There are a multiple sightings of 

harbor seals every month, and they 

could occur every day during the 

project. They typically occur in groups 

of one to four individuals (Jefferson et 

al., 2019). Up to one group of two harbor 

seals are expected to occur in the project 

area per day. Therefore, using the daily 

equation given above, NMFS proposes 

to authorize 214 takes by Level B 

harassment of harbor seals. Additionally 

there is a harbor seal haulout located 

three km (1.9 mi) from the project site 

where harbor seals congregate in larger 

numbers. Hoonah estimated, and NMFS 

concurs that up to 1 group of 20 harbor 

seals could be taken by Level B 

harassment every month that the Level 

B harassment zone is larger than 2,000 

m (43 days of pile driving). Therefore, 

using the monthly equation given above, 

NMFS proposes to authorize an 

additional 29 takes by Level B 

harassment of harbor seals. 

Cumulatively, NMFS proposes to 

authorize 243 takes by Level B 

harassment of harbor seals. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for harbor seals extends 2,515 m from 

the sound source (table 7) during impact 

pile driving. Hoonah would be required 

to implement shutdowns during all pile 

driving activities. However, during 

impact pile driving of the 20-in fender 

piles, 16-in fender piles, sheet piles, and 

36-in piles, the Level A harassment 

zones for the harbor porpoise extend 

beyond the shutdown zone, and NMFS 

anticipates that Level A harassment 

could occur. Hoonah expects, and 

NMFS concurs, that up to one harbor 

seal could be present in the Level A 

harassment zone for each day of impact 

pile driving (42 days of pile driving). 

Using the equation given above, the 

calculated estimated take by Level A 

harassment for harbor seals would be 

42. 

Steller Sea Lion 

There are a multiple sightings of 

Steller sea lions every month, and they 

could occur every day during the 

project. They typically occur in groups 

of one to four individuals (NMFS 

2023f). Up to one group of four Steller 

sea lions is expected to occur in the 

project area per day. Therefore, using 

the daily equation given above, NMFS 

proposes to authorize 428 takes by Level 

B harassment of Steller sea lions. Both 

the Eastern DPS and Western DPS of 

Steller sea lions occur in the project 

area. NMFS estimates that the majority 

of Steller sea lions in the project area 

(99.6 percent) would be from the 

Eastern DPS and 1.4 percent would be 

from the Western DPS (Hastings et al., 

2020). Therefore, of the 428 total takes 

by Level B harassment, NMFS 

anticipates that 422 takes would be of 

individuals from the Eastern DPS and 6 

takes of individuals from the Western 

DPS. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for Steller sea lions extends 938 m from 

the sound source (table 7). All 

construction work would be shut down 

prior to a Steller sea lion entering the 

Level A harassment zone specific to the 

in-water activity underway at the time. 

In consideration of the proposed 

shutdown requirements, no take by 

Level A harassment is anticipated or 

proposed for Steller sea lions. 

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

Common name Stock Stock 

abundance 1

Level A 

harassment 

Level B 

harassment 

Total proposed 

take 

Proposed take as 

percentage of 

stock 2

Minke whale ......................................... Alaska ................................................. UND 0 11 11 3 UND 

Humpback whale ................................. Hawaii DPS ......................................... 11,278 0 214 214 1.9 

Mexico DPS ........................................ 3,477 ...................... ...................... .......................... 6.1 

Killer whale .......................................... Eastern North Pacific Alaska Resident 1,920 0 72 72 3.8 

West Coast Transient ......................... 349 ...................... ...................... .......................... 20.6 

Eastern North Pacific Northern Resident.302 ...................... ...................... .......................... 23.8 

Pacific white-sided dolphin .................. North Pacific ........................................ 26,880 0 153 153 0.6 

Dall’s porpoise ..................................... Alaska ................................................. UND 12 72 83 4 UND 

Harbor porpoise ................................... Northern Southeast Alaska Inland 

Waters.

1,619 84 321 403 24.9 

Harbor seal .......................................... Glacier Bay/Icy Strait .......................... 7,455 42 243 298 4.0 

Steller sea lion ..................................... Western DPS ...................................... 49,837 0 428 428 0.9 

Eastern DPS ....................................... 36,308 ...................... ...................... .......................... 1.2 

1Stock size is Nbest according to NMFS 2023 Draft SARs, unless otherwise noted. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 1099 

2Percent of stock reflects the combined total of take by Level B and Level A harassment (if requested). If a species has multiple stocks, NMFS conservatively assumes that all takes occur to each stock. 3The Alaska SAR does not have an estimated population size for the Alaska stock of minke whales due to only a portion of the stock’s range being surveyed and 

such few whales seen during stock abundance surveys. 4 NMFS does not have an official abundance estimate for this stock, and the minimum population estimate is considered to be unknown (Young et al., 2023). See 

Small Numbers for additional discussion. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, NMFS considers two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned); 

and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, and 

impact on operations. 

The mitigation measures described in 

the following paragraphs would apply 

to the Hoonah’s in-water construction 

activities. 

Shutdown Zones and Monitoring 

Hoonah 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 animal (or in 

anticipation of an animal entering the 

defined area). Shutdown zones vary 

based on the activity type and duration 

and marine mammal hearing group, as 

shown in table 9. A minimum shutdown 

zone of 10 m would be required for all 

in-water construction activities to avoid 

physical interaction with marine 

mammals. Marine mammal monitoring 

would be conducted during all pile 

driving activities to ensure that 

shutdowns occur, as required. Proposed 

shutdown zones for each activity type 

are shown in table 9. 

Prior to pile driving, shutdown zones 

would be established based on zones 

represented in table 9. Observers would 

survey the shutdown zones for at least 

30 minutes before pile driving activities 

start. If marine mammals are observed 

within the shutdown zone, pile driving 

and tension anchoring will be delayed 

until the animal has moved out of the 

shutdown zone, either verified by an 

observer or by waiting until 15 minutes 

has elapsed without a sighting of small 

cetaceans, delphinids, and pinnipeds; or 

30 minutes has elapsed without a 

sighting of a large cetacean. If a marine 

mammal approaches or enters the 

shutdown zone during pile driving or 

tension anchoring, the activity would be 

halted. If a species for which 

authorization has not been granted, or a 

species which has been granted but the 

authorized takes are met, is observed 

approaching or within the Level B 

harassment zone during pile driving or 

tension anchoring, the activity would be 

halted. Pile driving may resume after 

the animal has moved out of and is 

moving away from the shutdown zone 

(or Level B harassment zone for which 

authorization has not been granted, or a 

species which has been granted but the 

authorized takes are met) or after at least 

15 minutes has passed since the last 

observation of the animal. 

All marine mammals would be 

monitored in the Level B harassment 

zones and throughout the area as far as 

visual monitoring can take place. If a 

marine mammal enters the Level B 

harassment zone, in-water activities 

would continue and PSOs would 

document the animal’s presence within 

the estimated harassment zone. 

TABLE 9—SHUTDOWN AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES BY ACTIVITY

Activity 

Minimum shutdown zone (m) Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(m) 

LFcetaceans HFcetaceans VHFcetaceans Phocids Otariids 

Vibratory Pile Driving 

Temporary 24-in steel pipe piles .............................................. 20 10 15 25 10 7,360 

20-in steel fender piles .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Steel sheet piles ........................................................................ 35 15 25 40 15 4,645 

16-in steel fender piles .............................................................. 10 10 10 10 10 2,155 

H-piles ....................................................................................... 10 10 10 10 10 1,000 

Wye piles ................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

X piles ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

36-in steel pipe pile ................................................................... 35 15 30 45 15 11,660 

36-in steel batter pile ................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Impact Pile Driving 

20-in steel fender piles .............................................................. 590 75 200 200 195 1,000 

Steel sheet piles ........................................................................ 1,310 170 200 200 435 ........................

16-in steel fender piles .............................................................. 330 42 200 200 110 465 

H-piles ....................................................................................... 155 20 200 140 55 345 

Wye piles ................................................................................... 75 10 115 70 25 ........................

X piles ....................................................................................... 50 10 75 45 20 ........................


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I 
1100 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 

TABLE 9—SHUTDOWN AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES BY ACTIVITY—Continued 

Activity 

Minimum shutdown zone (m) Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(m) 

LFcetaceans HFcetaceans VHFcetaceans Phocids Otariids 

36-in steel pipe pile ................................................................... 1,785 230 200 200 595 1,5890 

36-in steel batter pile ................................................................ 2,835 365 200 200 940 ........................

Tension Anchoring 

6–8 in anchor hole .................................................................... 90 15 140 80 30 2,515 

Protected Species Observers 

The placement of Protected Species 

Observers (PSO) during all pile driving 

activities (described in the Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting section) 

would ensure that the entire shutdown 

zone is visible. Should environmental 

conditions deteriorate such that the 

entire shutdown zone would not be 

visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile 

driving would be delayed until the PSO 

is confident marine mammals within 

the shutdown zone could be detected. 

PSOs would monitor the full 

shutdown zones and as much of the 

Level B harassment zones as possible. 

Monitoring enables observers to be 

aware of and communicate the presence 

of marine mammals in the project areas 

outside the shutdown zones and thus 

prepare for a potential cessation of 

activity should the animal enter the 

shutdown zone. 

Pre- and Post-Activity Monitoring 

Monitoring must take place from 30 

minutes prior to initiation of pile 

driving activities (i.e., pre-clearance 

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

start of daily in-water construction 

activity, or whenever a break in pile 

driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, 

PSOs would observe the shutdown and 

monitoring zones for a period of 30 

minutes. The shutdown zone would be 

considered cleared when a marine 

mammal has not been observed within 

the zone for a 30-minute period. If a 

marine mammal is observed within the 

shutdown zones, pile driving activity 

would be delayed or halted. If work 

ceases for more than 30 minutes, the 

pre-activity monitoring of the shutdown 

zones would commence. A 

determination that the shutdown zone is 

clear must be made during a period of 

good visibility (i.e., the entire shutdown 

zone and surrounding waters must be 

visible to the naked eye). 

Soft Start 

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 impact 

hammer operating at full capacity. 

Hoonah must implement soft start 

techniques when impact pile driving. 

Soft start requires contractors to conduct 

an initial set of three strikes at reduced 

energy, followed by a 30-second waiting 

period, then two subsequent three-strike 

sets before initiating continuous driving. 

Soft start will be implemented at the 

start of each day’s impact pile driving 

and at any time following cessation of 

impact pile driving for a period of 30 

minutes or longer. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present while conducting the activities. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

activity; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

Marine mammal monitoring must be 

conducted in accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Monitoring and 

Mitigation Plan and section 5 of the 

IHA. Hoonah’s draft Marine Mammal 

Monitoring and Mitigation Plan is 

Appendix D of the IHA application. 

Prior to the beginning of construction, 

Hoonah would submit a revised Marine 

Mammal Mitigation and Monitoring 

Plan containing additional details of 

monitoring locations and methodology 

for NMFS concurrence. 

Marine mammal monitoring during 

pile driving and removal must be 

conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs in 

a manner consistent with the following: 

• PSOs must be independent of the 

activity contractor (for example, 

employed by a subcontractor) and have 

no other assigned tasks during 

monitoring periods; 

• At least one PSO must have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activity 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 1101 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; 

• Other PSOs may substitute 

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. PSOs may also 

substitute Alaska native traditional 

knowledge for experience; 

• 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; and PSOs must be 

approved by NMFS prior to beginning 

any activity subject to this IHA. 

PSOs must 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 

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. 

Between one and three PSOs will be 

on duty depending on the size of the 

Level B harassment zone. PSOs will 

establish monitoring locations as 

described in the Marine Mammal 

Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. 

Monitoring locations would be selected 

by the Contractor during preconstruction. PSOs would monitor for 

marine mammals entering the Level B 

harassment zones; the position(s) may 

vary based on construction activity and 

location of piles or equipment. 

Monitoring would be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after pile driving/removal activities. In 

addition, observers shall record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and shall document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from piles being driven or 

removed. Pile driving/removal activities 

include the time to install or remove a 

single pile or series of piles, as long as 

the time elapsed between uses of the 

pile driving equipment is no more than 

30 minutes. 

Data Collection 

PSOs would use approved data forms 

to record the following information: 

• Dates and times (beginning and 

end) of all marine mammal monitoring; 

and 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring. 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including how many and what type of 

piles were driven or removed and by 

what method (i.e., vibratory, impact, or 

tension anchoring). 

• Weather parameters and water 

conditions; 

• The number of marine mammals 

observed, by species, relative to the pile 

location and if pile driving or removal 

was occurring at time of sighting; 

• Distance and bearings of each 

marine mammal observed to the pile 

being driven or removed; 

• Description of marine mammal 

behavior patterns, including direction of 

travel; 

• Age and sex class, if possible, of all 

marine mammals observed; and 

• Detailed information about 

implementation of any mitigation 

triggered (such as shutdowns and 

delays), a description of specific actions 

that ensued, and resulting behavior of 

the animal if any. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report would be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

monitoring or 60 calendar days prior to 

the requested issuance of any 

subsequent IHA for construction activity 

at the same location, whichever comes 

first. It would include an overall 

description of work completed, a 

narrative regarding marine mammal 

sightings, and associated PSO data 

sheets. Specifically, the report must 

include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including the number and type of piles 

driven or removed and by what method 

(i.e., impact, vibratory, tension 

anchoring). The total duration of driving 

time must be recorded for each pile 

during vibratory driving and, number or 

strikes for each pile during impact 

driving, and the duration of operation of 

drilling and components for tension 

anchoring; 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; 

• Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance; 

• Upon observation of a marine 

mammal, the following information: (1) 

name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) 

and PSO location and activity at time of 

sighting; (2) time of sighting; (3) 

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

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO 

confidence in identification, and the 

composition of the group if there is a 

mix of species; (4) distance and bearing 

of each marine mammal observed 

relative to the pile being driven for each 

sighting (if pile driving was occurring at 

time of sighting); (5) estimated number 

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

estimated number of animals by cohort 

(adults, juveniles, neonates, group 

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

point of approach and estimated time 

spent within the harassment zone; and 

(8) description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses thought to have resulted from 

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

in behavioral state such as ceasing 

feeding, changing direction, flushing, or 

breaching); 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected within the harassment zones, 

by species; and 

• Detailed information about any 

implementation of any mitigation 

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

description of specific actions that 

ensued, and resulting changes in 

behavior of the animal(s), if any. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft final 

report would constitute the final report. 

If comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, 

Hoonah shall report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources (OPR), 

NMFS and to the Alaska regional 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
1102 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 

stranding network as soon as feasible. If 

the death or injury was clearly caused 

by the specified activity, Hoonah 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, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the regulatory status of the 

species, population size and growth rate 

where known, ongoing sources of 

human-caused mortality, or ambient 

noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, the majority of 

our analysis applies to all the species 

listed in table 2, given that many of the 

anticipated effects of this project on 

different marine mammal stocks are 

expected to be relatively similar in 

nature. Where there are meaningful 

differences between species or stocks, or 

groups of species, in anticipated 

individual responses to activities, 

impact of expected take on the 

population due to differences in 

population status, or impacts on habitat, 

they are described independently in the 

analysis below. 

Pile driving and tension anchoring 

activities have the potential to disturb or 

displace marine mammals. Specifically, 

the project activities may result in take, 

in the form of Level A harassment 

(Dall’s porpoise, harbor porpoise, and 

harbor seal) and Level B harassment 

from underwater sounds generated from 

pile driving and removal and tension 

anchoring. Potential takes could occur if 

individuals are present in the ensonified 

zone when these activities are 

underway. 

The takes by Level B harassment 

would be due to potential behavioral 

disturbance and TTS. Takes by Level A 

harassment would be due to auditory 

injury. No mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated given the nature of the 

activity, even in the absence of the 

required mitigation. The potential for 

harassment is minimized through the 

construction method and the 

implementation of the proposed 

mitigation measures (see Proposed 

Mitigation section). 

Take would occur within a limited, 

confined area (Port Fredrick) of the 

stocks’ ranges. The intensity and 

duration of take by Level A harassment 

and Level B harassment would be 

minimized through use of mitigation 

measures described herein. Further, the 

amount of take proposed to be 

authorized is extremely small when 

compared to stock abundance, and the 

project is not anticipated to impact any 

known important habitat areas for any 

marine mammal species with the 

exception of a known biologically 

important area for humpback whales, 

discussed below. 

Take by Level A harassment is 

authorized to account for the potential 

that an animal could enter and remain 

within the area between a Level A 

harassment zone and the shutdown 

zone for a duration long enough to be 

taken by Level A harassment. Any take 

by Level A harassment is expected to 

arise from, at most, a small degree of 

auditory injury because 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 auditory injury. 

Additionally, and as noted previously, 

some subset of the individuals that are 

behaviorally harassed could also 

simultaneously incur some small degree 

of TTS for a short duration of time. 

Because of the small degree anticipated, 

though, any auditory injury or TTS 

potentially incurred here would not be 

expected to adversely impact individual 

fitness, let alone annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. 

Behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to pile driving at the project 

site, if any, are expected to be mild and 

temporary. Marine mammals within the 

Level B harassment zone may not show 

any visual cues they are disturbed by 

activities or could become alert, avoid 

the area, leave the area, or display other 

mild responses that are not observable 

such as changes in vocalization 

patterns. Given the limited number of 

piles to be installed or extracted per day 

and that pile driving and removal would 

occur across a maximum of 107 days 

within the 12-month authorization 

period, any harassment would be 

temporary. 

Any impacts on marine mammal prey 

that would occur during Hoonah’s 

proposed activity would have, at most, 

short-term effects on foraging of 

individual marine mammals, and likely 

no effect on the populations of marine 

mammals as a whole. Indirect effects on 

marine mammal prey during the 

construction are expected to be minor, 

and these effects are unlikely to cause 

substantial effects on marine mammals 

at the individual level, with no expected 

effect on annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. 

In addition, it is unlikely that elevated 

noise in a small, localized area of 

habitat would have any effect on the 

stocks’ annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. In combination, we believe 

that these factors, as well as the 

available body of evidence from other 

similar activities, demonstrate that the 

potential effects of the specified 

activities will have only minor, shortterm effects on individuals. The 

specified activities are not expected to 

impact rates of recruitment or survival, 

and will therefore not result in 

population-level impacts. 

The waters of Glacier Bay and Icy 

Strait are part of the Alaska humpback 

whale feeding BIA (Wild et al., 2023). 

However, underwater sound would be 

constrained to Port Fredrick and would 

be truncated by land masses in the inlet. 

The area of the BIA that may be affected 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 1103 

by the proposed project is small relative 

to the overall area of the BIA. The 

humpback whale feeding BIA is active 

between May and October while the 

proposed project is scheduled to occur 

between September and January, 

resulting in only 2 months of overlap. 

Additionally, pile driving associated 

with the project is expected to take only 

107 days, further reducing the temporal 

overlap with the BIA. Therefore, the 

proposed project is not expected to have 

significant adverse effects on the 

foraging of Alaska humpback whale. 

There are two known harbor seal 

haulouts within Port Fredrick. One of 

the haulouts (CE79A) is located 

approximately 10 km (6.25 mi) from the 

project site and is outside of the 

ensonfied zone for this action. The other 

(CF39A) is located approximately 3 km 

(2 mi) from the project site and will be 

ensonified during some vibratory and 

impact pile driving activities. Neither of 

these haulouts are listed as a ‘‘key 

haulout,’’ or a haulout with 50 or more 

individuals present at the time of survey 

(AFSC 2024). Given that these are not 

considered key haulouts, and the 

maximum of 43 days that the ensonified 

zone will extend over 2 km, the 

proposed project is not expected to have 

significant adverse effects on harbor seal 

haulout sites. No areas of specific 

biological importance (e.g., ESA critical 

habitat, other BIAs, or other areas) for 

any other species are known to co-occur 

with the project area. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect any of 

the species or stocks through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• For all species except Dall’s 

porpoises, harbor porpoises, and harbor 

seals, no Level A harassment is 

anticipated or proposed for this action; 

• The intensity of anticipated takes 

by Level B harassment is relatively low 

for all stocks and would not be of a 

duration or intensity expected to result 

in impacts on reproduction or survival; 

• The lack of anticipated significant 

or long-term negative effects to marine 

mammal habitat; 

• With the exception of the 

humpback whale BIA described above, 

no areas of specific biological 

importance (e.g., ESA critical habitat, 

other BIAs, or other areas) for any other 

species are known to co-occur with the 

project area; and 

• Hoonah would implement 

mitigation measures, such as soft-starts 

for impact pile driving and shutdowns 

to minimize the numbers of marine 

mammals exposed to injurious levels of 

sound, and to ensure that take by Level 

A harassment, is at most, a small degree 

of auditory injury. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted previously, only take of 

small numbers of marine mammals may 

be authorized under sections 

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

specified activities other than military 

readiness activities. The MMPA does 

not define small numbers and so, in 

practice, where estimated numbers are 

available, NMFS compares the number 

of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one-third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

For all stocks, except for the Alaska 

stock of minke whales and the Alaska 

stock of Dall’s porpoises, whose 

abundance estimate is unknown, the 

proposed number of takes is less than 

one-third of the best available 

population abundance estimate (table 

8). The numbers of animals proposed for 

authorization to be taken from these 

stocks would be considered small 

relative to the relevant stocks’ 

abundances, even if each estimated 

taking occurred to a new individual—an 

extremely unlikely scenario. 

Current abundance estimates of Dall’s 

porpoises in the region are not available. 

the most recent estimate (83,400 

individuals) does not include coastal or 

inland waters of southeast Alaska and is 

considered unreliable since it is based 

upon data collected more than 8 years 

ago (Young et al., 2023). However, given 

the size of the most recent estimate, the 

83 takes of this stock proposed for 

authorization clearly represents small 

numbers of this stock. 

There is no current or historical 

estimate of the Alaska minke whale 

stock, but there are known to be over 

1,000 minke whales in the Gulf of 

Alaska (Muto et al. 2018), so the 11 

takes proposed for authorization is 

small relative to estimated survey 

abundance, even if each proposed take 

occurred to a new individual. 

Additionally, the range of the Alaska 

stock of minke whales is extensive, 

stretching from the Canadian Pacific 

coast to the Chukchi Sea, and Hoonah’s 

proposed project area would impact a 

small portion of this range. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals would be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must 

find that the specified activity will not 

have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ 

on the subsistence uses of the affected 

marine mammal species or stocks by 

Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity: (1) That is likely to 

reduce the availability of the species to 

a level insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 

hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing 

subsistence users; or (iii) Placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; 

and (2) That cannot be sufficiently 

mitigated by other measures to increase 

the availability of marine mammals to 

allow subsistence needs to be met. 

Alaska Natives have traditionally 

harvested subsistence resources, 

including marine mammals, in the 

Glacier Bay and Icy Strait for a 

millennia. Present day Hoonah is the 

principle village of the Huna tribe, and 

according to Ian Johnson, Hoonah 

Indian Association’s Environmental 

Coordinator, no known marine mammal 

harvest takes place in the immediate 

HMIC area (Johnson 2024). Limited 

subsistence harvests of marine 

mammals within Port Fredrick has 

occurred in the past, with the most 

recent recorded/documented harvests of 

marine mammals in Hoonah in 2012. 

The proposed activity will take place in 

Port Fredrick, and no activities overlap 

with current subsistence hunting areas; 

therefore, there are no relevant 

subsistence uses of marine mammals 

adversely impacted by this action. The 

proposed project is not likely to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
1104 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Notices 

adversely impact the availability of any 

marine mammal species or stocks that 

are commonly used for subsistence 

purposes or to impact subsistence 

harvest of marine mammals in the 

region. 

Based on the description of the 

specified activity, the measures 

described to minimize adverse effects 

on the availability of marine mammals 

for subsistence purposes, and the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that there will not be an 

unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from Hoonah’s 

proposed 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. 

NMFS is proposing to authorize take 

of humpback whales (Mexico DPS) and 

Steller sea lions (western DPS), which 

are listed under the ESA. The Permits 

and Conservation Division has 

requested initiation of section 7 

consultation with the Alaska Region for 

the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will 

conclude the ESA consultation prior to 

reaching a determination regarding the 

proposed issuance of the authorization. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to Hoonah for conducting the 

Hoonah Cargo Dock Project in Hoonah, 

Alaska from September 1, 2025 through 

August 31, 2026, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. A draft of the 

proposed IHA can be found at: https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHA for the proposed construction 

project. We also request comment on the 

potential renewal of this proposed IHA 

as described in the paragraph below. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform decisions on the request for 

this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Description of 

Proposed Activity section of this notice 

is planned or (2) the activities as 

described in the Description of 

Proposed Activity section of this notice 

would not be completed by the time the 

IHA expires and a renewal would allow 

for completion of the activities beyond 

that described in the Dates and Duration 

section of this notice, provided all of the 

following conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to the needed 

renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that the renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond 1 year from 

expiration of the initial IHA); 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted under the requested 

renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take); and 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized; 

and 

• Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: January 2, 2025. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00014 Filed 1–6–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

TIME AND DATE: 10:30 a.m. EST, Friday, 

January 10, 2025. 

PLACE: Virtual meeting. 

STATUS: Closed. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Enforcement and examinations matters. 

In the event that the time, date, or 

location of this meeting changes, an 

announcement of the change, along with 

the new time, date, and/or place of the 

meeting will be posted on the 

Commission’s website at https://

www.cftc.gov/. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202–418–5964. 

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.) 

Dated: January 3, 2025. 

Christopher Kirkpatrick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00222 Filed 1–3–25; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m. EST, Friday, 

January 10, 2025. 

PLACE: Virtual meeting. 

STATUS: Closed. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Matters 

relating to the CFTC’s bargaining 

position and related issues concerning 

ongoing negotiations over CFTC 

employee compensation and benefits. In 

the event that the time, date, or location 

of this meeting changes, an 

announcement of the change, along with 

the new time, date, and/or place of the 

meeting will be posted on the 

Commission’s website at https://

www.cftc.gov/. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202–418–5964. 

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.) 

Dated: January 3, 2025. 

Christopher Kirkpatrick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00221 Filed 1–3–25; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1