81886 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

activities in the vicinity of the North 

Atlantic right whale Mid-Atlantic SMA 

near Norfolk and the mouth of the 

Chesapeake Bay. Activities conducted 

prior to May 1 must comply with the 

seasonal mandatory speed restriction 

period for this SMA (November 1 

through April 30) for any survey work 

or transit within this area. 

Throughout all phases of the survey 

activities, Dominion must monitor 

NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right 

whale reporting systems for the 

establishment of a DMA. If NMFS 

establishes a DMA in the Lease Area or 

cable route corridor being surveyed, 

within 24 hours of the establishment of 

the DMA, Dominion is required to work 

with NMFS to shut down and/or alter 

activities to avoid the DMA. 

Training—Project-specific training is 

required for all vessel crew prior to the 

start of survey activities. Confirmation 

of the training and understanding of the 

requirements must be documented on a 

training course log sheet. Signing the log 

sheet will certify that the crew members 

understand and will comply with the 

necessary requirements throughout the 

survey activities. 

Reporting—PSOs must record specific 

information on the sighting forms as 

described in the Federal Register notice 

of the issuance of the initial IHA (85 FR 

55415; September 8, 2020). Within 90 

days after completion of survey 

activities, Dominion must provide 

NMFS with a monitoring report which 

includes summaries of recorded takes 

and estimates of the number of marine 

mammals that may have been harassed. 

In the event of a ship strike or 

discovery of an injured or dead marine 

mammal, Dominion must report the 

incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS and to the New 

England/Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Stranding Coordinator as soon as 

feasible. The report must include the 

information listed in the Federal 

Register notice of the issuance of the 

initial IHA (85 FR 55415; September 8, 

2020). 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s measures in consideration of 

the increased estimated take for spotted 

dolphins, NMFS has re-affirmed the 

determination that the required 

mitigation measures provide the means 

effecting the least practicable impact on 

spotted dolphins and their habitat. 

Determinations 

Dominion’s HRG survey activities and 

the mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are unchanged 

from those covered in the initial IHA. 

The effects of the activity, taking into 

consideration the mitigation and related 

monitoring measures, remain 

unchanged from those stated in the 

initial IHA, notwithstanding the 

increase to the authorized amount of 

spotted dolphin take. Specifically, the 

Level B harassment authorized for 

spotted dolphins is expected to be of 

low severity, predominantly in the form 

of avoidance of the sound source and 

potential occasional interruption of 

foraging. With approximately 120 

survey days remaining, NMFS has 

increased authorized spotted dolphin 

take by Level B harassment to 2,427. 

Even in consideration of the increased 

estimated numbers of take by Level B 

harassment, the impacts of these lower 

severity exposures are not expected to 

accrue to the degree that the fitness of 

any individuals is impacted, and, 

therefore no impacts on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival will result. 

Further, and separately, the authorized 

take amount of spotted dolphin would 

be of small numbers of spotted dolphins 

relative to the population size (less than 

5 percent), as take that is less than one 

third of the species or stock abundance 

is considered by NMFS to be small 

numbers. In conclusion, there is no new 

information suggesting that our effects 

analysis or negligible impact finding for 

Atlantic spotted dolphins should 

change. 

Based on the information contained 

here and in the referenced documents, 

NMFS has reaffirmed the following: (1) 

The required mitigation measures will 

effect the least practicable impact on 

marine mammal species or stocks and 

their habitat; (2) the authorized takes 

will have a negligible impact on the 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks; (3) the authorized takes 

represent small numbers of marine 

mammals relative to the affected stock 

abundances; (4) Dominion’s activities 

will not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on taking for subsistence 

purposes as no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals are implicated by 

this action, and (5) appropriate 

monitoring and reporting requirements 

are included. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is authorized 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. 

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 modification 

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 

determined that the issuance of the 

modified IHA qualifies to be 

categorically excluded from further 

NEPA review. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued a modified IHA to 

Dominion for conducting marine site 

characterization surveys in the areas of 

the Commercial Lease of Submerged 

Lands for Renewable Energy 

Development on the Outer Continental 

Shelf Offshore Virginia (Lease No. OCS– 

A–0483) as well as in coastal waters 

where an export cable corridor will be 

established in support of the CVOW 

Commercial Project effective from the 

date of issuance until August 27, 2021. 

Dated: December 14, 2020. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27761 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XA694] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental 

To Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Washington 

State Department of Transportation 

Purdy Bridge Rehabilitation Project, 

Pierce County, WA 

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 Washington State Department 

of Transportation (WADOT) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to the Purdy Bridge 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81887 

Rehabilitation Project in Pierce County, 

WA. 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-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 January 19, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Electronic 

comments should be sent to 

ITP.Meadows@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 received 

electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

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

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

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dwayne Meadows, Ph.D., 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 

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 July 27, 2020, NMFS received an 

application from WADOT requesting an 

IHA to take small numbers of six species 

of marine mammals incidental to pile 

driving and removal associated with the 

Purdy Bridge Rehabilitation Project. The 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on December 1, 2020. 

WADOT’s request is for take of a small 

number of each species by Level B 

harassment. Neither WADOT nor NMFS 

expects serious injury or mortality to 

result from this activity and, therefore, 

an IHA is appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The purpose of the project is to 

rehabilitate the two in-water support 

piers of the State Route 302 Purdy 

Bridge by removing the top 3 inches (7.5 

centimeter (cm)) of decaying concrete 

on each support pier and replacing with 

fiberglass reinforced concrete. Twenty 

steel H piles and 44 sheetpiles will be 

driven to create a caisson-like 

dewatered structures around the bridge 

piers to allow the work to be completed. 

Once the work on the piers is completed 

the piles will be removed. A needle gun 

will be used to remove 3 inches (7.5 cm) 

of decayed concrete from the two inwater bridge piers. Pile driving/removal 

and concrete removal is expected to take 

no more than 20 days. Pile driving/ 

removal would be by vibratory pile 

driving. 

The pile driving/removal can result in 

take of marine mammals from sound in 

the water which results in behavioral 

harassment or auditory injury. Needle 

gun scraping from sound in the air may 

result in behavioral harassment of 

pinnipeds. 

Dates and Duration 

The work described here is scheduled 

for July 16, 2021 through February 15, 

2022 as it is limited to this work 

window because of restrictions to 

protect ESA-listed salmonids. In-water 

activities will occur during daylight 

hours only. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The activities would occur in 

Henderson Bay, a small isolated bat of 

south Puget Sound near the 

unincorporated community of Purdy, 

WA, north of the city of Gig Harbor, WA 

81888 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

(Figure 1). The Bay is oriented basically 

north-south with the Purdy Bridge 

spanning the bay where a sand spit 

narrows the width of the bay near its 

northern limit. North of the bridge is the 

Burley Lagoon, a 1.45 square kilometer 

(km2) (0.56 square miles (mi2)) shallow 

water lagoon with significant acreage 

used for commercial shellfishing. The 

width of Henderson Bay ranges from 0.3 

to 5.8 kilometer (km) (0.2 to 3.6 miles 

(mi)), and depths range from 23 meter 

(m) (74 feet (ft)) Mean Lower Low Water 

(MLLW) to intertidal. Water depths near 

the bridge vary from exposed substrate 

at low tides to 5 m (15 ft) at high tide. 

The substrate in the area is gravels in a 

sand matrix which do not require 

impact pile driving. 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

Purdy Bridge is a continuous hollowbox girder bridge that is 170 m (550 ft) 

long and was built in 1937. It is two 

lanes wide and supported by four piers, 

two of which are in the water and will 

be repaired as part of this project. These 

two piers are 190 feet apart and 

seriously decayed. The purpose of the 

project is to rehabilitate the two inwater support piers by removing the top 

3 inches (7.5 cm) of decaying concrete 

on each support pier and replacing with 

fiberglass reinforced concrete. Twenty 

steel H piles and 44 sheetpiles will be 

driven with a vibratory hammer to 

create a caisson-like dewatered 

structures around the bridge piers to 

allow the work to be completed. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


EN17DE20.068</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81889 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Areas immediately surrounding the 

pier footings will be excavated to expose 

the footings and provide a stable base 

for any cofferdam system that may be 

required. The excavated area will be 

approximately 40 square m (430 square 

ft) for each pier column, based on a 1.5 

m (5 ft) pad around the pier footing. 

Around each pier, 10 12-inch steel H 

piles will be installed with a vibratory 

hammer. Additional H piles will then be 

tacked horizontally (not hammered) 

onto the vertical H piles above the water 

level to create a flat supportive surface 

template to align the sheet piles. Using 

this template as a guide, 22 48-inch 

sheet piles will be driven with a 

vibratory hammer into the substrate 

immediately adjacent to each pier to 

form a temporary interlocked sheet pile 

wall to isolate the work area from the 

surrounding water. 

Once these structures are in place, the 

rest of the containment system will be 

installed prior to removing marine 

growth and preparing the piers for 

repair. The pier columns will then be 

pressure washed to remove all existing 

marine growth. Next, the exposed 

concrete surface of each pier will be 

prepared by removing approximately 3 

inches (7.5 cm) of the concrete on all 

four sides of the columns with a needle 

gun. Any potentially contaminated 

water from these procedures will be 

removed from the containment system 

and treated. Finally, the columns will be 

repaired with the placement of 

corrosion resistant fiberglass 

reinforcement. Forms will be installed 

and approximately 6 inches (15 cm) of 

concrete or grout will be placed to 

encapsulate the fiberglass 

reinforcement. A pigmented sealer will 

then be applied to all surfaces of the 

pier columns. Once the pier columns 

are repaired, the containment system 

will be removed, including vibratory 

pile removal to remove the H piles and 

sheetpiles. The earth removed around 

each column will be allowed to fill back 

naturally as part of the tidal process. 

Pile driving/removal is expected to 

take no more than 14 days total; 9 days 

to install the containment system at the 

beginning of the project and 5 days for 

pile removal at the end (Table 1). 

Needle gun use will be for no more than 

4 hours per day over a maximum of 6 

days. 

The pile driving equipment will be 

deployed and operated from barges, on 

water. Materials will be delivered on 

barges. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PILE DRIVING ACTIVITIES

Method Pile type Number 

of piles 

Minutes 

per pile 

Piles 

per day 

Duration 

(days) 

Vibratory Driving ............................... Sheet ................................................ 44 30 8 6 

Vibratory Driving ............................... H pile ................................................ 20 30 8 3 

Vibratory Removal ............................ Sheet ................................................ 44 15 16 3 

Vibratory Removal ............................ H pile ................................................ 20 15 16 2 

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. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/

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

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

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

gov/find-species). 

Table 2 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the project 

area 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 (2020). 

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. Pacific or Alaska SARs 

(e.g., Caretta et al., 2020; Muto et al., 

2020). 

TABLE 2—SPECIES THAT SPATIALLY CO-OCCUR WITH THE ACTIVITY TO THE DEGREE THAT TAKE IS REASONABLY LIKELY

TO OCCUR

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 ................ -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 

2016).

801 138 

81890 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

TABLE 2—SPECIES THAT SPATIALLY CO-OCCUR WITH THE ACTIVITY TO THE DEGREE THAT TAKE IS REASONABLY LIKELY

TO OCCUR—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Short-beaked Common Dolphin.Delphinus delphis ..................... California/Oregon/Washington .. -, -, N 969,861 (0.17, 839,325, 

2014).

8,393 >40 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise .................. Phocoena phocoena ................. Washington Inland Waters ....... -, -, N 11,233 (0.37, 8,308, 

2015).

66 ≥7.2 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

California Sea Lion ............. Zalophus californianus .............. United States ............................ -, -, N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 

2014).

14,011 >321 

Steller Sea Lion .................. Eumetopias jubatus .................. Eastern DPS ............................. -, -, N 43,201a (see SAR, 

43,201, 2017).

2,592 112 

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 

Harbor Seal ........................ Phoca vitulina ........................... Southern Puget Sound ............. -, -, N UNK (UNK, UNK, 1999) UND 3.4 

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-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. UNK—Unknown, UND—Undetermined. 3 These 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. 

Harbor seal, California sea lion, and 

Harbor porpoise spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur, and we have 

proposed authorizing take of these 

species. For gray whale, Steller sea lion, 

and short-beaked common dolphin, 

occurrence is such that take is possible, 

and we have proposed authorizing take 

of these species also. All species that 

could potentially occur in the proposed 

survey areas are included in WADOT’s 

IHA application (see application, Table 

3–1). 

Transient killer whales (Orcinus orca) 

spatially co-occur with the activity to 

the degree that take is possible, while 

Southern Resident killer whales and 

humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) are very rare visitors to 

the area. Work will be shutdown if any 

of these species approach the Level B 

harassment zone, so take is not 

requested for these species and they are 

not further discussed. Northern 

elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) 

have been observed in Puget Sound but 

are not anticipated to occur in the 

project area and no take of this species 

is anticipated or requested. 

Gray Whale 

In the fall, gray whales migrate from 

their summer feeding grounds in the 

North Pacific and Arctic, heading south 

along the coast of North America to 

spend the winter in their breeding and 

calving areas off the coast of Baja 

California, Mexico. From mid-February 

to May, the Eastern North Pacific stock 

of gray whales can be seen migrating 

northward with newborn calves along 

the west coast of the U.S. During these 

migrations, gray whales will 

occasionally enter rivers and bays 

(including Puget Sound) along the coast 

but not in high numbers. 

An exception to this is a few hundred 

whales that summer and feed along the 

Pacific coast between Kodiak Island, 

Alaska and northern California, referred 

to as the ‘‘Pacific Coast Feeding Group’’. 

A subset of this group can often be 

found throughout Puget Sound 

(Calambokidis et al., 2017). One 

individual was observed near the Purdy 

Bridge in June 2013 (TWM, 2020). 

Short-Beaked Common Dolphin 

Common dolphins occur in temperate 

and tropical waters globally. They are 

abundant off California but the 

distribution of short-beaked common 

dolphins throughout the project region 

is highly variable and generally rare, 

apparently in response to oceanographic 

changes on both seasonal and 

interannual time scales (Heyning and 

Perrin 1994; Forney 1997; Forney and 

Barlow 1998). The Whale Museum 

database has some sightings of common 

dolphins in the area near the project, 

mostly in 2016 and 2017 (TWM, 2020). 

Short-beaked common dolphins travel 

in large social pods and are generally 

associated with oceanic and offshore 

waters, prey-rich ocean upwellings, and 

underwater landscape features such as 

seamounts, continental shelves, and 

oceanic ridges. They largely forage on 

schooling fish and squid. Calving takes 

place in winter months. Abundance of 

the CA/OR/WA stock short-beaked 

common dolphins has increased since 

large-scale surveys began in 1991. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoise occur along the US 

west coast from southern California to 

the Bering Sea (Carretta et al., 2020). 

They rarely occur in waters warmer 

than 62.6 degrees Fahrenheit (17 

degrees Celsius; Read, 1990). The 

Washington Inland Waters stock is 

found from Cape Flattery throughout 

Puget Sound and the Salish Sea region. 

In southern Puget Sound, harbor 

porpoise were common in the 1940s, 

but marine mammal surveys, stranding 

records since the early 1970s, and 

harbor porpoise surveys in the early 

1990’s indicated that harbor porpoise 

abundance had declined in southern 

Puget Sound (Carretta et al., 2020). 

Annual winter aerial surveys conducted 

by the Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife from 1995 to 2015 revealed 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81891 

an increasing trend in harbor porpoise 

in Washington inland waters, including 

the return of harbor porpoise to Puget 

Sound (Carretta et al., 2020). Seasonal 

surveys conducted in spring, summer, 

and fall 2013–2015 in Puget Sound and 

Hood Canal documented substantial 

numbers of harbor porpoise in Puget 

Sound. Observed porpoise numbers 

were twice as high in spring as in fall 

or summer, indicating a seasonal shift in 

distribution. 

In most areas, harbor porpoise occur 

in small groups of just a few 

individuals. Harbor porpoise must 

forage nearly continuously to meet their 

high metabolic needs (Wisniewska et 

al., 2016). They consume up to 550 

small fish (1.2–3.9 inches [3–10 cm]; 

e.g., anchovies) per hour at a nearly 90 

percent capture success rate 

(Wisniewska et al., 2016). 

California Sea Lion 

California sea lions occur from 

Vancouver Island, British Columbia, to 

the southern tip of Baja California. They 

breed on the offshore islands of 

southern and central California from 

May through July (Heath and Perrin, 

2008). During the non-breeding season, 

adult and subadult males and juveniles 

migrate northward along the coast to 

central and northern California, Oregon, 

Washington, and Vancouver Island 

(Jefferson et al., 1993). They return 

south the following spring (Heath and 

Perrin 2008, Lowry and Forney, 2005). 

Females and some juveniles tend to 

remain closer to rookeries (Antonelis et 

al., 1990; Melin et al., 2008). 

Pupping occurs primarily on the 

California Channel Islands from late 

May until the end of June (Peterson and 

Bartholomew 1967). Weaning and 

mating occur in late spring and summer 

during the peak upwelling period 

(Bograd et al., 2009). After the mating 

season, adult males migrate northward 

to feeding areas as far away as the Gulf 

of Alaska (Lowry et al., 1992), and they 

remain away until spring (March–May), 

when they migrate back. Adult females 

generally remain south of Monterey Bay, 

California throughout the year, feeding 

in coastal waters in the summer and 

offshore waters in the winter, 

alternating between foraging and 

nursing their pups on shore until the 

next pupping/breeding season (Melin 

and DeLong, 2000; Melin et al., 2008). 

California sea lions regularly occur on 

rocks, buoys and other structures. 

Occurrence in the project area is 

expected to be common. Some 3,000 to 

5,000 animals are estimated to move 

into Pacific Northwest waters of 

Washington and British Columbia 

during the fall (September) and remain 

until the late spring (May) when most 

return to breeding rookeries in 

California and Mexico (Jeffries et al., 

2000). Peak counts of over 1,000 

animals have been made in Puget Sound 

(Jeffries et al., 2000). The nearest 

documented California sea lion haul out 

site to the project site are on the Toliva 

Shoals Buoys, approximately 26 km (16 

water miles) to the south (Jeffries et al., 

2000). This haul out typically is used by 

less than 10 individuals at any one time. 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions range along the North 

Pacific Rim from northern Japan to 

California, with centers of abundance 

and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska 

and Aleutian Islands. Large numbers of 

individuals widely disperse when not 

breeding (late May to early July) to 

access seasonally important prey 

resources (Muto et al., 2019). They 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 western DPS breeds on 

rookeries located west of 144° W in 

Alaska and Russia, whereas the eastern 

DPS breeds on rookeries in southeast 

Alaska through California. The eastern 

DPS was delisted in 2013. 

The eastern DPS is the only 

population of Steller’s sea lions thought 

to occur in the project area. In 

Washington waters, numbers decline 

during the summer months, which 

correspond to the breeding season at 

Oregon and British Columbia rookeries 

(approximately late May to early June) 

and peak during the fall and winter 

months. Steller sea lion abundances 

vary seasonally with a minimum 

estimate of 1,000 to 2,000 individuals 

present or passing through the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca in fall and winter months 

(Jeffries, et al. 2000). The nearest 

documented haul out site is also on the 

Toliva Shoals Buoys. 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals are found from Baja 

California to the eastern Aleutian 

Islands of Alaska (Harvey and Goley, 

2011). The animals in the project area 

are part of the Southern Puget Sound 

stock. Harbor seals are the most 

common marine mammal species 

observed in the project area and are the 

only one that breeds and remains in the 

inland marine waters of Washington 

year-round (Calambokidis and Baird, 

1994). 

Harbor seals are central-place foragers 

(Orians and Pearson, 1979) and tend to 

exhibit strong site fidelity within season 

and across years, generally forage close 

to haulout sites, and repeatedly visit 

specific foraging areas (Grigg et al., 

2012; Suryan and Harvey, 1998; 

Thompson et al., 1998). Harbor seals in 

San Francisco Bay forage mainly within 

7 mi (10 km) of their primary haulout 

site (Grigg et al., 2012), and often within 

just 1–3 mi (1–5 km; Torok, 1994). 

Depth, bottom relief, and prey 

abundance also influence foraging 

location (Grigg et al., 2012). 

Harbor seals molt from May through 

June. Peak numbers of harbor seals haul 

out during late May to early June, which 

coincides with the peak molt. During 

both pupping and molting seasons, the 

number of seals and the length of time 

hauled out per day increase, from an 

average of 7 hours per day to 10–12 

hours (Harvey and Goley, 2011; Huber 

et al., 2001; Stewart and Yochem, 1994). 

Harbor seals tend to forage at night 

and haul out during the day with a peak 

in the afternoon between 1 p.m. and 4 

p.m. (Grigg et al., 2012; London et al., 

2001; Stewart and Yochem, 1994; 

Yochem et al., 1987). Tide levels affect 

the maximum number of seals hauled 

out, with the largest number of seals 

hauled out at low tide, but time of day 

and season have the greatest influence 

on haul out behavior (Manugian et al., 

2017; Patterson and Acevedo-Gutie ́rrez, 

2008; Stewart and Yochem, 1994). 

The closest haulout to the project area 

is the Rosedale Beach floats located 5.8 

km (3.6 miles) to the southwest, but not 

in direct line-of-sight contact with the 

project location (see application Figure 

3–1). 

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 

81892 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in Table 3. 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing range * 

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

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

High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus 

cruciger & L. australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

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

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

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

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

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

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Gray whales are 

low frequency cetaceans, short-beaked 

common dolphins are mid-frequency 

cetaceans, harbor porpoises are 

classified as high-frequency cetaceans, 

Harbor seals are in the phocid group, 

and Steller sea lions and California sea 

lions are otariids. 

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 vibratory pile driving and 

potentially from needle gun use. The 

effects of underwater noise from 

WADOT’s proposed activities have the 

potential to result in Level A or Level 

B harassment of marine mammals in the 

action area. The effects of in-air noise 

from WADOT’s proposed needle gun 

use have the potential to result in Level 

B harassment of pinnipeds in the action 

area. 

Description of Sound Sources 

The marine soundscape is comprised 

of both ambient and anthropogenic 

sounds. Ambient sound is defined as 

the all-encompassing sound in a given 

place and is usually a composite of 

sound from many sources both near and 

far (ANSI 1995). 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. 

Construction activities associated 

with the project would include 

vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile 

removal and needle guns. The sounds 

produced by these activities fall into 

one of two general sound types: 

impulsive and non-impulsive. 

Impulsive sounds (e.g., explosions, 

gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile 

driving) are typically transient, brief 

(less than 1 second), broadband, and 

consist of high peak sound pressure 

with rapid rise time and rapid decay 

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

NMFS, 2018). Non-impulsive sounds 

(e.g., machinery operations such as 

drilling or dredging, vibratory pile 

driving, needle guns, and active sonar 

systems) can be broadband, narrowband 

or tonal, brief or prolonged (continuous 

or intermittent), and typically do not 

have the high peak sound pressure with 

raid rise/decay time that impulsive 

sounds do (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998; 

NMFS 2018). The distinction between 

these two sound types is important 

because they have differing potential to 

cause physical effects, particularly with 

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

Southall et al., 2007). 

Vibratory pile hammers would be 

used on this project. 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81893 

during impact pile driving of the samesized 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). 

Needle guns are a drill like tool that 

use a series of strong elongate metal 

chisels or ‘‘bristles’’ to scrape away 

material using high speed rotation up to 

5000 revolution per minute. Sounds are 

produced by the tool motor as well as 

the scraping action of the tool on 

concrete. Peak SPLs are up to 112 dBA 

(OSHA, 2020). 

The likely or possible impacts of 

WADOT’s proposed activity on marine 

mammals could involve both nonacoustic and acoustic stressors. 

Potential non-acoustic stressors could 

result from the physical presence of the 

equipment and personnel; however, any 

impacts to marine mammals are 

expected to primarily be acoustic in 

nature. Acoustic stressors also include 

effects of heavy equipment operation 

during pile installation and removal. 

Acoustic Impacts 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile driving and removal is the primary 

means by which marine mammals may 

be harassed from WADOT’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). 

Generally, exposure to pile driving and 

removal 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 noise on marine mammals are 

dependent on several factors, including, 

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

impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the 

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

male vs. mom with calf), duration of 

exposure, the distance between the pile 

and the animal, received levels, 

behavior at time of exposure, and 

previous history with exposure 

(Wartzok et al., 2003; 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 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 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, with the exception of a single 

study unintentionally inducing PTS in a 

harbor seal (Kastak et al., 2008), there 

are no empirical data measuring PTS in 

marine mammals, largely due to the fact 

that, for various ethical reasons, 

experiments involving anthropogenic 

noise exposure at levels inducing PTS 

are not typically pursued or authorized 

(NMFS, 2018). 

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)—A 

temporary, reversible increase in the 

threshold of audibility at a specified 

frequency or portion of an individual’s 

hearing range above a previously 

established reference level (NMFS, 

2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS 

measurements (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-tosession variation in a subject’s normal 

hearing ability (Schlundt et al., 2000; 

Finneran et al., 2000, 2002). As 

described in Finneran (2016), marine 

mammal studies have shown the 

amount of TTS increases with 

cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At 

low exposures with lower SELcum, the 

amount of TTS is typically small and 

the growth curves have shallow slopes. 

At exposures with higher SELcum, the 

growth curves become steeper and 

approach linear relationships with the 

noise SEL. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

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). The potential for TTS from 

impact pile driving exists. After 

exposure to playbacks of impact pile 

driving sounds (rate 2760 strikes/hour) 

in captivity, mean TTS increased from 

0 dB after 15 minute exposure to 5 dB 

after 360 minute exposure; recovery 

occurred within 60 minutes (Kastelein 

et al., 2016). Additionally, the existing 

81894 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

marine mammal TTS data come from a 

limited number of individuals within 

these species. No data are available on 

noise-induced 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). 

For this project, there would likely be 

pauses in activities producing the sound 

during each day. Given these pauses 

and that many marine mammals are 

likely moving through the action area 

and not remaining for extended periods 

of time, the potential for TS declines. 

Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to 

noise from pile driving and removal and 

needle gun use 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 and 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). Whether or not foraging 

disruptions have the potential to incur 

fitness consequences is dependent upon 

the intensity and duration of the 

disturbance, 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. 

In 2016, the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities 

(ADOT&PF) documented observations 

of marine mammals during construction 

activities (i.e., pile driving) at the 

Kodiak Ferry Dock (80 FR 60636, 

October 7, 2015). In the marine mammal 

monitoring report for that project (ABR 

2016), 1,281 Steller sea lions were 

observed within the Level B harassment 

zone during pile driving or drilling (i.e., 

documented as Level B harassment 

take). Of these, 19 individuals 

demonstrated an alert behavior, 7 fled, 

and 19 swam away from the project site. 

All other animals (98 percent) were 

engaged in activities such as milling, 

foraging, or fighting and did not change 

their behavior. In addition, two sea lions 

approached within 20 meters of active 

vibratory pile driving activities. Three 

harbor seals were observed within the 

disturbance zone during pile driving 

activities; none of them displayed 

disturbance behaviors. Fifteen killer 

whales and three harbor porpoise were 

also observed within the Level B 

harassment zone during pile driving. 

The killer whales were travelling or 

milling while all harbor porpoises were 

travelling. No signs of disturbance were 

noted for either of these species. Given 

the similarities in activities and habitat, 

we expect similar behavioral responses 

of marine mammals to WADOT’s 

specified activity. That is, disturbance, 

if any, is likely to be temporary and 

localized (e.g., small area movements). 

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., Selye 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81895 

(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. The Henderson Bay area 

contains mostly small recreational and 

commercial vessel traffic and 

background sound levels in the area are 

not excessively elevated. 

Airborne Acoustic Effects—Pinnipeds 

that occur near the project site could be 

exposed to airborne sounds associated 

with pile driving and removal and 

needle gun use that have the potential 

to cause behavioral harassment, 

depending on their distance from pile 

driving activities. Cetaceans are not 

expected to be exposed to airborne 

sounds that would result in harassment 

as defined under the MMPA. 

Airborne noise would primarily be an 

issue for pinnipeds that are swimming 

or hauled out near the project site 

within the range of noise levels elevated 

above the acoustic criteria. We 

recognize that pinnipeds in the water 

could be exposed to airborne sound that 

may result in behavioral harassment 

when looking with their heads above 

water. Most likely, airborne sound 

would cause behavioral responses 

similar to those discussed above in 

relation to underwater sound. For 

instance, anthropogenic sound could 

cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit 

changes in their normal behavior, such 

as reduction in vocalizations, or cause 

them to temporarily abandon the area 

and move further from the source. 

However, for pile-driving/removal these 

animals would previously have been 

‘taken’ because of exposure to 

underwater sound above the behavioral 

harassment thresholds, which are in all 

cases larger than those associated with 

airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral 

harassment of these animals is already 

accounted for in the in-water estimates 

of potential take. Therefore, we do not 

believe that authorization of incidental 

take resulting from airborne sound from 

pile driving for pinnipeds is warranted. 

Since the needle gun will be used on 

days when there is no pile driving, 

behavioral harassment from its use 

could occur and is discussed below. 

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects 

WADOT’s construction activities 

could have localized, temporary impacts 

on marine mammal habitat and their 

prey by increasing in-water sound 

pressure levels and slightly decreasing 

water quality. Increased noise levels 

may affect acoustic habitat (see Masking 

above) and adversely affect marine 

mammal prey in the vicinity of the 

project area (see discussion below). 

During vibratory pile driving or 

removal, elevated levels of underwater 

noise would ensonify the project area 

where both fishes 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. 

Construction activities are of short 

duration and would likely have 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat through increases in underwater 

and airborne sound. 

A 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-foot (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 area likely impacted by the 

project is relatively small compared to 

the available habitat (e.g., the impacted 

area is in the north of the bay only) of 

Henderson Bay and does not include 

any Biologically Important Areas or 

other habitat of known importance. The 

area is highly influenced by 

anthropogenic activities. The total 

seafloor area affected by pile installation 

and removal is a very small area 

compared to the vast foraging area 

available to marine mammals in the 

Henderson Bay and Puget Sound. At 

best, the impact area provides marginal 

foraging habitat for marine mammals 

and fishes. Furthermore, pile driving 

and removal 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. 

81896 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

In-water Construction 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). Marine 

mammal prey varies by species, season, 

and location. Here, we describe studies 

regarding the effects of noise on known 

marine mammal prey. 

Fish utilize the soundscape and 

components of sound in their 

environment to perform important 

functions such as foraging, predator 

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

Zelick 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; Cott et al., 2012). 

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 and removal activities at the 

project area would be temporary 

behavioral avoidance of the area. 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 

(Hastings and Popper, 2005, Popper and 

Hastings, 2009). 

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 Henderson 

Bay 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 determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment, as use of the acoustic 

source (i.e., vibratory pile driving/ 

removal and needle gun) has the 

potential to result in disruption of 

behavioral patterns for individual 

marine mammals. Based on the nature 

of the activity and the anticipated 

effectiveness of the mitigation measures 

(i.e., shutdown)—discussed in detail 

below in Proposed Mitigation section, 

Level A harassment is neither 

anticipated nor proposed to be 

authorized. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81897 

more detail and present the proposed 

take estimate. 

The effect of needle guns is unclear as 

we have not recently authorized take by 

this method in these circumstances. 

Given the relatively low source level for 

needle guns and small ensonified areas 

discussed below, there is some 

uncertainty about whether take will 

occur from this activity. However, in 

consideration of the applicant’s request 

and the predicted source levels, we 

conservatively propose the 

authorization of some take for this 

project. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

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) (root mean square 

(rms)) for continuous (e.g., vibratory 

pile-driving) and above 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., 

impact pile driving) or intermittent (e.g., 

scientific sonar) sources. For in-air 

sounds, NMFS predicts that harbor seals 

exposed above received levels of 90 dB 

re 20 mPa (rms) will be behaviorally 

harassed, and other pinnipeds will be 

harassed when exposed above 100 dB re 

20 mPa (rms). 

WADOT’s proposed activity includes 

the use of continuous (vibratory piledriving and removal in water and 

needle guns) in air sources, and 

therefore the 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

threshold is applicable in water and the 

pinniped thresholds are applicable in 

air. 

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). WADOT’s activity includes 

the use of non-impulsive (vibratory pile 

driving/removal) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 4. 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/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance. 

TABLE 4—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds 

(received level) 

Non-Impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ................................................................................................................................ Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ................................................................................................................................ Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ............................................................................................................................... Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ........................................................................................................................ Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ........................................................................................................................ Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

Note: 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). 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., vibratory pile driving 

and removal and needle guns). 

Vibratory hammers produce constant 

sound when operating, and produce 

vibrations that liquefy the sediment 

surrounding the pile, allowing it to 

penetrate to the required seating depth. 

The actual durations of each installation 

method vary depending on the type and 

size of the pile. 

In order to calculate distances to the 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment sound thresholds for piles of 

various sizes being used in this project, 

NMFS used acoustic monitoring data 

from other locations to develop source 

levels or the various pile types, sizes 

and methods (see Table 5). Source levels 

for the 48-inch sheetpiles come from the 

Caltrans compendium (2015) 

measurements of 24-inch steel 

sheetpiles supported by acoustic data 

from another project in Seattle, 

Washington that used 48-inch steel 

sheetpiles (Greenbusch Group, 2015), 

while the source data for H piles comes 

from the Caltrans (2015) compendium. 

Needle guns can produce sounds up to 

112 dbA (OSHA, 2020) and we use that 

as the source level for that activity. 

81898 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

TABLE 5—PROJECT SOUND SOURCE LEVELS

Method Pile type Estimated noise level Source 

Vibratory Driving/Removal ............. 48-inch sheet ................................ 165 dBRMS .................................... CALTRANS 2015, Greenbusch 

Group 2015. 

Vibratory Driving/Removal ............. 12-inch H pile ............................... 150 dBRMS .................................... CALTRANS 2015. 

Note: SEL = single strike sound exposure level; dB peak = peak sound level; rms = root mean square. 

Level B Harassment Zones 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2) 

where 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical 

spreading equals 15 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement 

The recommended TL coefficient for 

most nearshore environments is the 

practical spreading value of 15. This 

value results in an expected propagation 

environment that would lie between 

spherical and cylindrical spreading loss 

conditions, which is the most 

appropriate assumption for WADOT’s 

proposed activity in the absence of 

specific modelling. 

Using the equation above, underwater 

noise is predicted to fall below the 

behavioral effects threshold of 120 dB 

rms for marine mammals at distances of 

1,000 or 10,000 m depending on the pile 

type(s) and methods (Table 6). It should 

be noted that based on the geography of 

Henderson Bay, sound will not reach 

the full distance of the Level B 

harassment isopleths in most directions. 

In-air needle gun noise is predicted to 

reach the phocid (harbor seal) threshold 

(90 dB) at 192 meters (629 feet), and the 

otariid threshold (100 dB) at 60 meters 

(200 feet). 

TABLE 6—LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS (m) FOR EACH PILE TYPE AND HEARING GROUP

Pile type 

Level A harassment 

Level B 

Low harassment 

frequency 

Mid 

frequency 

High 

frequency Otariid Phocid 

Sheet .............................................................................. 31.8 2.8 47 19.3 1.4 10,000 

H pile .............................................................................. 3.2 0.3 4.7 1.9 0.1 1,000 

Level A Harassment Zones 

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 take by Level A 

harassment. 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 pile driving or 

removal using any of the methods 

discussed above, NMFS User 

Spreadsheet predicts the closest 

distance at which, if a marine mammal 

remained at that distance the whole 

duration of the activity, it would not 

incur PTS. Inputs used in the User 

Spreadsheet are reported in Table 7 and 

the resulting isopleths are reported in 

Table 6 for each of the work scenarios. 

Note that while the inputs for driving 

and removal of each type of pile are 

different, the resulting isopleths are the 

same because the total time per day 

(number of piles per day times minutes 

per pile) of pile driving is identical. 

Therefore Table 6 includes only a single 

row for each pile type. The above input 

scenarios lead to PTS isopleth distances 

(Level A thresholds) of less than 1 m to 

47 m. 

The Level A harassment zones 

identified in Table 6 are based upon an 

animal exposed to pile driving multiple 

piles per day. Considering duration of 

driving or removing each pile (up to 30 

minutes) and breaks between pile 

installations (to reset equipment and 

move pile into place), this means an 

animal would have to remain within the 

small area estimated to be ensonified 

above the Level A harassment threshold 

for multiple hours. This is highly 

unlikely given marine mammal 

movement throughout the area. 

TABLE 7—NMFS TECHNICAL GUIDANCE USER SPREADSHEET INPUT TO CALCULATE LEVEL A ISOPLETHS FOR A

COMBINATION OF PILE DRIVING

Method Pile type Source level Minutes 

per pile 

Piles 

per day 

Vibratory Driving ............................. Sheet .............................................. 165 db RMS ................................... 30 8 

Vibratory Driving ............................. H pile .............................................. 150 db RMS ................................... 30 8 

Vibratory Removal .......................... Sheet .............................................. 165 db RMS ................................... 15 16 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81899 

TABLE 7—NMFS TECHNICAL GUIDANCE USER SPREADSHEET INPUT TO CALCULATE LEVEL A ISOPLETHS FOR A

COMBINATION OF PILE DRIVING—Continued 

Method Pile type Source level Minutes 

per pile 

Piles 

per day 

Vibratory Removal .......................... H pile .............................................. 150 db RMS ................................... 15 16 

Note: Transmission Loss for all methods is 15 LogR and the weighting factor adjustment is 2.5. 

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. 

The main source of density information 

for the area is the U.S. Navy’s database 

used to establish baseline density 

estimates for their construction and 

testing and training activities in Puget 

Sound (U.S. Navy, 2019). The Navy 

database includes seasonal estimates of 

abundance where available and 

appropriate. Where such estimates 

existed, we used the larger density 

estimate for the fall or summer seasons, 

when this project is scheduled to occur. 

These density estimates are shown in 

Table 8. No density estimates exist for 

the rarer short-beaked common dolphin 

so we used more qualitative data on 

observations from The Whale Museum’s 

sightings database and project specific 

report to WADOT (TWM, 2020). 

TABLE 8—DENSITY OF MARINE MAMMALS USED TO CALCULATE EXPECTED TAKE

Species Density #/km2

Harbor seal ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 3.91 

California sea lion .............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.2211 

Steller sea lion ................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0478 

Gray whale ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.000086 

Short-beaked common dolphin .......................................................................................................................................................... (*) 

Harbor porpoise ................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.86 

* See text, no density estimate exists for short-beaked common dolphins. 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

Given the geography of the project area, 

the area ensonified when driving or 

removing H piles is 1.36 km2 (0.53 mi2), 

the area ensonified when driving or 

removing sheetpiles is 17.9 km2 (6.9 

mi2), and the area ensonified when 

using the needle gun is 0.06 km2 (0.023 

mi2) for phocids and 0.01 km2 (0.004 

mi2) for otariids. As noted above, there 

will be a total of 5 days driving or 

removing H piles, 9 days driving or 

removing sheetpiles, and 6 days of using 

the needle gun. For species with density 

estimates, the estimated take is 

calculated as the sum of the density 

times the area and days for each pile 

type/activity with the results for each 

activity added to give a total estimated 

take. Additional qualitative factors may 

be considered for species with small 

estimated take calculations (see below). 

Take by Level B harassment is proposed 

for authorization and summarized in 

Table 9. 

Gray Whale 

The Navy Marine Species Density 

Database (U.S. Navy 2019) estimates the 

density of gray whales in the Henderson 

Bay area as 0.000086/km2. Based on this 

density estimate, the following number 

of gray whales may be present in the 

Level B harassment zones: 

H piles: 0.000086/km2 * 1.36 km2 * 5 

days = 0.0005848 

Sheetpiles: 0.000086/km2 * 17.9 km2 * 

9 days = 0.0138546 

Total Estimated Take = 0.014 animals 

The total represents less than one gray 

whale. In the event an individual enters 

the area and remains for some time and 

is harassed on multiple days, we are 

proposing authorization for Level B 

harassment of 10 gray whales. Because 

the Level A harassment zones are 

relatively small and we believe the PSO 

will be able to effectively monitor the 

Level A harassment zones, we do not 

anticipate or propose take by Level A 

harassment of gray whales. 

Short-Beaked Common Dolphin 

As mentioned above, the Navy Marine 

Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 

2019) does not provide an estimate of 

density of short-beaked common 

dolphins in the Henderson Bay area. 

The Whale Museum data indicate that 

common dolphins have been 

documented in waters adjacent to the 

project (TWM, 2020). Nearly all 

sightings were in 2016 and 2017 

pointing out the variability and 

uncertainty of their presence. Shortbeaked common dolphins often occur in 

groups; for the Puget Sound data groups 

consisted of no more than five 

individuals (Orca Network. 2020). Due 

to the low likelihood of occurrence an 

expectation of one group of five animals 

in the large level B harassment zone for 

sheetpiles per day is a reasonable 

representation of occurrence. With 9 

days of sheetpiling maximum this 

equates to 45 level B takes. Because of 

the smaller size of the Level B 

harassment zones for the H-piles, we 

expect that one group of five animals 

over the course of the 5 work days with 

H piles is a reasonable representation of 

occurrence. We are thus proposing 

authorization for Level B harassment of 

50 short-beaked common dolphins. 

Because the Level A harassment zones 

are relatively small and we believe the 

PSO will be able to effectively monitor 

the Level A harassment zones, we do 

not anticipate or propose take by Level 

A harassment of short-beaked common 

dolphins. 

Harbor Porpoise 

The Navy Marine Species Density 

Database (U.S. Navy 2019) estimates the 

density of harbor porpoise in the 

Henderson Bay area as 0.86/km2. Based 

on this density estimate, the following 

number of harbor porpoises may be 

present in the Level B harassment 

zones: 

H piles: 0.86/km2 * 1.36 km2 * 5 days 

= 5.848 

Sheetpiles: 0.86/km2 * 17.9 km2 * 9 

days = 138.546 

Total Estimated Take = 144.4 animals 

81900 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

We are proposing authorization for 

Level B harassment of 145 harbor 

porpoises. Because the Level A 

harassment zones are relatively small 

and we believe the PSO will be able to 

effectively monitor the Level A 

harassment zones, we do not anticipate 

or propose take by Level A harassment 

of harbor porpoises. 

California Sea Lion 

The Navy Marine Species Density 

Database (U.S. Navy 2019) estimates the 

density of California sea lions in the 

Henderson Bay area as 0.2211/km2. 

Based on this density estimate, the 

following number of California sea lions 

may be present in the Level B 

harassment zones: 

H piles: 0.2211/km2 * 1.36 km2 * 5 days 

= 1.503 

Sheetpiles: 0.2211/km2 * 17.9 km2 * 9 

days = 35.619 

Needle gun: 0.2211/km2 * 0.01 km2 * 6 

days = 0.013 

Total Estimated Take = 37.14 animals 

We are proposing authorization for 

Level B harassment of 38 California sea 

lions. Because the Level A harassment 

zones are relatively small and we 

believe the PSO will be able to 

effectively monitor the Level A 

harassment zones, we do not anticipate 

or propose take by Level A harassment 

of California sea lions. 

Steller Sea Lion 

The Navy Marine Species Density 

Database (U.S. Navy 2019) estimates the 

density of Steller sea lions in the 

Henderson Bay area as 0.0478/km2. 

Based on this density estimate, the 

following number of Steller sea lions 

may be present in the Level B 

harassment zones: 

H piles: 0.0478/km2 * 1.36 km2 * 5 days 

= 0.325 

Sheetpiles: 0.0478/km2 * 17.9 km2 * 9 

days = 7.70 

Needle gun: 0.0478/km2 * 0.01 km2 * 6 

days = 0.007 

Total Estimated Take = 8.03 animals 

We are proposing authorization for 

Level B harassment of nine Steller sea 

lions. Because the Level A harassment 

zones are relatively small and we 

believe the PSO will be able to 

effectively monitor the Level A 

harassment zones, we do not anticipate 

or propose take by Level A harassment 

of Steller sea lions. 

Harbor Seal 

The Navy Marine Species Density 

Database (U.S. Navy 2019) estimates the 

density of harbor seal in the Henderson 

Bay area as 3.91/km2. Based on this 

density estimate, the following number 

of harbor seals may be present in the 

Level B harassment zones: 

H piles: 3.91/km2 * 1.36 km2 * 5 days 

= 26.588 

Sheetpiles: 3.91/km2 * 17.9 km2 * 9 

days = 629.901 

Needle gun: 3.91/km2 * 0.06 km2 * 6 

days = 1.408 

Total Estimated Take = 657.9 animals 

We are proposing authorization for 

Level B harassment of 658 harbor seals. 

TABLE 9—PROPOSED AUTHORIZED AMOUNT OF TAKING, BY LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY

SPECIES AND STOCK AND PERCENT OF TAKE BY STOCK

Species Take 

request 

Percent 

of stock 

Harbor seal .............................................................................................................................................................. 658 (*) 

California sea lion .................................................................................................................................................... 38 <0.1 

Steller sea lion ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 <0.1 

Gray whale ............................................................................................................................................................... 10 0.4 

Short-beaked common dolphin ................................................................................................................................ 50 <0.1 

Harbor porpoise ....................................................................................................................................................... 145 1.3 

* There is no official estimate of stock size for this stock. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, 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. 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. 

The following mitigation measures are 

proposed in the IHA: 

• For in-water heavy machinery work 

other than pile driving/removal (e.g., 

standard barges, etc.), and for needle 

gun work, if a marine mammal comes 

within 10 m, operations shall cease and 

vessels shall reduce speed to the 

minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions. 

This type of work could include the 

following activities: (1) Movement of the 

barge to or around the pile location; or 

(2) positioning of the pile on the 

substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing the 

pile); 

• Conduct briefings between 

construction supervisors and crews and 

the marine mammal monitoring team 

prior to the start of all pile driving/ 

removal activity and when new 

personnel join the work, to explain 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81901 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocol, and operational procedures; 

• For those marine mammals for 

which Level B harassment take has not 

been requested, in-water pile 

installation/removal will shut down 

immediately if such species are 

observed within or entering the Level B 

harassment zone; and 

• If take reaches the authorized limit 

for an authorized species, pile 

installation/removal will be stopped as 

these species approach the Level B 

harassment zone to avoid additional 

take. 

The following mitigation measures 

would apply to WADOT’s in-water 

construction activities. 

• Establishment of Shutdown 

Zones—WADOT will establish 

shutdown zones for all pile driving and 

removal activities (Table 10). The 

purpose of a shutdown zone is generally 

to define an area within which 

shutdown of the activity would occur 

upon sighting of a marine mammal (or 

in anticipation of an animal entering the 

defined area). Shutdown zones typically 

vary based on the activity type and 

marine mammal hearing group (Table 

4). Because the zones are small in this 

project, and WADOT seeks to simplify 

their monitoring, they have requested to 

establish shutdown zones of the same 

size that apply separately to cetaceans 

and pinnipeds, rather than having 

multiple size zones within each of these 

marine mammal groups corresponding 

to each hearing group. Therefore the 

shutdown zones are based on the largest 

Level A harassment zone within the 

cetacean and pinniped groups, 

respecitively, with an absolute 

minimum shutdown zone size of 10 m 

(33 ft). 

• Pile wake-up—When removing 

piles WADOT will shake the pile 

slightly prior to removal to break the 

bond with surrounding sediment to 

avoid pulling out large blocks of 

sediment. Piles they will also be 

removed slowly to minimize turbidity. 

• The placement of Protected Species 

Observers (PSOs) during all pile driving 

and removal activities (described in 

detail in the Proposed Monitoring and 

Reporting section) will ensure that the 

entire shutdown zone is visible during 

pile installation. Should environmental 

conditions deteriorate such that marine 

mammals within the entire shutdown 

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

heavy rain), pile driving and removal 

must be delayed until the PSO is 

confident marine mammals within the 

shutdown zone could be detected. 

• Monitoring for Level B 

Harassment—WADOT will monitor the 

Level A and B harassment and 

shutdown zones. Monitoring zones 

provide utility for observing by 

establishing monitoring protocols for 

areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. 

Monitoring zones enable observers to be 

aware of and communicate the presence 

of marine mammals in the project area 

outside the shutdown zone and thus 

prepare for a potential halt of activity 

should the animal enter the shutdown 

zone. Placement of PSOs will allow 

PSOs to observe marine mammals 

within the Level B harassment zones 

that serve as monitoring zones. 

• Pre-activity Monitoring—Prior to 

the start of daily in-water construction 

activity, or whenever a break in pile 

driving/removal of 30 minutes or longer 

occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown 

and monitoring zones for a period of 30 

minutes. The shutdown zone will be 

considered cleared when a marine 

mammal has not been observed within 

the zone for that 30-minute period. If a 

marine mammal is observed within the 

shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot 

proceed until the animal has left the 

zone or has not been observed for 15 

minutes. When a marine mammal for 

which Level B harassment take is 

authorized is present in the Level B 

harassment zone, activities may begin 

and Level B harassment take will be 

recorded. If the entire Level B 

harassment zone is not visible at the 

start of construction, pile driving 

activities can begin. If work ceases for 

more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity 

monitoring of the shutdown zones will 

commence. 

• Pile driving or removal must occur 

during daylight hours. 

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. 

TABLE 10—SHUTDOWN ZONES (RADIUS IN METERS) BY PILE TYPE, ACTIVITY AND HEARING GROUP

Pile type Low 

frequency 

Mid 

frequency 

High 

frequency Otariid Phocid 

Sheet .................................................................................... 50 50 50 20 20 

H pile .................................................................................... 10 10 10 10 10 

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; 

81902 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

Marine mammal monitoring must be 

conducted in accordance with the 

Monitoring Plan and section 5 of the 

IHA. Marine mammal monitoring 

during pile driving and removal must be 

conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs in 

a manner consistent with the following: 

• Independent PSOs (i.e., not 

construction personnel) who have no 

other assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods must be used; 

• Other PSOs may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience; and 

• WADOT must submit PSO 

Curriculum Vitae for approval by NMFS 

prior to the onset of pile driving. 

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. 

Up to four PSOs will be employed. 

PSO locations will provide an 

unobstructed view of all water within 

the shutdown zone, and as much of the 

Level A and Level B harassment zones 

as possible. PSO locations are as 

follows: 

(1) At the pile driving/removal site or 

best vantage point practicable to 

monitor the shutdown zones and the 

small area north into Burley Lagoon; 

(2) At Purdy Spit Park to monitor the 

Level B harassment zone near the 

project site in Henderson Bay; and 

(3) For the smaller Level B harassment 

zone associated with H pile driving/ 

removal, an additional PSOs will be 

located on the southeast end of the level 

B harassment zone (see Monitoring Plan 

Figure 4); 

(4) For the larger Level B harassment 

zone associated with sheetpile driving/ 

removal PSOs will be at the pile/driving 

removal site and Purdy Spit park as 

described above. Two additional PSOs 

will be located further south in 

Henderson Bay (see Monitoring Plan 

Figure 2): One at Kopachuck State Park 

to monitor the southern end of the Level 

B harassment zone and one further 

south at Penrose Point State Park to 

monitor the approaches into Henderson 

Bay, especially for killer and humpback 

whales and other large whales not 

authorized for take. 

Monitoring will be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after pile driving/removal activities. In 

addition, observers shall record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and shall document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from piles being driven or 

removed. Pile driving activities include 

the time to install or remove a single 

pile or series of piles, as long as the time 

elapsed between uses of the pile driving 

or drilling equipment is no more than 

30 minutes. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal activities, or 

60 days prior to a requested date of 

issuance of 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 how many and what type of 

piles were driven or removed and by 

what method (i.e., impact or vibratory 

and if other removal methods were 

used). 

• Weather parameters and water 

conditions during each monitoring 

period (e.g., wind speed, percent cover, 

visibility, sea state). 

• The number of marine mammals 

observed, by species, relative to the pile 

location and if pile driving or removal 

was occurring at time of sighting. 

• Age and sex class, if possible, of all 

marine mammals observed. 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring. 

• Distances and bearings of each 

marine mammal observed to the pile 

being driven or removed for each 

sighting (if pile driving or removal was 

occurring at time of sighting). 

• Description of any marine mammal 

behavior patterns during observation, 

including direction of travel and 

estimated time spent within the Level A 

and Level B harassment zones while the 

source was active. 

• Number of individuals of each 

species (differentiated by month as 

appropriate) detected within the 

monitoring zone, and estimates of 

number of marine mammals taken, by 

species (a correction factor may be 

applied to total take numbers, as 

appropriate). 

• Detailed information about any 

implementation of any mitigation 

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

description of specific actions that 

ensued, and resulting behavior of the 

animal, if any. 

• Description of attempts to 

distinguish between the number of 

individual animals taken and the 

number of incidences of take, such as 

ability to track groups or individuals. 

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, 

WADOT shall report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources (OPR), 

NMFS and to the regional stranding 

coordinator as soon as feasible. If the 

death or injury was clearly caused by 

the specified activity, WADOT 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; 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81903 

• 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, the discussion of 

our analyses applies to all the species 

listed in Table 9, given that the 

anticipated effects of this activity on 

these different marine mammal stocks 

are expected to be similar. There is little 

information about the nature or severity 

of the impacts, or the size, status, or 

structure of any of these species or 

stocks that would lead to a different 

analysis for this activity. Pile driving 

activities have the potential to disturb or 

displace marine mammals. Specifically, 

the project activities may result in take, 

in the form of Level B harassment from 

underwater sounds generated from pile 

driving and removal and needle gun 

use. Potential takes could occur if 

individuals are present in the ensonified 

zone when these activities are 

underway. 

Takes by Level B harassment would 

be in the form of behavioral disturbance 

and/or TTS. No mortality or PTS (Level 

A harassment) is anticipated given the 

nature of the activity and measures 

designed to minimize the possibility of 

injury to marine mammals. The 

potential for harassment is minimized 

through the construction method and 

the implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures (see Proposed 

Mitigation section). 

The nature of the pile driving project 

precludes the likelihood of serious 

injury or mortality. Take would occur 

within a limited, confined area (northcentral Henderson Bay) 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, 

and as a result, as discussed above, 

Level A harassment is not anticipated to 

occur. 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 and needle gun 

use at the project site, if any, are 

expected to be mild and temporary. 

Marine mammals within the Level B 

harassment zone may not show any 

visual cues they are disturbed by 

activities (as noted during modification 

to the Kodiak Ferry Dock) or could 

become alert, avoid the area, leave the 

area, or display other mild responses 

that are not observable such as changes 

in vocalization patterns. Given the short 

duration of noise-generating activities 

per day and that pile driving and 

removal would occur across three 

months, any harassment would be 

temporary. There are no other areas or 

times of known biological importance 

for any of the affected species. 

In addition, it is unlikely that minor 

noise effects in a small, localized area of 

habitat would have any effect on the 

fitness of any individual or the stocks’ 

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, shortterm effects on individuals. The 

specified activities are not expected to 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

and will therefore not result in 

population-level impacts. 

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 or Level A harassment 

is anticipated or authorized. 

• No biologically important areas 

have been identified within the project 

area. 

• For all species, Henderson Bay is a 

very small and peripheral part of their 

range. 

• WADOT would implement 

mitigation measures such as shut downs 

and slow removal of piles to minimize 

turbidity and shaking the pile slightly 

prior to removal (wake up) to break the 

bond with surrounding sediment to 

avoid pulling out large blocks of 

sediment. 

• Monitoring reports from similar 

work in Puget Sound have documented 

little to no effect on individuals of the 

same species impacted by the specified 

activities. 

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 section 101(a)(5)(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 

stocks. For harbor seals there are no 

official estimates of the stock size. We 

do know the populations of harbor seals 

in Puget Sound are increasing and 

number at least 32,000 (Jeffries, 2013). 

We also know that harbor seals do not 

81904 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

generally range over large areas (see 

above). Therefore, it is most likely that 

the number of harbor seal takes is a 

small number. For all stocks, these are 

all likely conservative estimates of 

percent of stock taken because they 

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. 

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 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the 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, in this 

case with the West Coast Region 

Protected Resources Division Office, 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

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 WADOT to conduct the 

Purdy Bridge Rehabilitation project in 

Pierce, WA from July 16, 2021 through 

September 30, 2021, 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 proposed Purdy Bridge 

Rehabilitation project. 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 1-year Renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical, or nearly identical, 

activities as described in the Description 

of Proposed Activity section of this 

notice is planned or (2) the activities as 

described in the Description of 

Proposed Activity section of this notice 

would not be completed by the time the 

IHA expires and a Renewal would allow 

for completion of the activities beyond 

that described in the Dates and Duration 

section of this notice, provided all of the 

following conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to the needed 

Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that 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); and 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized; 

and 

• Upon review of the request for 

Renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: December 14, 2020. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27787 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

Review and Approval; Comment 

Request; Patent and Trademark 

Resource Center Metrics 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of information collection; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

invites comments on the extension and 

revision of an existing information 

collection: 0651–0068 (Patent and 

Trademark Resource Center Metrics). 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 

days for public comment preceding 

submission of the information collection 

to OMB. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, 

comments regarding this information 

collection must be received on or before 

February 16, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments by 

any of the following methods. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information: 

• Email: InformationCollection@

uspto.gov. Include ‘‘0651–0068 

comment’’ in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Federal Register Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: Kimberly Hardy, Office of the 

Chief Administrative Officer, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, 

P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313– 

1450.