30894 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 

document is being modified with new 

information in the ABSTRACT and 

DATA sections, and Commerce hereby 

issues a correction notice as required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information concerning this 

correction, contact Adrienne Thomas, 

NOAA PRA Officer, at NOAA.PRA@

noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction 

Abstract 

This request is for a revision and 

extension of a currently approved 

information collection and is sponsored 

by NOAA’s Southeast Fisheries Science 

Center (SEFSC). 

The objective of the data collection 

effort under OMB Control Number 

0648–0769 is to understand how Florida 

anglers respond to changes in trip costs 

and/or fishing regulations in the Gulf of 

Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. The 

population to be surveyed consists of 

those anglers who fish in the Gulf of 

Mexico or Atlantic Ocean from Florida 

for reef fish species. The sample will be 

drawn from the list of Florida anglers 

with the State Reef Fish Angler license 

designation and matched to the state of 

Florida’s boat registration list. The 

sample is targeted to anglers who fish 

for reef species who fish from a boat 

given that most reef species occur 

offshore. 

Data 

Type of Review: Regular submission, 

revision and extension of a current 

information collection. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

2,000. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 100. 

We are soliciting public comments to 

permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) 

Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper functions of the Department, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the 

accuracy of our estimate of the time and 

cost burden for this proposed collection, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (c) 

Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (d) Minimize the 

reporting burden on those who are to 

respond, including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

Comments that you submit in 

response to this notice are a matter of 

public record. We will include or 

summarize each comment in our request 

to OMB to approve this ICR. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

email address, or other personal 

identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you may ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Sheleen Dumas, 

Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of 

the Chief Information Officer, Commerce 

Department. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10918 Filed 5–19–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB747] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Coast 

Guard’s Floating Dock Extension 

Project at Base Ketchikan, 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 United States Coast Guard 

(USCG) for authorization to take marine 

mammals incidental to the floating dock 

extension construction project in 

Ketchikan, 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, one-year renewal that could 

be issued under certain circumstances 

and if all requirements are met, as 

described in Request for Public 

Comments at the end of this notice. 

NMFS will consider public comments 

prior to making any final decision on 

the issuance of the requested MMPA 

authorizations and agency responses 

will be summarized in the final notice 

of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than June 21, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Written 

comments should be submitted via 

email to ITP.Corcoran@noaa.gov. 

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 

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: Kim 

Corcoran, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 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/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case 

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

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 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 30895 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. We will review all 

comments submitted in response to this 

notice prior to concluding our NEPA 

process or making a final decision on 

the IHA request. 

Summary of Request 

On March 9th, 2021, NMFS received 

a request from the USCG for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to the 

construction of the floating dock 

extension at Base Ketchikan, Alaska. 

Following NMFS’ review of the request, 

USCG provided additional information 

on July 22, 2021, and again on March 7, 

2022. The application was deemed 

adequate and complete on the latter 

date. USCG’s request is for take of ten 

species of marine mammals by Level B 

harassment and, for a subset of three 

species, by Level A harassment. Neither 

USCG nor NMFS expects serious injury 

or mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The USCG requests an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization (IHA) for 

activities associated with the 

construction of the Floating Dock 

Extension Project in the Tongass 

Narrows at Coast Guard Base Ketchikan 

(Base Ketchikan) in Ketchikan, Alaska. 

The proposed project will cover a 12- 

month window during which 

approximately 30 days of pileinstallation activity will occur. The 

project involves the installation of ten, 

24-inch steel guide piles for a third 

floating dock section. Three different 

installation methods will be used 

including the Down-the-Hole (DTH) 

system to create rock sockets for new 

piles, vibratory installation of piles, and 

final pile proofing with a limited use of 

impact pile driving. Sounds resulting 

from pile installation and drilling 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. 

Dates and Duration 

The proposed IHA would be effective 

from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. 

The total expected work duration would 

be 15 construction days (5 days of DTH, 

5 days of vibratory pile installation, and 

5 days of impact pile driving) with an 

additional 15 day buffer to account for 

days where work is paused (e.g., 

inclement weather), for a total work 

window of 30 days. The USCG plans to 

conduct all work during daylight hours. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The proposed activity will occur in 

the Tongass Narrows at Base Ketchikan 

in Ketchikan, Alaska (Figure 1). Base 

Ketchikan is located on the 

southwestern end of Revillagigedo 

Island, approximately 235 miles south 

of Juneau and 90 miles north of Prince 

Rupert, British Columbia. The Base is 

about 1 mile south of downtown 

Ketchikan, on the industrial limits of 

the city, and on the East Channel of the 

Tongass Narrows. The waters of the 

Tongass Narrows are heavily used by 

the public including cruise ships, 

commercial fishing vessels, and private 

craft and sea planes, which contribute 

significantly to the ambient acoustic 

environment in the Narrows. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30896 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN20MY22.001</GPH>

Figure 1. Map illustrating the proposed project location at USCG Base Ketchikan. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 30897 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

USCG plans to install ten steel guide 

piles for a third floating dock section at 

Base Ketchikan to support the 

homeporting of a third Fast Response 

Cutter (FRC) (Figure 2). The piles would 

be installed over a period of 30 days, 

allotting five construction days to each 

of the three methods of installation, in 

addition to 15 additional buffer days to 

account for unforeseen interruptions 

(e.g., inclement weather). These 

methods include DTH, vibratory pile 

installation and impact driving pile 

proofing (see Table 1). 

The use of DTH will depend on the 

overburden thickness and bedrock 

bottom conditions beneath the proposed 

floating dock extension (see Figure 2). If 

needed, the DTH system will be used to 

pre-drill sockets for each guide pile that 

will be installed. Neighboring projects 

in the Tongass Narrows have reported 

ten feet of overburden requiring 20-foot 

deep sockets to be drilled for pile 

installation. USCG expects conditions to 

be similar at the proposed project site. 

Once rock sockets are drilled, 24-inch 

steel piles would be inserted using a 

vibratory hammer. An impact pile 

driver would then be used to proof the 

newly installed piles which would then 

be stabilized using concrete in the pile 

socket. Floating stick bar booms will be 

deployed around the active work area to 

provide a complete barrier to floating 

debris. 

Additional actions occurring under 

the proposed action that are not 

anticipated to generate in-water noise 

resulting in marine mammal harassment 

include the removal of the existing wave 

attenuator southeast of the proposed 

floating dock extension (Figure 2). 

Removal of the existing wave attenuator 

will include removal of stockless 

anchors vertically off the seafloor and 

floating the concrete wave attenuator to 

a recycling/disposal location. Once the 

piles are installed, the floating dock 

would be placed around the 10 guide 

piles followed by ancillary 

infrastructure (e.g., electricity, water, 

sewage, communications) to support the 

docked cutters. NMFS does not expect, 

that these ancillary activities will harm 

or harass marine mammals and no 

incidental takes are expected as a result 

of these activities. Therefore, these 

activities are not discussed further in 

this document. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN20MY22.002</GPH>

Figure 2. Map of USCG Base Ketchikan and proposed floating dock extension 

components and actions. 
30898 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 1—PILE INSTALLATION METHODS AND DURATIONS

Installation method Duration/impacts per pile Piles 

driven/day Estimated days 

DTH .............................................................................. 60 minutes ...................................... 2 5. 

Vibratory pile installation ............................................... 6 minutes ........................................ 2 5.

Impact driving pile proofing .......................................... 5 impacts ........................................ 2 5 (10 strikes). 

Total ....................................................................... ......................................................... .................... 15 (30) 1

1The total expected work duration is 15 days with an additional 15 day buffer to account for days where work is paused (e.g., inclement 

weather) for a total work window of 30 days. 

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, 

incorporated here by reference, instead 

of reprinting the information. 

Additional information regarding 

population trends and threats may be 

found in NMFS’s Stock Assessment 

Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/national/marine-mammalprotection/marine-mammal-stockassessments) and more general 

information about these species (e.g., 

physical and behavioral descriptions) 

may be found on NMFS’s website 

(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/findspecies). 

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for this action, 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. For taxonomy, we follow 

Committee on Taxonomy (2021). 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’s SARs). While no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are included here as gross indicators of 

the status of the species 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’s 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’s U.S. 2021 Draft SARs (e.g., 

Muto et al., 2021). All values presented 

in Table 2 are the most recent available 

at the time of publication and are 

available in the 2021 draft SARs (Muto 

et al., 2021). 2020 SARs (Muto et al., 

2021) and draft 2021 SARs (available 

online at: https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/national/marine-mammalprotection/draft-marine-mammal-stockassessment-reports). 

TABLE 2—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

Gray whale ......................... Eschrichtius robustus ................ Eastern North Pacific 

Stock.

-,-,N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 2016) ..... 801 131 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Humpback whale ................ Megaptera novaeanglinae ........ Central North Pacific 

Stock.

-,-,Y 10,103 (0.3, 7,890, 2006) ......... 83 26 

Minke whale ........................ Balaenoptera acutorostrata ...... Alaska Stock ................... -,-,N N/A (N/A, N/A, N/A) 4 ................ UND 0 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Killer whale ......................... Orca orcinus ............................. Alaska Resident ............. -,-,N 2,347 (N/A, 2347, 2012) ........... 24 1 

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

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

Pacific white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus obliquidens .... North Pacific Stock ......... -,-,N 26,880 (N/A, N/A,1990) ............ UND 0 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Dall’s porpoise 6 .................. Phocoenoides dalli .................... Alaska Stock ................... -,-,N 15,432 (0.097,13,110,2015) ..... 131 37 

Harbor porpoise 7 ................ Phocoena phocoena ................. Southeast Alaska Stock -,-,Y 1302 (0.21, 1057, 2019) ........... 11 34 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 30899 

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

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 

Harbor seal ......................... Phoca vituline richardii .............. Clarence Strait Stock ..... -,-,N 27,659 (N/A, 24,854, 2015) ...... 746 40 

Northern Elephant seal ....... Mirounga angustirostris ............ California Breeding Stock -,-,N 187,386 (N/A, 85,369, 2013) .... 5,122 5.3 

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

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

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

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

mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 4 No population estimates have been made for the number of minke whales in the entire North Pacific. Some information is available on the numbers of minke 

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

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

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

is considered to be biased low since it is based on the whole stock whereas the estimate of mortality and serious injury is for the entire stock’s range. 7Abundance estimates assumed that detection probability on the trackline was perfect; work is underway on a corrected estimate. Additionally, preliminary data results based on eDNA analysis show genetic differentiation between harbor porpoise in the northern and southern regions on the inland waters of southeast Alaska. 

Geographic delineation is not yet known. Data to evaluate population structure for harbor porpoise in Southeast Alaska have been collected and are currently being 

analyzed. Should the analysis identify different population structure than is currently reflected in the Alaska SARs, NMFS will consider how to best revise stock designations in the future. 

As indicated above, all ten species 

(with twelve managed stocks) in Table 

2 temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur, and we have 

proposed authorizing it. Fin whale 

could potentially occur in the area, 

however there are no known sightings 

nearby and USCG would shut down 

activity if the whale enters the 

harassment zones. Therefore, given the 

former and the rarity of the species, take 

is not expected to occur and they are not 

discussed further. 

In addition, the northern sea otter 

(Enhydra lutris kenyoni) may be found 

in the Tongass Narrows. However, 

northern sea otters are managed by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are 

not considered further in this document. 

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 current minimum abundance 

estimate for the eastern DPS of Steller 

sea lions is 43,201 individuals (Muto et 

al., 2021). The western DPS (those 

individuals west of the 144°W longitude 

or Cape Suckling, Alaska) was upgraded 

to endangered status following 

separation of the DPSs, and it remains 

endangered today. There is regular 

movement of both DPSs across this 

144°W longitude boundary (Jemison et 

al., 2013), however, due to the distance 

from this DPS boundary, it is likely that 

only eastern DPS Steller sea lions are 

present in the project area. Therefore, 

animals potentially affected by the 

project are assumed to be part of the 

eastern DPS. Sea lions from the western 

DPS, are not likely to be affected by the 

proposed activity and are not discussed 

further. 

There are several mapped and 

regularly monitored long-term Steller 

sea lion haulouts surrounding 

Ketchikan, such as West Rocks (36 mi/ 

58 km) or Nose point (37 mi/60 km), but 

none are known to occur within 

Tongass Narrows (Fritz et al., 2015). The 

nearest known Steller sea lion haulout 

is located approximately 21 mi (34 km) 

west/northwest of Ketchikan on 

Grindall Island. None of these haulouts 

would be affected by the proposed 

activity. Summer counts of adult and 

juvenile sea lions at on Grindall Island 

from 2000 through 2015 have averaged 

approximately 191 individuals, with a 

range from 6 in 2009 to 378 in 2008. 

Only two winter surveys of this haulout 

have occurred. No sea lion pups have 

been observed at this haulout during 

surveys. Although this is a limited 

sample, it suggests that abundance may 

be consistent year-round at the Grindall 

Island haulout. 

No systematic studies of sea lion 

abundance or distribution have 

occurred in Tongass Narrows. 

Anecdotal reports suggest that Steller 

sea lions may be found in Tongass 

Narrows year-round, with an increase in 

abundance from March to early May 

during the herring spawning season, 

and another increase in late summer 

associated with salmon runs. Overall 

sea lion presence in Tongass Narrows 

tends to be lower in summer than in 

winter (FHWA, 2017). During summer, 

Steller sea lions may aggregate outside 

the project area, at rookery and haulout 

sites. Monitoring during construction of 

the Ketchikan Ferry Terminal in 

summer (July 16 through August 17, 

2016) did not record any Steller sea 

lions (ADOT&PF, 2015); however, 

monitoring during construction of the 

Ward Cove Dock, approximately 11 km 

northwest of the proposed project site, 

recorded 181 individual sea lions 

between February and September 2020 

(Power Systems & Supplies of Alaska, 

2020). Most sightings occurred in 

February (45 sightings of 88 sea lions) 

and March (34 sightings of 45 sea lions); 

the fewest number of sightings were 

observed in May (1 sighting of 1 sea 

lion) (Power Systems & Supplies of 

Alaska, 2020). 

Sea lions are known to transit through 

Tongass Narrows while pursing prey. 

Steller sea lions are known to follow 

fishing vessels, and may congregate in 

small numbers at seafood processing 

facilities and hatcheries or at the 

mouths of rivers and creeks containing 

hatcheries, where large numbers of 

salmon congregate in late summer. 

Three seafood processing facilities are 

located east of the proposed berth 

location on Revillagigedo Island, and 

two salmon hatcheries operated by the 

Alaska Department of Fish & Game 

(ADF&G) are located east of the project 

area. Steller sea lions may aggregate 

near the mouth of Ketchikan Creek, 

where a hatchery upstream supports a 

summer salmon run. The Creek mouth 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30900 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 

is more than 4 km (2.5 mi) form both 

ferry berth sites, and is positioned 

behind the cruise ship terminal and 

within the small boat harbor of 

Ketchikan. In addition to these 

locations, anecdotal information from a 

local kayaking company suggests that 

there are Steller sea lions present at 

Gravina Point, near the southwest 

entrance to Tongass Narrows, about 3 

mi (∼5 km) southwest of the project site. 

A total of 181 Steller sea lions were 

sighted on 44 separate days during all 

months of the Ward Cove Cruise Ship 

Dock construction project (February– 

September, 2020) (Power Systems and 

Supplies of Alaska, 2020). Most 

sightings occurred in February and 

March and the fewest sightings were in 

May. Sightings were of single 

individuals, pairs, and herds of up to 10 

individuals. They were identified as 

traveling, foraging, swimming, chuffing, 

milling, looking, sinking, spyhopping, 

and playing. 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and 

estuarine waters off Alaska. They haul 

out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting 

glacial ice. They are opportunistic 

feeders and often adjust their 

distribution to take advantage of locally 

and seasonally abundant prey (Womble 

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

Harbor seals occurring in the project 

area belong to the Clarence Strait stock. 

Distribution of the Clarence Strait stock 

ranges from the east coast of Prince of 

Wales Island from Cape Chacon north 

through Clarence Strait to Point Baker 

and along the east coast of Mitkof and 

Kupreanof Islands north to Bay Point, 

including Ernest Sound, Behm Canal, 

and Pearse Canal (Muto et al., 2021). In 

the project area, they tend to be more 

abundant during spring, summer and 

fall months when salmon are present in 

Ward Creek. Anecdotal evidence 

indicates that harbor seals typically 

occur in groups of 1–3 animals in Ward 

Cove with a few sightings per day 

(Spokely, 2019). They were not 

observed in Tongass Narrows during a 

combined 63.5 hours of marine mammal 

monitoring that took place in 2001 and 

2016 (OSSA, 2001, Turnagain, 2016). 

There are no known harbor seal 

haulouts within the project area. 

According to the list of harbor seal 

haulout locations, the closest listed 

haulouts are located off the tip of 

Gravina Island, approximately 8 km (5 

mi) northwest of Ward Cove (AFSC, 

2018), however none overlap with the 

proposed project area. 

Killer Whale 

Killer whales have been observed in 

all the world’s oceans, but the highest 

densities occur in colder and more 

productive waters found at high 

latitudes (NMFS, 2016). Killer whales 

occur along the entire Alaska coast, in 

British Columbia and Washington 

inland waterways, and along the outer 

coasts of Washington, Oregon, and 

California (NMFS, 2016). 

Based on data regarding association 

patterns, acoustics, movements, and 

genetic differences, eight killer whale 

stocks are now recognized within the 

Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

(U.S. EEZ). This proposed IHA 

considers only the Eastern North Pacific 

Alaska Resident stock (Alaska Resident 

stock), the Eastern North Pacific 

Northern Resident stock (Northern 

Resident Stock), and the West Coast 

Transient stock, as all other stocks do 

not overlap with the proposed project 

area (Muto et al., 2021). 

There are three distinct ecotypes, or 

forms, of killer whales recognized: 

Resident, Transient, and Offshore. The 

three ecotypes differ morphologically, 

ecologically, behaviorally, and 

genetically. Surveys between 1991 and 

2007 encountered resident killer whales 

during all seasons throughout Southeast 

Alaska. Both residents and transients 

were common in a variety of habitats 

and all major waterways, including 

protected bays and inlets. There does 

not appear to be strong seasonal 

variation in abundance or distributed of 

killer whales, but there was substantial 

variability between years (Dahlheim et 

al., 2009). Spatial distribution has been 

shown to vary among the different 

ecotypes, with resident and, to a lesser 

extent, transient killer whales more 

commonly observed along the 

continental shelf, and offshore killer 

whales more commonly observed in 

pelagic waters (Rice et al., 2021). 

No systematic studies of killer whales 

have been conducted in or around 

Tongass Narrows. Killer whales have 

been observed in Tongass Narrows yearround and are most common during the 

summer Chinook salmon run (May– 

July). During the Chinook salmon run, 

Ketchikan residents have reported pods 

of up to 20–30 whales (84 FR 36891; 

July 30, 2019). Typical pod sizes 

observed within the project vicinity 

range from 1 to 10 animals and the 

frequency of killer whales passing 

through the action area is estimated to 

be once per month (Frietag, 2017). 

Anecdotal reports suggest that large 

pods of killer whales (as many as 80 

individuals, but generally between 25 

and 40 individuals) are not uncommon 

in May, June, and July when the king 

salmon are running. During the rest of 

the year, killer whales occur irregularly 

in pods of 6 to 12 or more individuals. 

Transient killer whales are often 

found in long-term stable social units 

(pods) of 1 to 16 whales. Average pod 

sizes in Southeast Alaska were 6.0 in 

spring, 5.0 in summer and 3.9 in fall. 

Pod sizes of transient whales are 

generally smaller than those of resident 

social groups. Resident killer whales 

occur in larger pods, ranging from 7 to 

70 whales that are seen in association 

with one another more than 50 percent 

of the time (Dahlheim et al., 2009). 

Although killer whales may occur in 

large numbers, they generally form large 

pods and would incur fewer work 

stoppages than their numbers suggest 

since stoppages correlate more with the 

number of pods than the number of 

individuals. Killer whales tend to transit 

through Tongass Narrows, and do not 

linger in the project area. 

Marine mammal observations in 

Tongass Narrows during 2020 and 2021 

support an estimate of approximately 

one group of killer whales a month in 

the project area. During 7 months of 

monitoring (October 2020–February 

2021; May–June 2021), there were five 

killer whale sightings in 4 months 

(November, February, May, and June) 

totaling 22 animals and sightings 

occurred on 5 out of 88 days of 

monitoring (DOT&PF, 2020, 2021a, 

2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Pod sizes ranged 

from two to eight animals. During the 

COK’s monitoring for the Rock Pinnacle 

Removal project in December 2019 and 

January 2020, no killer whales were 

observed. Over eight months of 

monitoring at the Ward Cove Cruise 

Ship Dock in occurred in 2020, and 

killer whales were only observed on two 

days in March (Power Systems and 

Supplies of Alaska, 2020). These 

observations included a sighting of one 

pod of two killer whales and a second 

pod of five individuals travelling 

through the project area. 

Pacific White-Sided Dolphin 

Pacific white-sided dolphins are a 

pelagic species inhabiting temperate 

waters of the North Pacific Ocean and 

along the coasts of California, Oregon, 

Washington, and Alaska (Muto et al., 

2021). Despite their distribution mostly 

in deep, offshore waters, they may also 

be found over the continental shelf and 

near shore waters, including inland 

waters of Southeast Alaska (Ferrero and 

Walker, 1996). They are managed as two 

distinct stocks: The California/Oregon/ 

Washington stock, and the North Pacific 

stock (north of 45 N, including Alaska). 

The North Pacific stock ranges from 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 30901 

Canada into Alaska, and is thus the only 

stock that is found within the project 

area (Muto et al., 2021). 

Pacific white-sided dolphins prey on 

squid and small schooling fish such as 

capelin, sardines, and herring (Morton, 

2006). They are known to work in 

groups to herd schools of fish and can 

dive underwater for up to 6 minutes to 

feed (Morton, 2006). Group sizes have 

been reported to range from 40 to over 

1,000 animals, but groups of between 10 

and 100 individuals occur most 

commonly (Stacey and Baird, 1991; 

NMFS no date). Seasonal movements of 

Pacific white-sided dolphins are not 

well understood, but there is evidence 

of both north-south seasonal movement 

(Leatherwood et al., 1984) and inshoreoffshore seasonal movement (Stacey and 

Baird, 1991). 

Scientific studies and data are lacking 

relative to the presence or abundance of 

Pacific white-sided dolphins in or near 

Tongass Narrows. Although they 

generally prefer deeper and moreoffshore waters, anecdotal reports 

suggest that Pacific white-sided 

dolphins have previously been observed 

in Tongass Narrows, although they have 

not been observed entering Tongass 

Narrows or nearby inter-island 

waterways in 15–20 years. 

Pacific white-sided dolphins are rare 

in the inside passageways of Southeast 

Alaska. Most observations occur off the 

outer coast or in inland waterways near 

entrances to the open ocean. According 

to Muto et al., (2018), aerial surveys in 

1997 sighted one group of 164 Pacific 

white-sided dolphins in Dixon entrance 

to the south of Tongass Narrows. 

Surveys in April and May from 1991 to 

1993 identified Pacific white-sided 

dolphins in Revillagigedo Channel, 

Behm Canal, and Clarence Strait 

(Dahlheim and Towell 1994). There 

areas are contiguous within the open 

ocean waters of the Dixon Entrance. 

This observational data, combined with 

anecdotal information, indicates there is 

a rare, however, slight potential for 

Pacific white-sided dolphins to occur in 

the project area. 

During marine mammal monitoring of 

the Tongass Narrows in 2020 and 2021, 

no Pacific white-sided dolphins were 

observed on 88 days of observations 

across 7 months (October 2020– 

February 2021; May–June 2021), which 

supports anecdotal evidence that 

sightings of this species are rare 

(DOT&PF, 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 

2021d). There were also no sightings of 

Pacific white-sided dolphins during the 

COK Rock Pinnacle Blasting Project 

during monitoring surveys conducted in 

December 2019 and January 2020 

(Sitkiewicz, 2020) or during monitoring 

surveys conducted between FebruarySeptember 2020 as part of the Ward 

Cove Cruise Ship Dock project (Power 

Systems and Supplies of Alaska, 2020). 

Dall’s Porpoise 

Dall’s porpoises are found throughout 

the North Pacific, from southern Japan 

to southern California north to the 

Bering Sea. All Dall’s porpoises in 

Alaska are members of the Alaska stock. 

This species can be found in offshore, 

inshore, and nearshore habitats. 

Jefferson et al., (2019) presents 

historical survey data showing few 

sightings in the Ketchikan area. The 

mean group size in Southeast Alaska is 

estimated at approximately three 

individuals (Dahlheim et al., 2009, 

Jefferson et al., 2019), although Freitag 

(2017, as cited in 83 FR 37473) 

suggested group sizes near Ketchikan 

range from 10 to 15 individuals. 

Anecdotal reports suggest that Dall’s 

porpoises are found northwest of 

Ketchikan near the Guard Islands, 

where waters are deeper, as well as in 

deeper waters southeast of Tongass 

Narrows. This species has a tendency to 

bow-ride with vessels and may occur in 

the action area incidentally a few times 

per year. In March and April 2020, 8 

individuals were identified across two 

sighting events during the Ward Cove 

Cruise Ship Dock Project (Power 

Systems and Supplies of Alaska, 2020). 

No sightings were observed from 

December 2019–January 2020 during the 

COK Rock Pinnacle Blasting Project 

(Sitkiewics, 2020). 

Harbor Porpoise 

In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, 

the harbor porpoise ranges from Point 

Barrow, along the Alaska coast, and 

down the west coast of North America 

to Point Conception, California. The 

Southeast Alaska stock ranges from 

Cape Suckling to the Canadian border 

(Muto et al., 2021). Harbor porpoises 

frequent primarily coastal waters in 

Southeast Alaska (Dahlheim et al., 2009) 

and occur most frequently in waters less 

than 100 m (328 ft) deep (Dahlhleim et 

al., 2015). They are not attracted to areas 

with elevated levels of vessel activity 

and noise such as Tongass Narrows. 

Studies of harbor porpoises reported 

no evidence of seasonal changes in 

distribution for the inland waters of 

Southeast Alaska (Dahlheim et al., 

2015). Ketchikan area densities are 

expected to be low. This is supported by 

anecdotal estimates. There were no 

sightings of harbor porpoises recorded 

during the December 2019–January 2020 

COK Rock Pinnacle Blasting Project 

(Sitkiewics, 2020). However, 15 

individual harbor porpoises were 

sighted across three separate sighting 

events in March and April 2020 during 

the Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock Project 

(Power Systems and Supplies of Alaska, 

2020). Therefore, harbor porpoises are 

expected to be present in the action area 

only a few times per year. 

Elephant Seals 

Northern elephant seals breed and 

give birth in California and Baja 

California, primarily on offshore islands 

(Stewart et al., 1994). Spatial 

segregation in foraging areas between 

males and females is evident from 

satellite tag data (Le Beouf et al., 2000). 

Males migrate to the Gulf of Alaska and 

western Aleutian Islands along the 

continental shelf to feed on benthic 

prey, while females migrate to pelagic 

areas in the Gulf of Alaska and the 

central North Pacific to feed on pelagic 

prey (Le Beouf et al., 2000). Elephant 

seals spend a majority of their time at 

sea (average of 74.7 days during post 

breeding migration and an average of 

218.5 days during the post-molting 

migration) (Robinson et al., 2012). 

Although northern elephant seals are 

known to visit the Gulf of Alaska to 

feed, they are rarely found on the 

beaches of Alaska. However, recent 

anecdotal evidence suggests that their 

range is expanding northward, and one 

elephant seal has repeatedly been 

spotted within Ketchikan in and around 

local docks (ASE, 2022). 

Humpback Whale 

The humpback whale is found 

worldwide in all oceans. Prior to 2016, 

humpback whales were listed under the 

ESA as an endangered species 

worldwide. Following a 2015 global 

status review (Bettridge et al., 2015), 

NMFS established 14 DPSs with 

different listing statuses (81 FR 62259; 

September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. 

Humpback whales found in the project 

area are predominantly members of the 

Hawaii DPS, which is not listed under 

the ESA. However, based on a 

comprehensive photo-identification 

study, members of the Mexico DPS, 

which is listed as threatened, have a 

small potential to occur in Southeast 

Alaska as well. Members of different 

DPSs are known to intermix on feeding 

grounds; therefore, all waters off the 

coast of Alaska should be considered to 

have ESA-listed humpback whales. 

Approximately 1 percent of all 

humpback whales in Southeast Alaska 

and northern British Columbia are 

members of the listed Mexico DPS, 

while all others are members of the nonlisted Hawaii DPS (Wade et al., 2021). 

Therefore, in consultation with the 

Alaska Regional Office, NMFS believes 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30902 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 

that the listed DPS of humpback whales 

is not likely to be encountered near the 

project area and, if perchance they are, 

required mitigation will be required of 

USCG to avoid take of the ESA listed 

DPS of humpback whales. 

The DPSs of humpback whales that 

were identified through the ESA listing 

process do not equate to the existing 

MMPA stocks. The stock delineations of 

humpback whales under the MMPA are 

currently under review. Until this 

review is complete, NMFS considers 

humpback whales in Southeast Alaska 

to be part of the Central North Pacific 

stock, with a status of endangered under 

the ESA and designations of strategic 

and depleted under the MMPA (Muto et 

al., 2021). 

Humpback whales experienced large 

population declines due to commercial 

whaling operations in the early 20th 

century. Barlow (2003) estimated the 

population of humpback whales at 

approximately 1,200 animals in 1966. 

The population in the North Pacific 

grew between 6,000 and 8,000 by the 

mid-1990s. Current threats to humpback 

whales include vessel strikes, spills, 

climate change, and commercial fishing 

operations (Muto et al., 2021). 

Humpback whales are found 

throughout Southeast Alaska in a 

variety of marine environments, 

including open-ocean, near-shore 

waters, and areas within strong tidal 

currents (Dahlheim et al., 2009). Most 

humpback whales are migratory and 

spend winters in the breeding grounds 

off either Hawaii or Mexico. Humpback 

whales generally arrive in Southeast 

Alaska in March and return to their 

wintering grounds in November. Some 

humpback whales depart late or arrive 

early to feeding grounds, and therefore 

the species occurs in the Southeast 

Alaska region year-round (Straley, 1990, 

Straley et al., 2018). Across the region, 

there have been no recent estimates of 

humpback whale density. 

No systematic studies have 

documented humpback whale 

abundance near Ketchikan. Anecdotal 

information suggests that this species is 

present in low numbers year-round in 

Tongass Narrows, with the highest 

abundance during summer and fall. 

Anecdotal reports suggest that 

humpback whales are seen only once or 

twice per month, while more recently it 

has been suggested that the occurrence 

is more regular, such as once per week 

on average, and more seasonal. 

Humpbacks observed in Tongass 

Narrows are generally alone or in groups 

of one to three individuals. In August 

2017, a group of 6 individuals was 

observed passing through Tongass 

Narrows several times per day, for 

several days in a row. 

The City of Ketchikan (COK) Rock 

Pinnacle project, which was located 

approximately 2.25 kilometers (km) 

north of USCG’s proposed project site, 

reported one humpback whale sighting 

of one individual during the project 

(December 2019 through January 2020). 

During the Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock 

Construction, located approximately 11 

km northwest of the proposed project 

site, 28 sightings of humpbacks were 

made on eighteen days of in water work 

that occurred between February and 

September 2020, with at least one 

humpback being recorded every month. 

A total of 42 individuals were recorded 

and group sizes ranged from 1 to 6 

(Power Systems & Supplies of Alaska, 

2020). Humpback whales were sighted 

on 17 days out of 88 days of monitoring 

in Tongass Narrows in 2020 and 2021 

(DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 

2021d). There were no sightings in 

January or February, but humpback 

whales were observed each month from 

October to December 2020 and May to 

June 2021. During November 2020, a 

single known individual (by fluke 

pattern) was observed repeatedly, 

accounting for 14 of the 26 sighting 

events that month (DOT&PF, 2020). 

During monitoring, humpback whales 

were observed on average once a week. 

Southeast Alaska is considered an 

important area for feeding humpback 

whales between March and May (Ellison 

et al., 2012), though not currently 

designated as critical habitat (86 FR 

21082; April 21, 2021). In Alaska, 

humpback whales filter feed on tiny 

crustaceans, plankton, and small fish 

such as walleye Pollock, Pacific sand 

lance, herring, eulachon (Thaleichthys 

pacificus), and capelin (Witteveen et al., 

2012). 

Minke Whale 

Minke whales are found throughout 

the northern hemisphere in polar, 

temperate, and tropical waters. The 

population status of minke whales is 

considered stable throughout most of 

their range. Historically, commercial 

whaling reduced the population size of 

this species, but given their small size, 

they were never a primary target of 

whaling and did not experience the 

severe population declines as did larger 

cetaceans. 

Minke whales are found in all Alaska 

waters. Minke whales in Southeast 

Alaska are part of the Alaska stock 

(Muto et al., 2021). Research in 

Southeast Alaska have consistently 

identified individuals throughout 

inland waters in low numbers 

(Dahlheim et al., 2009). All sightings 

were of single minke whales, except for 

a single sighting of multiple minke 

whales. Surveys took place in spring, 

summer, and fall, and minke whales 

were present in low numbers in all 

seasons and years. No information 

appears to be available on the winter 

occurrence of minke whales in 

Southeast Alaska. 

There are no known occurrences of 

minke whales within the project area. 

Since their ranges extend into the 

project area and they have been 

observed in southeast Alaska, including 

in Clarence Strait (Dahlheim et al., 

2009), it is possible the species could 

occur near the project area. No minke 

whales were reported during the COK 

Rock Pinnacle Blasting Project 

(Sitkiewicz, 2020). During marine 

mammal monitoring of Tongass 

Narrows in 2020 and 2021, there were 

no minke whales observed over 88 days 

of observations across 7 months 

(October 2020–February 2021; May– 

June 2021) (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 

2021b, 2021c, 2021d). 

In Alaska, the minke whale diet 

consists primarily of euphausiids and 

walleye Pollock. Minke whales are 

generally found in shallow, coastal 

waters within 200 m of shore (Zerbini 

et al., 2006) and are almost always 

solitary or in small groups of 2 to 3. In 

Alaska, seasonal movements are 

associated with feeding areas that are 

generally located at the edge of the pack 

ice (NMFS, 2014). 

Gray Whale 

Gray whales are distributed 

throughout the North Pacific Ocean and 

are found primarily in shallow coastal 

waters (Muto et al., 2021). Gray whales 

in the Eastern North Pacific stock range 

from the southern Gulf of California, 

Mexico to the arctic waters of the Bering 

and Chukchi Seas. Gray whales are 

generally solitary creatures and travel 

together alone or in small groups. 

Gray whales are rare in the action area 

and unlikely to occur in Tongass 

Narrows. They were not observed 

during the Dahlheim et al., (2009) 

surveys of Alaska’s inland waters with 

surveys conducted in the spring, 

summer and fall months. No gray 

whales were reported during COK Rock 

Pinnacle Blasting Project (Sitkiewicz, 

2020) or Ward Cove (Power Systems & 

Supplies of Alaska, 2020). However, a 

gray whale could migrate through or 

near the project area during November 

especially. 

There is an ongoing Unusual 

Mortality Event (UME) involving gray 

whales on the Pacific Coast (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-life-distress/2019-2021-grayVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 May 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20MYN1.SGM 20MYN1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 30903 

whale-unusual-mortality-event-alongwest-coast-and). Almost half of the 

standings in the United States have been 

in Alaska. A definitive cause has not 

been found for the UME but many of the 

animals show signs of emaciation. 

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. Current data indicate 

that 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) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in Table 3. 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

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

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

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

australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

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

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

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

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

with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al. 2,007) and PW pinniped (approximation). 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take 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 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 how 

those impacts on individuals are likely 

to impact marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Acoustic effects on marine mammals 

during the specified activity can occur 

from impact pile driving, vibratory 

driving and DTH. The effects of 

underwater noise from USCG’s 

proposed activities have the potential to 

result in Level A or Level B harassment 

of marine mammals in the action area. 

Description of Sound Source 

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 10–20 dB from day to day 

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

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the project would 

include vibratory pile removal, impact 

and vibratory pile driving, and drilling. 

The sounds produced by these activities 

fall into one of two general sound types: 

Impulsive and non-impulsive. 

Impulsive sounds (e.g., explosions, 

gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile 

driving) are typically transient, brief 

(less than 1 second), broadband, and 

consist of high peak sound pressure 

with rapid rise time and rapid decay 

(ANSI 1986; NIOSH 1998; ANSI 2005; 

NMFS 2018a). Non-impulsive sounds 

(e.g., aircraft, machinery operations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30904 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems) 

can be broadband, narrowband or tonal, 

brief or prolonged (continuous or 

intermittent), and typically do not have 

the high peak sound pressure with raid 

rise/decay time that impulsive sounds 

do (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS 

2018a). The distinction between these 

two sound types is important because 

they have differing potential to cause 

physical effects, particularly with regard 

to hearing (e.g., Ward 1997 in Southall 

et al., 2007). 

Three types of hammers would be 

used on this project: Impact, vibratory, 

and DTH. Impact hammers operate by 

repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto 

a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. 

Sound generated by impact hammers is 

characterized by rapid rise times and 

high peak levels, a potentially injurious 

combination (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). Vibratory hammers install piles 

by vibrating them and allowing the 

weight of the hammer to push them into 

the sediment. Vibratory hammers 

produce significantly less sound than 

impact hammers. Peak sound pressure 

levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, 

but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than 

SPLs generated during impact pile 

driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman 

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

reducing the probability and severity of 

injury, and sound energy is distributed 

over a greater amount of time (Nedwell 

and Edwards 2002; Carlson et al., 2005). 

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). Rock socketing 

involves using DTH equipment to create 

a hole in the bedrock inside of which 

the pile is placed to give it lateral and 

longitudinal strength. The sounds 

produced by the DTH method contain 

both a continuous non-impulsive 

component from the drilling action and 

an impulsive component from the 

hammering effect. Therefore, we treat 

DTH systems as both impulsive and 

non-impulsive sound source types 

simultaneously. 

The likely or possible impacts of 

USCG’s proposed activity on marine 

mammals could involve both nonacoustic and acoustic stressors. 

Potential non-acoustic stressors could 

result from the physical presence of 

equipment and personnel; however, any 

impacts to marine mammals are 

expected to be primarily acoustic in 

nature. Acoustic stressors include 

effects of heavy equipment operation 

during pile driving and drilling. 

Acoustic Impacts 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile driving or drilling is the primary 

means by which marine mammals may 

be harassed from the USCG’s specified 

activity. In general, animals exposed to 

natural or anthropogenic sound may 

experience physical and psychological 

effects, ranging in magnitude from none 

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

general, exposure to pile driving or 

drilling noise has the potential to result 

in auditory threshold shifts and 

behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance, 

temporary cessation of foraging and 

vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). 

Exposure to anthropogenic noise can 

also lead to non-observable 

physiological responses such an 

increase in stress hormones. Additional 

noise in a marine mammal’s habitat can 

mask acoustic cues used by marine 

mammals to carry out daily functions 

such as communication and predator 

and prey detection. The effects of pile 

driving or drilling noise on marine 

mammals are dependent on several 

factors, including, but not limited to, 

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

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

calf), duration of exposure, the distance 

between the pile and the animal, 

received levels, behavior at time of 

exposure, and previous history with 

exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall 

et al., 2007). Here we discuss physical 

auditory effects (threshold shifts) 

followed by behavioral effects and 

potential impacts on habitat. 

NMFS defines a noise-induced 

threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually 

an increase, in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS 2018). The amount of 

threshold shift is customarily expressed 

in decibels (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 and vocalization 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). 

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)— 

NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 

irreversible increase in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS 2018). Available data from 

humans and other terrestrial mammals 

indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset (see Ward et 

al., 1958, 1959; Ward 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)— 

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 (see 

Southall et al., 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is 

considered the minimum threshold shift 

clearly larger than any day-to-day or 

session-to-session variation in a 

subject’s normal hearing ability 

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

2000, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 30905 

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 

exist for coping with this condition to 

some degree, though likely not without 

cost. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus 

leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze 

finless porpoise (Neophocoena 

asiaeorientalis)) and five species of 

pinnipeds exposed to a limited number 

of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and 

octave-band noise) in laboratory settings 

(Finneran 2015). TTS was not observed 

in trained spotted (Phoca largha) and 

ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to 

impulsive noise at levels matching 

previous predictions of TTS onset 

(Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, 

harbor seals and harbor porpoises have 

a lower TTS onset than other measured 

pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran 

2015). Additionally, the existing marine 

mammal TTS data come from a limited 

number of individuals within these 

species. No data are available on noiseinduced hearing loss for mysticetes. For 

summaries of data on TTS in marine 

mammals or for further discussion of 

TTS onset thresholds, please see 

Southall et al., (2007), Finneran and 

Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and 

Table 5 in NMFS (2018). Installing piles 

for this project requires a combination 

of drilling, impact pile driving and 

vibratory pile driving. For this project, 

these activities would not occur at the 

same time and there would be pauses in 

activities producing the sound during 

each day. Given these pauses and that 

many marine mammals are likely 

moving through the ensonified area and 

not remaining for extended periods of 

time, the potential for TS declines. 

Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to 

noise from pile driving and removal also 

has the potential to behaviorally disturb 

marine mammals. Available studies 

show wide variation in response to 

underwater sound; therefore, it is 

difficult to predict specifically how any 

given sound in a particular instance 

might affect marine mammals 

perceiving the signal. If a marine 

mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 2005). 

Disturbance may result in changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where sound sources are located. 

Pinnipeds may increase their haul out 

time, possibly to avoid in-water 

disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific and 

any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

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

al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; 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) for a review of studies 

involving marine mammal behavioral 

responses to sound. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

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

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30906 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 

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

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

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., 2002b) and, 

more rarely, studied in wild populations 

(e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). 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 on man-made objects we 

believe that incidents of take resulting 

solely from airborne sound are unlikely 

due to the sheltered proximity between 

the proposed project area and these 

haulout sites (over 20 miles (32.19 km)). 

There is a possibility that an animal 

could surface in-water, but with head 

out, within the area in which airborne 

sound exceeds relevant thresholds and 

thereby be exposed to levels of airborne 

sound that we associate with 

harassment, but any such occurrence 

would likely be accounted for in our 

estimation of incidental take from 

underwater sound. Therefore, 

authorization of incidental take 

resulting from airborne sound for 

pinnipeds is not warranted, and 

airborne sound is not discussed further 

here. Cetaceans are not expected to be 

exposed to airborne sounds that would 

result in harassment as defined under 

the MMPA. 

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects 

The USCG’s construction activities 

could have localized, temporary impacts 

on marine mammal habitat and their 

pretty by increasing in-water sound 

pressure levels and slightly decreasing 

water quality. However, since the focus 

of the proposed action is pile driving 

and drilling, no net habitat loss is 

expect as the floating dock will be a 

small extension of the current dock, 

replacing the location of the existing 

wave attenuator (see Figure 2). 

Construction activities are of short 

duration and would likely have 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat through increases in underwater 

and airborne sound. 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 DTH, impact 

and vibratory pile driving, elevated 

levels of underwater noise would 

ensonify the project area where both 

fish and mammals 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 increase in 

turbidity near the seafloor would occur 

in the immediate area surrounding the 

area where piles are installed or 

removed. In general, turbidity 

associated with pile installation is 

localized to about a 25-ft (7.6 meter) 

radius around the pile (Everitt et al., 

1980). The sediments of the project site 

will settle out rapidly when disturbed. 

Cetaceans are not expected to be close 

enough to the pile driving areas to 

experience effects of turbidity, and any 

pinnipeds could avoid localized areas of 

turbidity. Local strong currents are 

anticipated to disburse any additional 

suspended sediments produced by 

project activities at moderate to rapid 

rates depending on tidal stage. 

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 

except for the actual footprint of the 

floating dock extension. The total 

seafloor area likely impacted by the 

project is relatively small compared to 

the available habitat in Southeast Alaska 

and does not include any Biologically 

Important Areas or other habitat of 

known importance. The area is highly 

influenced by anthropogenic activities. 

Additionally, the total seafloor area 

affected by pile installation and removal 

is a small area compared to the vast 

foraging area available to marine 

mammals in the area. At best, the 

impact area provides marginal foraging 

habitat for marine mammals and fishes. 

Furthermore, pile driving at the project 

site would not obstruct movements or 

migration of marine mammals. 

Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish) 

of the immediate area due to the 

temporary loss of this foraging habitat is 

also possible. The duration of fish 

avoidance of this area after pile driving 

stops is unknown, but a rapid return to 

normal recruitment, distribution and 

behavior is anticipated. 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. 

Effects on Potential Prey 

Sound may affect marine mammals 

through impacts on the abundance, 

behavior, or distribution of prey species 

(e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, 

zooplankton, etc.). 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 30907 

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

Zelick and Mann, 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; Popper et al., 2015). 

SPLs of sufficient strength have been 

known to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality. 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 4–6 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). 

The most likely impact to fish from 

pile driving activities at the project 

areas would be temporary behavioral 

avoidance of the area. The duration of 

fish avoidance of an area after pile 

driving stops is unknown, but a rapid 

return to normal recruitment, 

distribution and behavior is anticipated. 

Construction activities, in the form of 

increased turbidity, have the potential 

to adversely affect forage fish in the 

project area. Forage fish form a 

significant prey base for many marine 

mammal species that occur in the 

project area. Increased turbidity is 

expected to occur in the immediate 

vicinity (on the order of 10 ft (3 m) or 

less) of construction activities. However, 

suspended sediments and particulates 

are expected to dissipate quickly within 

a single tidal cycle. Given the limited 

area affected and high tidal dilution 

rates, any effects on forage fish are 

expected to be minor or negligible. 

Finally, exposure to turbid waters from 

construction activities is not expected to 

be different from the current exposure; 

fish and marine mammals in Tongass 

Narrows are routinely exposed to 

substantial levels of suspended 

sediment from natural and 

anthropogenic sources. 

In summary, given the short daily 

duration of sound associated with 

individual pile driving events and the 

relatively small areas being affected, 

pile driving activities associated with 

the proposed action are not likely to 

have a permanent adverse effect on any 

fish habitat, or populations of fish 

species. 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. Thus, we conclude that 

impacts of the specified activity are not 

likely to have more than short-term 

adverse effects on any prey habitat or 

populations of prey species. Further, 

any impacts to marine mammal habitat 

are not expected to result in significant 

or long-term consequences for 

individual marine mammals, or to 

contribute to adverse impacts on their 

populations. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

the negligible impact determinations. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as use of the 

acoustic sources (i.e., vibratory or 

impact pile driving and DTH) 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 

porpoises and harbor seals, due to the 

cryptic nature of these species in 

context of larger predicted auditory 

injury zones. Auditory injury is unlikely 

to occur for low- and mid-frequency 

species and otariids, based on the 

relatively small predicted zones for the 

latter two groups and because of the 

expected ease of detection for the former 

group. The proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

minimize the severity of the taking to 

the extent practicable. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or proposed to be 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) and the number of days of 

activities. We note that while these 

basic factors can contribute to a basic 

calculation to provide an initial 

prediction of 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 estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30908 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Thresholds have also been developed 

identifying the received level of in-air 

sound above which exposed pinnipeds 

would likely be behaviorally harassed. 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—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 (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 

microPascal (mPa) (rms) for continuous 

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

above 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., seismic 

airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. USCG’s activity includes 

the use of continuous (vibratory 

hammer and DTH) and impulsive (DTH 

and impact pile-driving), and therefore 

the 120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) are 

applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

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

includes the use of impulsive (impact 

pile-driving and DTH) and nonimpulsive (vibratory hammer and DTH) 

sources. 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 4 below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 4—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

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

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

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

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

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

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

also be considered. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

and transmission loss coefficient. 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

proposed project. Marine mammals are 

expected to be affected via sound 

generated by the primary components of 

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

vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile 

removal, and DTH). 

In order to calculate distances to the 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment sound thresholds for the 

methods and piles being used in this 

project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring 

data from other locations to develop 

source levels for the various pile types, 

sizes and methods (Table 5). 

TABLE 5—OBSERVED SOURCE LEVELS FOR PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL

Activity 

Peak SPL 

(re 1 μPa 

(rms)) 

RMS SPL 

(re 1 μPa 

(rms)) 

SEL 

(re 1 μPa 

(rms)) 

Source 

DTH (24-inch Steel Pipe) ........................................... 184 167 159 Heyvaert & Reyff, 2021. 

Vibratory (24-inch Steel Pipe) * .................................. 175 162 160 Denes et al., 2016. 

Impact (24-Inch Steel Pipe) ........................................ 207 194 178 Caltrans 2020. 

Note: SELss = single strike sound exposure level; RMS = root mean square. 

* Source levels proposed here differ from those used in USCG’s application. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 30909 

When the NMFS Technical Guidance 

(2016) was published, in recognition of 

the fact that ensonified area/volume 

could be more technically challenging 

to predict because of the duration 

component in the new thresholds, we 

developed a User Spreadsheet that 

includes tools to help predict a simple 

isopleth that can be used in conjunction 

with marine mammal density or 

occurrence to help predict takes. We 

note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used for these tools, we anticipate that 

isopleths produced are typically going 

to be overestimates of some degree, 

which may result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A harassment 

take. However, these tools offer the best 

way to predict appropriate isopleths 

when more sophisticated 3D modeling 

methods are not available, and NMFS 

continues to develop ways to 

quantitatively refine these tools, and 

will qualitatively address the output 

where appropriate. For stationary 

sources such as vibratory and impact 

pile driving, vibratory removal and 

DTH, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts 

the distance at which, if a marine 

mammal remained at that distance the 

whole duration of the activity, it would 

incur PTS. Inputs used in the User 

Spreadsheet are reported in Table 1 and 

source levels used in the User 

Spreadsheet are reported in Table 5. 

Resulting isopleths are reported in Table 

6. 

TABLE 6—LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS FOR IMPACT PILE DRIVING

Activity 

Level A harassment isopleths (PTS) (meters) Level B 

harassment 

LF MF HF Phocids Otariids isopleths (m) 

DTH (24-inch Steel Pipe) ....................................... 434.1 15.4 517.1 232.3 16.9 13,594 

Vibratory (24-inch Steel Pipe) ................................ 1 0.1 1.5 0.6 0.1 * 6,310 

Impact (24-Inch Steel Pipe) ................................... 21.5 0.8 25.6 11.5 0.8 1,848 

* Differs from USCG’s application due to difference in source level use. See Table 5. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Calculation and Estimation 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

We also describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

Available information regarding 

marine mammal occurrence and 

abundance in the vicinity of USCG Base 

Ketchikan includes monitoring reports 

from prior incidental take 

authorizations (the Tongass Narrows 

project (85 FR 673; January 7, 2020)) 

and ESA consultations on additional 

projects and is described below for each 

species. A summary of proposed take is 

in Table 7. 

Steller Sea Lions 

Steller sea lions are anticipated to 

occur in the vicinity of Base Ketchikan 

in the Tongass Narrows. As Base 

Ketchikan is far enough east of the line 

dividing the Eastern and Western 

stocks, only members of the Eastern 

Stock of Steller sea lions are anticipated 

to occur at Base Ketchikan. Sightings of 

Steller sea lions are expected to occur 

once a day with the total number of 

Steller sea lions in the project area 

reaching up to 10 animals. The project 

involves 30 days of potential in-water 

work. Therefore, we estimate total take 

at 10 sea lions × 30 days = 300 takes at 

the Level B harassment level. Because 

the shutdown zone is small and Steller 

sea lions are not cryptic, we believe the 

Level A harassment shutdown zone can 

be fully implemented by Protected 

Species Observers (PSOs) and no Level 

A harassment take is proposed for 

authorization. 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals are anticipated to occur 

in the project area once per day. The 

typical number of harbor seals observed 

in the project area is up to 12 animals 

per day. We estimate total take at 12 

seals × 30 days of activity = 360 takes. 

Because of the relatively large Level A 

harassment zones for impact pile 

driving and DTH, and because harbor 

seals are small and cryptic species that 

could sometimes remain undetected 

within the estimated harassment zones 

for a duration sufficient to experience 

PTS, we propose to authorize 10 takes 

(1 seal per day for the expected 10 days 

of impact pile driving and DTH) by 

Level A harassment, and 350 takes by 

Level B harassment, equaling the total 

proposed authorized take to 360. 

Dall’s Porpoise 

Previous construction project 

monitoring in the Ketchikan area 

reported approximately two Dall’s 

porpoises per day (NMFS, 2021). 

Therefore, we estimate total take at 2 

porpoises per day × 30 days = 60 takes. 

Forty of these takes are expected to be 

Level B harassment takes. Because 

Dall’s porpoises are small and cryptic 

species and could sometimes remain 

undetected within the estimated 

harassment zones for a duration 

sufficient to experience PTS, we 

proposed to authorize 20 takes by Level 

A harassment. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises are expected to 

occur in the project area no more than 

three times per month and the typical 

group size for harbor porpoises in the 

project area is 5 animals. The project 

involves 30 days (1 month) of in-water 

work where take could occur. Therefore, 

we estimate total take at 5 porpoises × 

3 sightings = 15 takes. Because harbor 

porpoises are small and cryptic species 

and could remain undetected within the 

estimated harassment zones for a 

duration sufficient to experience PTS, 

we propose to authorize 5 takes by Level 

A harassment and 10 takes by Level B 

harassment. 

Pacific White-Sided Dolphin 

Previous construction project 

monitoring in the Ketchikan area 

reported approximately 2.86 Pacific 

white-sided dolphins per day (reported 

value of 20 dolphins over one week of 

monitoring) (NMFS, 2021). Therefore 

we estimate 2.86 dolphins × 30 days = 

86 takes. All of these takes are expected 

to be by Level B harassment as we 

believe the Level A shutdown zones can 

be fully implemented by PSOs due to 

their large group size, short dive 

duration, and easy detection of Pacific 

white-sided dolphins, in addition to the 

smaller size of the shutdown zones. 

Killer Whale 

Killer whales are expected to occur in 

the project area no more than once per 

month. Typically a group size for killer 

whales in the project area is 

conservatively estimated at 10 animals, 

which equates to 0.4 animals per day. 

Therefore, we estimate total take at 0.4 

whales × 30 days = 12 takes. All of these 

takes are expected to be Level B 

harassment takes as we believe the 

Level A shutdown zones can be fully 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30910 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 

implemented by PSOs because of the 

large size of the animal, short dive 

duration, and obvious behavior of killer 

whales, in additional to the small size 

of the shutdown zones. 

Gray Whale 

Gray whales are expected to occur no 

more than once per month. Typical 

group size for gray whales in the project 

area is two animals. Therefore, we 

conservatively propose to authorize a 

single group size for the full 30 days of 

activity. All of these takes are expected 

to be by Level B harassment as we 

believe the Level A harassment 

shutdown zone can be fully 

implemented by PSOs because of the 

large size of the animal, short dive 

duration, and obvious behaviors of gray 

whales. 

Minke Whales 

Minke whales have not been 

previously observed in the project area 

but have a potential to occur. They are 

often solitary animals. Therefore, we 

conservatively propose to authorize a 

single take of minke whales. This one 

estimated take is expected to be by 

Level B harassment as we believe the 

Level A shutdown zones can be fully 

implemented by PSOs because of the 

large size of the animal, the short dive 

duration, and obvious behaviors of 

minke whales. 

Northern Elephant Seals 

Members of the California breeding 

stock spend most of their time at sea 

and are known to migrate to the Gulf of 

Alaska to feed on benthic prey. Recent 

anecdotal evidence has suggested that 

an animal may be present near Base 

Ketchikan and repeated sightings of that 

individual have been spotted near 

Ketchikan docks. Elephant seals are 

known to dive for extended periods of 

time and it is possible that one 

individual may be encountered within 

the Level B harassment zone. Therefore 

one estimated take by Level B 

harassment per day is proposed to be 

authorized, bring the total proposed 

authorized take of Elephant seals to 30. 

We believe the entire Level A shutdown 

zone can be fully implemented given 

their large size and obvious behaviors of 

elephant seals. 

Humpback Whales 

Members of the Western North Pacific 

stock have the potential to occur at Base 

Ketchikan. Previous construction 

project monitoring in the Ketchikan area 

reported approximately 0.571 whales 

per day during those activities (NMFS, 

2021). Therefore, we estimate total take 

at 0.571 whales per day × 30 days = 17 

takes by Level B harassment only. We 

do not anticipate any takes by Level A 

harassment as we believe the Level A 

shutdown zone can be fully 

implemented by PSOs because of their 

larger size, short dive duration, and 

obvious behaviors of humpback whales. 

Given data in Wade et al., (2021) 

discussed above on the relative 

frequencies of the Hawaii and Mexico 

DPS humpback whales in the project 

area, only 2 percent of the local 

population is expected to comprise of 

the Mexico DPS, equating to 0.34 of the 

17 humpback whale takes proposed for 

authorization. Therefore, no takes of 

Mexico DPS whales are expected to 

occur. 

TABLE 7—PROPOSED AUTHORIZED AMOUNT OF TAKING

Species Stock Level A Level B Total Percent of 

stock 

Humpback whale .............................. Central North Pacific ........................ 0 17 17 0.17 

Minke whale ...................................... Alaska ............................................... 0 1 1 N/A 

Killer whale ........................................ Alaska Resident ............................... 0 12 12 0.51 

Northern Resident ............................ 3.97 

West Coast Transient ...................... 3.44 

Pacific-white sided dolphin ............... North Pacific ..................................... 0 86 86 0.32 

Harbor porpoise ................................ Southeast Alaska ............................. 5 10 15 0.13 

Dall’s porpoise .................................. Alaska Stock .................................... 20 40 60 0.46 

Gray whale ........................................ Eastern North Pacific ....................... 0 2 2 0.01 

Harbor seal ....................................... Clarence Strait ................................. 10 340 360 1.30 

Northern Elephant Seal .................... California Breeding Stock ................ 0 30 30 0.00 

Steller sea lion .................................. Eastern ............................................. 0 300 300 0.69 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses. 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat, as well as 

subsistence uses. This considers the 

nature of the potential adverse impact 

being mitigated (likelihood, scope, 

range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

To ensure no take of any ESA listed 

whales, there are a number of mitigation 

measures proposed by USCG that go 

beyond, or are in addition to, typical 

mitigation measures we would 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 30911 

otherwise require for this project, as 

determined through informal ESA 

Section 7 consultation. The mitigation 

measures are proposed in the IHA: 

• Avoid direct physical interaction 

with marine mammals during 

construction activity. If a marine 

mammal comes within 10 m of such 

activity, operations must cease and 

vessels must reduce speed to the 

minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions 

(note that NMFS expects that a 10 m 

shutdown zone is sufficient to avoid 

direct physical interaction with marine 

mammals, but USCG has conservatively 

proposed a 20 m shutdown zone to 

avoid physical interaction for in-water 

activities); 

• Ensure that construction 

supervisors and crews, the monitoring 

team, and relevant USCG staff are 

trained prior to the start of all pile 

driving and DTH activity, so that 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, monitoring protocols, and 

operational procedures are clearly 

understood. New personnel joining 

during the project must be trained prior 

to commencing work; 

• Pile driving activity must be halted 

upon observation of either a species for 

which incidental take is not authorized 

or a species for which incidental take 

has been authorized but the authorized 

number of takes has been met, entering 

or within the harassment zone; 

• For any marine mammal species for 

which take by Level B harassment has 

not been requested or authorized, inwater pile installation/removal and DTH 

will shut down immediately when the 

animals are sighted; 

• Employ a minimum of three PSOs 

for all DTH and pile driving activities, 

where one PSO is assigned to the active 

pile driving or DTH site to monitor 

shutdown zones and as much of the 

Level B harassment zones as possible. 

Two additional PSOs are required to 

start at the project site and travel along 

the Tongass Narrows, counting all 

humpback whales present, until they 

have reached the edge of the respective 

Level B harassment zone. At this point, 

the PSOs will identify suitable 

observation points from which to 

observe the width of Tongass Narrows 

for the duration of DTH and pile driving 

activities. For the largest zones, these 

are expected to be on South Tongass 

Highway near Mountain Point and 

North Tongass Highway just northwest 

of the intersection with Carlanna Creek. 

• The placement of the PSOs during 

all pile driving and removal and DTH 

activities will ensure that the entire 

shutdown zone is visible during 

activity; 

• Monitoring must take place from 30 

minutes prior to initiation of pile 

driving or DTH activity (i.e., preclearance monitoring) through 30 

minutes post-completion of pile driving 

or DTH activity; 

• If in-water work ceases for more 

than 30 minutes, USCG will conduct 

pre-clearance monitoring of both the 

Level B harassment zone and the 

shutdown zone; 

• Pre-start clearance monitoring must 

be conducted during periods of 

visibility sufficient for the lead PSO to 

determine that the shutdown zones 

indicated in Table 8 are clear of marine 

mammals. Pile driving and DTH may 

commence following 30 minutes of 

observation when the determination is 

made that the shutdown zones are clear 

of marine mammals; 

• If a marine mammal is observed 

entering or within the shutdown zones 

indicated in Table 8, pile driving and 

DTH must be delayed or halted. If pile 

driving is delayed or halted due to the 

presence of a marine mammal, the 

activity may not commence or resume 

until either the animal has voluntarily 

exited and been visually confirmed 

beyond the shutdown zone (Table 8) or 

15 minutes have passed without redetection of the animal (30 minutes for 

large cetaceans); 

• For humpback whales, if the 

boundaries of the harassment zone have 

not been monitored continuously during 

a work stoppage, the entire harassment 

zone will be surveyed again to ensure 

that no humpback whales have entered 

the harassment zone that were not 

previously accounted for; and 

• In water activities will take place 

only: Between civil dawn and civil dusk 

when PSOs can effectively monitor for 

the presence of marine mammals; 

during conditions with a Beaufort Sea 

State of 4 or less; when the entire 

shutdown zone and adjacent waters are 

visible (e.g., monitoring effectiveness in 

not reduced due to rain, fog, snow, etc.). 

Pile driving may continue for up to 30 

minutes after sunset during evening 

civil twilight, as necessary to secure a 

pile for safety prior to demobilization 

during this time. The length of the postactivity monitoring period may be 

reduced if darkness precludes visibility 

of the shutdown and monitoring zones. 

The following specific mitigation 

measures will also apply to USCG’s inwater construction activities: 

Establishment of Level A Harassment 

and Shutdown Zones—For all pile 

driving/removal and DTH activities, 

USCG will establish a shutdown zone 

(Table 8). The purpose of a shutdown 

zone is generally to define an area 

within which shutdown of activity 

would occur upon sighting of marine 

mammal (or in anticipation of an animal 

entering the defined area). Shutdown 

zones vary based on activity type and 

duration and marine mammal hearing 

group (Table 8). All shutdown zones are 

based on the Level A harassment 

isopleth for the associated activity. The 

placement of PSOs during all 

construction activities (described in 

detail in the Proposed Monitoring and 

Reporting Section) will ensure that the 

entire shutdown zones are visible 

during pile installation. 

TABLE 8—PROPOSED SHUTDOWN ZONES AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS

Activity 

Shutdown zone 

(m) Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(m) Lowfrequency 

Midfrequency Highfrequency Phocid Otariid 

Vibratory ........................................................................... 20 20 20 20 20 13,594 

DTH .................................................................................. 440 20 520 240 20 6,310 

Impact .............................................................................. 30 20 30 20 20 1,848 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the proposed mitigation measures 

provide the means 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30912 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 

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 in the proposed action area. 

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 

action; 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). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

Monitoring must be conducted by 

qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, in 

accordance to the following: 

• PSOs must be independent (i.e., not 

construction personnel) 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 activities 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued IHA. Other 

PSOs may substitute other relevant 

experience, education (degree in 

biological science or related field), or 

training for prior experience performing 

the duties of a PSO during construction 

activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued 

IHA. 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. PSOs must be 

approved by NMFS prior to beginning 

any activity subject to this IHA; and 

• PSOs must record all observations 

of marine mammals regardless of 

distance from the pile being driven. 

PSOs shall document any behavioral 

reactions in concert with distance from 

piles being driven or removed. 

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. 

USCG must employ three PSOs 

during all pile driving and DTH 

activities. A minimum of one PSO (the 

lead PSO) must be assigned to the active 

pile driving or DTH location to monitor 

the shutdown zones and as much of the 

Level B harassment zones as possible. 

Two additional PSOs are also required. 

The additional PSOs will start at the 

project site and travel along Tongass 

Narrows, counting all humpback whales 

present, until they have reached the 

edge of the respective Level B 

harassment zone. At this point, the 

PSOs will identify suitable observation 

points from which to observe the width 

of Tongass Narrows for the duration of 

DTH and pile driving activities. For the 

largest zones, these are expected to be 

on the South Tongass Highway near 

Mountain Point and north Tongass 

Highway just northwest of the 

intersection with Carlanna Creek. If 

visibility deteriorates so that the entire 

width of Tongass Narrows at the 

harassment zone boundary is not 

visible, additional PSOs may be 

positioned so that the entire width is 

visible, or work will be halted until the 

entire width is visible to ensure that any 

humpback whales entering or are within 

the harassment zone are detected by 

PSOs. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal activities, or 

60 days prior to a requested date of 

issuance from any future IHAs for 

projects at the same location, whichever 

comes first. The report will include an 

overall description of work completed, 

a narrative regarding marine mammal 

sightings, and associated PSO data 

sheets. 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 or DTH) and the 

total equipment duration for vibratory 

removal or DTH for each pile or hole or 

total number of strikes for each pile 

(impact driving); 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; 

• Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance; 

• Upon observation of a marine 

mammal, the following information: 

Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) 

and PSO location and activity at the 

time of sighting; Time of sighting; 

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

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentifiable), PSO 

confidence in identification, and the 

composition of the group if there is a 

mix of species; Distance and bearing of 

each marine mammal observed relative 

to the pile being driven for each 

sightings (if pile driving was occurring 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 30913 

at time of sighting); Estimated number 

of animals (min/max/best estimate); 

Estimated number of animals by cohort 

(adults, juveniles, neonates, group 

composition, sex class, etc.); Animal’s 

closest point of approach and estimated 

time spent within the harassment zone; 

Description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses thought to have resulted from 

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

in behavioral state such as ceasing 

feeding, changing direction, flushing, or 

breaching); 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected within the harassment zones 

and shutdown zones; by species; 

• Detailed information about any 

implementation of any mitigation 

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

description of specific actions that 

ensured, and resulting changes in 

behavior of the animal(s), if any; and 

• If visibility degrades to where 

PSO(s) cannot view the entire 

harassment zones, additional PSOs may 

be positioned so that the entire width is 

visible, or work will be halted until the 

entire width is visible to ensure that any 

humpback whales entering or within the 

harassment zone are detected by PSOs. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft final 

report will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

IHA-holder must immediately cease the 

specified activities and report the 

incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR) 

(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov), 

NMFS and to the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinator as soon as 

feasible. If the death or injury was 

clearly caused by the specified activity, 

USCG must immediately cease the 

specified activities until NMFS is able 

to review the circumstances of the 

incident and determine what, if any, 

additional measures are appropriate to 

ensure compliance with the terms of the 

IHA. The IHA-holder must not resume 

their activities until notified by NMFS. 

The report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), 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’s 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 environmental 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, our analysis 

applies to all species listed in Table 2 

for which take could occur, given that 

NMFS expects the anticipated effects of 

the proposed pile driving/removal and 

DTH on different marine mammal 

stocks to be 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, NMFS has identified 

species-specific factors to inform the 

analysis. 

Pile driving and DTH activities 

associated with the project, as outlined 

previously, have the potential to disturb 

or displace marine mammals. 

Specifically, the specified activities may 

result in take, in the form of Level B 

harassment and, for some species, Level 

A harassment from underwater sounds 

generated by pile driving. Potential 

takes could occur if individuals are 

present in the ensonified zone when 

these activities are underway. 

The Level A harassment zones 

identified in Table 6 are based upon an 

animal exposed to impact pile driving 

or DTH up to two piles per day. Given 

the short duration to impact drive or 

vibe, or use DTH drilling, each pile and 

break between pile installations (to reset 

equipment and move piles into place), 

an animal would have to remain within 

the area estimated to be ensonified 

above the Level A harassment threshold 

for multiple hours. This is highly 

unlikely give marine mammal 

movement in the area. If an animal was 

exposed to accumulated sound energy, 

the resulting PTS would likely be small 

(e.g., PTS onset) at lower frequencies 

where pile driving energy is 

concentrated, and unlikely to result in 

impacts to individual fitness, 

reproduction, or survival. 

The nature of the pile driving project 

precludes the likelihood of serious 

injury or mortality. For all species and 

stock, take would occur within a 

limited, confined area (adjacent to the 

project site) of the stock’s range. Level 

A and Level B harassment will be 

reduced to the level of least practicable 

adverse impact through use of 

mitigation measures described herein. 

Further, the amount of take proposed to 

be authorized is extremely small when 

compared to stock abundance. 

Behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to pile driving, pile removals, 

and DTH at the sites in Tongass 

Narrows are expected to be mild, short 

term, and temporary. Marine mammals 

within the Level B harassment zones 

may not show any visual cues they are 

disturbed by activities or they 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 that pile 

driving, pile removal and DTH would 

occur for only a portion of the project’s 

duration, any harassment occurring 

would be temporary. Additionally, 

many of the species present in region 

would only be present temporarily 

based on seasonal patterns or during 

transit between other habitats. These 

temporary present species would be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30914 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 

exposed to even smaller periods of 

noise-generating activity, further 

decreasing the impacts. 

For all species except humpback 

whales, there are no known Biologically 

Important Areas (BIAs) near the project 

area that would be impacted by USCG’s 

planned activities. For humpback 

whales, the whole Southeast of Alaska 

is a seasonal BIA from March through 

November (Ferguson et al., 2015), 

however, Tongass Narrows and the 

Clarence Strait are not important 

portions of this habitat due to human 

development and presence. The Tongass 

Narrows is also a small passageway and 

represents a very small portion of the 

total available habitat. In addition, 

while the southeast Alaska is 

considered an important area for feeding 

humpback whales between March and 

May (Ellison et al., 2012), it is not 

currently designated as critical habitat 

for humpback whales (86 FR 21082; 

April 21, 2021). 

In addition, it is unlikely that minor 

noise effects in a small, localized area of 

habitat would have any effect on each 

stock’s ability to recover. In 

combination, we believe that these 

factors, as well as the available body of 

evidence from other similar activities, 

demonstrate that the potential effects of 

the specified activities will have only 

minor, short-term effects on individuals. 

The specified activities are not expected 

to impact rates of recruitment or 

survival and will therefore not result in 

population-level impacts. 

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 the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized. 

• Authorized Level A harassment 

would be very small amounts and of 

low degree; 

• The only known area of specific 

biological importance covers a broad 

area of southeast Alaska for humpback 

whales, and the project area is a very 

small portion of that BIA. No other 

known areas of particular biological 

importance to any of the affected 

species or stocks are impacted by the 

activity, including ESA-designated 

critical habitat; 

• For all species, the Tongass 

Narrows is a very small and peripheral 

part of their range; 

• USCG would implement mitigation 

measures including soft-starts and 

shutdown zones 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 PTS; 

• Monitoring reports from similar 

work in the Tongass Narrows have 

documented little to no effect on 

individuals of the same species 

impacted by the specified activity. 

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 above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of 

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The amount of take NMFS proposes to 

authorize is below one third of the 

estimated stock abundance for all 

species (in fact, take of individuals is 

less than five percent of the abundance 

of the affected stocks, see Table 7). This 

is likely a conservative estimate because 

we assume all takes are of different 

individual animals, which is likely not 

the case. Some individuals may return 

multiple times in a day, but PSOs would 

count them as separate takes if they 

cannot be individually identified. 

The most recent estimate for the 

Alaska stock of Dall’s porpoise was 

13,110 animals however this number 

just accounts for a portion of the stock’s 

range. Therefore, the 60 takes of this 

stock proposed for authorization is 

believed to be an even smaller portion 

of the overall stock abundance. 

Likewise, the Southeast Alaska stock 

of harbor porpoise has no official NMFS 

abundance estimate as the most recent 

estimate is greater than eight years old. 

The most recent estimate was 11,146 

animal (Muto et al., 2021) and it is 

highly unlikely this number has 

drastically declined. Therefore, the 15 

takes of this stock proposed for 

authorization clearly represent 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 1 take 

proposed for authorization clearly 

represents small numbers of this stock. 

Additionally, the range of the Alaska 

stock of minke whales is extensive, 

stretching from the Canadian Pacific 

coast to the Chukchi Sea, and USCG’s 

project area impacts a very small 

portion of this range. Therefore, the 

singular take of minke whale proposed 

for authorization is small relative to 

estimated survey abundance, even if 

each proposed take occurred to a new 

individual. 

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 will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must 

find that the specified activity will not 

have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ 

on the subsistence uses of the affected 

marine mammal species or stocks by 

Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity: (1) That is likely to 

reduce the availability of the species to 

a level insufficient for a harvest to meet 

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 Native hunters in the 

Ketchikan vicinity do not traditionally 

harvest cetaceans (Muto et al., 2021). To 

date, there are no reports of subsistence 

takes of killer whale, Pacific white-sided 

dolphin, harbor porpoise, or Dall’s 

porpoise within Alaska (Muto et al., 

2021). Harbor seals are the most 

commonly targeted marine mammal that 

is hunted by Alaska Native subsistence 

hunters within the Ketchikan area. In 

2012, an estimated 595 harbor seals 

were taken for subsistence uses, with 22 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices 30915 

of those occurring in Ketchikan (Wolfe 

et al., 2013). Statewide data are no 

longer being consistently collected for 

subsistence harvest of Steller sea lions, 

however subarea collect does occur 

periodically. In 2012, hunters in 

Southeast Alaska took an estimated nine 

sea lions for subsistence use (Wolfe et 

al., 2013). Sea lions were taken in two 

communities (Hoonah and Sitka) by 

three hunters. There are no known 

haulout locations in the project area. 

Both the harbor seal and Steller sea lion 

may be temporarily displaced from the 

action are However, neither the local 

population nor any individual pinniped 

are likely to be adversely impacted by 

the proposed action beyond noiseinduced harassment or slight injury. 

The proposed project is anticipated to 

have no long-term impacts on either 

species’ populations, or their habitats. 

No long-term impacts on the availability 

of marine mammals for subsistence uses 

is anticipated. 

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 USCG’s proposed 

activities. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with the Alaska Regional 

Office. 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is proposed for authorization or 

expected to result from this activity. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

formal consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA is not required for this action. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to the United States Coast Guard 

for construction associated with the 

floating dock extension project in 

Ketchikan, Alaska, 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/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. 

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 U.S. Coast Guard’s 

construction of a floating dock at Base 

Ketchikan We also request at this time 

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, one-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, or nearly 

identical, activities as described in the 

Description of Proposed Activities 

section of this notice is planned or (2) 

the activities as described in the 

Description of Proposed Activities 

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 one year from 

expiration of the initial IHA). 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted under the requested 

Renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take). 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

Upon review of the request for 

Renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: May 16, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10938 Filed 5–19–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XC043] 

Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; 

Southeast Data, Assessment, and 

Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of SEDAR 75 Shore 

Mode Topical Working Group scoping 

webinar for Gulf of Mexico gray 

snapper. 

SUMMARY: The SEDAR 75 assessment of 

Gulf of Mexico gray snapper will consist 

of a series of assessment webinars. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

DATES: The SEDAR 75 scoping webinar 

for the Shore Mode Topical Working 

Group will be held June 15, 2022, from 

10 a.m. until 12 p.m., Eastern. The 

established times may be adjusted as 

necessary to accommodate the timely 

completion of discussion relevant to the 

assessment process. Such adjustments 

may result in the meeting being 

extended from or completed prior to the 

time established by this notice. 

ADDRESSES: 

Meeting address: The meeting will be 

held via webinar. The webinar is open 

to members of the public. Those 

interested in participating should 

contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to 

request an invitation providing webinar 

access information. Please request 

webinar invitations at least 24 hours in 

advance of each webinar. 

SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place 

Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 

29405. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; phone: 

(843) 571–4366; email: Julie.neer@

safmc.net. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf 

of Mexico, South Atlantic, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES