Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 51947 

Alternative 4: Enhanced 

Implementation (Preferred Alternative): 

Alternative 4, the enhanced 

implementation alternative, is the 

Preferred Alternative. This alternative 

would encompass all the activities 

under Alternative 3, with the additional 

option to temporarily translocate 

weaned pups from the NWHI to the MHI 

to improve survival. At age three years, 

surviving translocated seals would be 

returned to the NWHI. 

Alternative 4 encompasses the range 

of actions considered most promising to 

prevent the extinction of the species. 

Before any translocation between the 

NWHI and MHI would be attempted, 

extensive outreach and engagement 

with local stakeholders would be 

conducted, and programs to reduce sealhuman interactions, including 

interactions between seals and fishing 

gear, would be developed and 

implemented. 

Public Involvement 

Comments will be accepted at public 

hearings (see below) and during the 

public comment period, and must be 

submitted to NMFS by October 17, 2011 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

We request that you include in your 

comments: (1) Your name, address, and 

affiliation (if any); and (2) background 

documents to support your comments as 

appropriate. 

Public hearings will take place on the 

following dates, times, and locations: 

1. Monday, September 12, 2011, 5:30 

p.m.–8:30 p.m., Central Union Church, 

1660 South Beretania Street, Honolulu, 

O‘ahu. 

2. Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 6 

p.m.–8:30 p.m., Hale Mahaolu Home 

Pumehana, 290 Kolapa Place, 

Kaunakakai, Moloka’i. 

3. Wednesday, September 14, 2011, 6 

p.m.–9 p.m., Mokupa ̄papa Discovery 

Center, 308 Kamehameha Avenue, Suite 

109, Hilo, Hawai’i. 

4. Thursday, September 15, 2011, 6 

p.m.–9 p.m., Kı ̄hei Community Center, 

303 East Lipoa Street, Kı ̄hei, Maui. 

5. Saturday, September 17, 2011, 9 

a.m.–12 p.m. and 4 p.m.–7 p.m., Wilcox 

Elementary School, 4319 Hardy Street, 

Lı ̄hu‘e, Kaua‘i. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are accessible to 

people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

Rachel Sprague, (808) 944–2200 (phone) 

or (808) 973–2941 (fax), at least 5 days 

before the scheduled meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. and 16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

Dated: August 11, 2011. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21274 Filed 8–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA289 

Small Takes of Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Specified Activities; Pile 

Driving in the Columbia River, WA 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a 

complete and adequate application from 

the Port of Vancouver, USA (Port) for an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

(IHA) to take marine mammals, by 

harassment, incidental to pile driving 

during construction of the Terminal 5 

Bulk Potash Handling Facility. Pursuant 

to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is proposing to issue an 

IHA to incidentally harass, by Level B 

harassment only, three species of 

marine mammals during the specified 

activity within a specific geographic 

area and is requesting comments on its 

proposal. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than September 19, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application and this proposal should be 

addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225. The mailbox address for 

providing email comments is 

ITP.Magliocca@noaa.gov. NMFS is not 

responsible for e-mail comments sent to 

addresses other than the one provided 

here. Comments sent via e-mail, 

including all attachments, must not 

exceed a 10-megabyte file size. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm without change. All 

Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

A copy of the application containing 

a list of the references used in this 

document may be obtained by writing to 

the address specified above, telephoning 

the contact listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 

visiting the internet at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm. Documents cited in this 

notice may also be viewed, by 

appointment, during regular business 

hours, at the aforementioned address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle Magliocca, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce 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 specific 

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 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s), will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses (where relevant), and if 

the permissible methods of taking and 

requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such takings are set forth. NMFS has 

defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 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.’’ 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the United States can 

apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals by harassment. 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) further established 

a 45-day time limit for NMFS’ review of 

an application, followed by a 30-day 

public notice and comment period on 

any proposed authorizations for the 

incidental harassment of marine 

mammals. Within 45 days of the close 

of the comment period, NMFS must 

either issue or deny the authorization. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51948 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, 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]. 

Summary of Request 

On February 22, 2011, NMFS received 

an application from the Port of 

Vancouver, USA (Port), requesting an 

IHA for the take, by Level B harassment, 

of small numbers of Pacific harbor seals 

(Phoca vitulina richardii), California sea 

lions (Zalophus californianus), and 

Steller sea lions (Eumatopius jubatus) 

incidental to pile driving activities 

conducted during the construction of 

the Terminal 5 Bulk Potash Handling 

Facility. Upon receipt of additional 

information and a revised application 

(submitted May 6, 2011), NMFS 

determined the application complete 

and adequate on June 7, 2011. 

The applicant proposes to lease part 

of Terminal 5, located at the Port of 

Vancouver, for the purposes of 

constructing and operating a bulk 

potash handling facility on the 

Columbia River. The facility would 

allow shipping of potash (salts 

containing potassium in water-soluble 

form) to global markets. The proposed 

project would require pile installation of 

up to 203 steel piles and removal of 177 

wood piles. Because elevated sound 

levels from pile driving have the 

potential to result in marine mammal 

harassment, NMFS is proposing to issue 

an IHA for take incidental to the 

specified activity. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

The proposed project would involve 

construction of a potash handling 

facility along the Columbia River in 

Vancouver, Washington. The facility 

would accept potash shipped by rail 

from potash mines in Saskatchewan, 

Canada. On-site infrastructure is 

proposed to enable the unloading of rail 

cars into on-site storage, and the 

conveyance of potash to vessels at a new 

berth to be constructed on the Columbia 

River adjacent to the facility. The on-site 

infrastructure would include dedicated 

rail facilities and the construction and 

installation of materials handling 

equipment, storage structures, utilities, 

and internal access roads on the site, a 

marine berth with ship loaders, and 

other related ancillary infrastructure. 

To support the new facility, a 

maximum of 203 steel piles would be 

installed at the proposed project site 

(specifically, Terminal 5) using 

vibratory and impact pile driving. These 

piles would be necessary for 

construction of a ship loading system, 

marine berthing facilities, and a new 

stormwater outfall system. A breakdown 

of pile size and associated activity are 

shown in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PILE INSTALLATION ACTIVITIES

Activity Number of piles (maximum) Location 

Installation of permanent piles for ship loader and berth .... 100, 36- to 40-in (914- to 1,016-mm) steel pipe piles.

Installation and removal of temporary piles during construction of ship loader and berth.95, 18- to 24-in (457- to 610-mm) steel pipe piles ............ River mile 103.3. 

Installation of permanent piles for stormwater outfall .......... 8, 16-in steel H-piles.

Removal of old piles ............................................................. 177, 16-in wood piles ......................................................... River mile 105. 

Of the 100, 36- to 40-in (914- to 1,016- 

mm) steel pipe piles, 36 would be used 

for quadrant beams and pivot supports, 

42 would be used for the mooring and 

berthing dolphins and platform, 10 

would be used for access trestles, and 

the remaining 12 would be intended as 

a contingency should additional piles be 

required. Approximately two piles 

would be installed per day over a fourmonth period. Although the exact 

duration of pile driving would vary 

depending on the installation 

procedures and geotechnical conditions, 

the applicant estimates that each 

permanent pile would require between 

two and three hours of vibratory 

installation and between one and two 

hours of impact driving to install. To the 

extent possible, all piles would be 

installed with an APE Model 200 (or 

similar) vibratory hammer; however, it 

may be necessary to seat a pile using an 

impact hammer. The temporary piles 

(18- to 24-in diameter) would be driven 

solely with a vibratory hammer. Should 

an impact hammer be necessary for 

finishing the installation of permanent 

piles, the Port would use a DELMAG 

D46–32 with 60–80 maximum blows per 

foot, a DELMAG D80 with 20–30 

maximum blows per foot, or a similar 

model. Sound attenuation devices, such 

as a bubble curtain, would be used 

during any impact hammering. 

In addition to pile installation, a total 

of 272 piles would also be removed 

using vibratory extraction or a crane. 

These consist of the 95 temporary piles 

and 177 old wood piles upstream of 

Terminal 5 (Table 1). The 177 wood 

piles are located at Terminal 2, about 

two miles upstream from Terminal 5, 

and do not have much structural 

capacity. A pneumatic underwater 

chainsaw may be used if a pile breaks 

in the process, but associated noise is 

expected to be negligible. Above-water 

work would also be necessary to 

complete construction of each project 

component. There could be barges in 

the water to support construction 

activities; however, these would be 

concentrated in the direct vicinity of 

Terminal 5. Because pile repair, pile 

removal, and use of barges do not 

release loud sounds into the 

environment, marine mammal 

harassment from these activities is not 

anticipated. 

Region of Activity 

The proposed activity would occur 

within the Lower Columbia River subbasin. The Columbia River and its 

tributaries are the dominant aquatic 

system in the Pacific Northwest, 

originating in Canada’s Rocky 

Mountains and flowing approximately 

1,200 mi (1,931 km) to the Pacific 

Ocean. Saltwater intrusion from the 

Pacific Ocean extends approximately 

23 mi (37 km) upstream from the river 

mouth at Astoria, Oregon and coastal 

tides influence the flow rate and river 

level up to the Bonneville Dam at river 

mile 146. The proposed construction 

would take place at 5701 NW Lower 

River Road in Vancouver, Washington, 

about 3 mi (4.8 km) northwest of 

downtown Vancouver, Washington. The 

area is composed of submerged, tidal, 

nearshore, and upland lands along a 

2,300-ft (701-m) long section on the 

north bank of the Columbia River. The 

proposed project site is centered around 

river mile 103.3, a reach of the 

Columbia River that is about 3,000 ft 

(914 m) wide on average, but would also 

include additional pile removal at river 

mile 105. A heavy industrial site, this 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 51949 

area has been used since the 1940s for 

aluminum smelting as well as for the 

fabrication and outdoor storage of 

aluminum ingots, but is currently used 

for storage of windmill components. 

Dates of Activity 

The Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife’s recommended in-water 

work window for this area is November 

1 through February 28. Timing 

restrictions such as this are used to 

avoid in-water work when listed species 

are most likely to be present. Proposed 

pile installation and removal activities 

are scheduled to occur between 

November 1, 2012 and February 28, 

2013, in agreement with the state’s 

recommendation. 

Sound Propagation 

For background, sound is a 

mechanical disturbance consisting of 

minute vibrations that travel through a 

medium, such as air or water, and is 

generally characterized by several 

variables. Frequency describes the 

sound’s pitch and is measured in hertz 

(Hz) or kilohertz (kHz), while sound 

level describes the sound’s loudness 

and is measured in decibels (dB). Sound 

level increases or decreases 

exponentially with each dB of change. 

For example, 10 dB yields a sound level 

10 times more intense than 1 dB, while 

a 20 dB level equates to 100 times more 

intense, and a 30 dB level is 1,000 times 

more intense. Sound levels are 

compared to a reference sound pressure 

(micro-Pascal) to identify the medium. 

For air and water, these reference 

pressures are ‘‘re: 20 μPa’’ and ‘‘re: 1 

μPa,’’ respectively. Root mean square 

(RMS) is the quadratic mean sound 

pressure over the duration of an 

impulse. RMS is calculated by squaring 

all of the sound amplitudes, averaging 

the squares, and then taking the square 

root of the average (Urick, 1975). RMS 

accounts for both positive and negative 

values; squaring the pressures makes all 

values positive so that they may be 

accounted for in the summation of 

pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). This measurement is often used 

in the context of discussing behavioral 

effects, in part because behavioral 

effects, which often result from auditory 

cues, may be better expressed through 

averaged units rather than by peak 

pressures. 

Data from a Washington Department 

of Transportation monitoring project at 

Port Townsend was used for the 

vibratory pile driving noise analysis 

(WSDOT, 2010b). There is a lack of 

information related to the size of the 

impact hammer and the resulting sound 

levels for 36- to 40-in (914- to 1,016- 

mm) pile installations; therefore, noise 

levels recorded for projects in Alameda, 

California and Port Townsend, 

Washington, using similar equipment 

were used to estimate sound levels 

(CalTrans, 2009; WSDOT, 2010b). 

Maximum sound levels for impact and 

vibratory pile driving are shown in 

Table 2. No reference underwater sound 

levels are available for this area, so 120 

dB RMS (the lowest potential impact 

threshold for marine mammals) was 

used as a surrogate (WSDOT, 2010a). 

The Port applied a practical spreading 

loss model to calculate sound 

propagation, which assumes that noise 

attenuates at a rate of 4.5 dB per 

doubling distance, and this attenuation 

rate increases to 10 dB per doubling 

distance beyond 0.6 mile (1 km) 

(WSDOT, 2010a). Using this model, the 

largest noise impact zone is expected to 

result from vibratory pile driving of 36- 

to 40-in (914- to 1,016-mm) steel pipe 

piles. It may take up to 7 miles (11 km) 

for underwater sound to attenuate to 

below 120 dB. Because of the project 

area’s location on a river bend and 

across from Hayden Island, sound 

transmission will be stopped by land 

masses much earlier in certain 

directions. In-air sound from pile 

driving also has the potential to affect 

marine mammals. However, in-air 

sound is not a concern here because 

there are no pinniped haul-out sites 

near the project area. 

Table 2. Maximum sound levels for 

impact and vibratory installation of 

unattenuated steel piles. 

Pile diameter Sound level (single strike) 1 Sound level 

(vibratory) 2

36- to 40-inch (914- to 1,016-mm) ................. 208 dBPEAK ................ 195 dBRMS ................. 180 dBSEL .................. 174 dBRMS.

1 CalTrans, 2009. 2 WSDOT, 2010b. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

Three marine mammal species have 

known distribution ranges that include 

the proposed project area: Pacific harbor 

seal, California sea lion, and Steller sea 

lion. These species may use the 

proposed project area as a seasonal 

transit corridor to and from the 

Bonneville Dam. 

Pacific Harbor Seals 

Pacific harbor seals reside in coastal 

and estuarine waters off Baja, California, 

north to British Columbia, west through 

the Gulf of Alaska, and in the Bering 

Sea. Harbor seals in the Columbia River 

are part of the Oregon/Washington 

coastal stock. The most recent NMFS 

stock assessment report estimated this 

stock to be at least 22,380 individuals 

and the population is likely at carrying 

capacity and no longer increasing 

(NMFS, 2007). The Oregon/Washington 

stock is not listed under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) nor considered 

depleted under the MMPA. 

Harbor seals are infrequently observed 

as far upstream in the Columbia River 

as Vancouver. The nearest known haulout is approximately 60 miles (97 km) 

downstream of the proposed project 

area. Since 2002, the Army Corps of 

Engineers has documented less than 

four harbor seals at Bonneville Dam 

(approximately 40 miles [64 km] from 

the proposed project area) and harbor 

seals potentially within the proposed 

project area will likely be transiting to 

or from Bonneville Dam. 

California Sea Lions 

California sea lions reside throughout 

the Eastern North Pacific Ocean in 

shallow coastal and estuarine waters, 

ranging from Central Mexico to British 

Columbia, Canada. Their primary 

breeding range extends from Central 

Mexico to the Channel Islands in 

Southern California. The U.S. stock 

abundance is estimated at 238,000 sea 

lions (NMFS, 2007). This stock is 

approaching carrying capacity and is 

reaching ‘‘optimum sustainable 

population’’ limits, as defined by the 

MMPA. California sea lions are not 

listed under the ESA nor considered 

depleted under the MMPA. 

Historically, California sea lions are 

the most frequently observed pinnipeds 

at Bonneville Dam, with the largest 

number (104) of individuals recorded in 

2003. There are no California sea lion 

haul-outs within the action area, so 

individuals present during construction 

would likely be passing through the 

area. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51950 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 

Steller Sea Lions 

Steller sea lions reside along the 

North Pacific Rim from northern Japan 

to California, with centers of abundance 

and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska 

and Aleutian Islands, respectively. 

Steller sea lions in the Columbia River 

are part of the eastern distinct 

population segment, which is listed as 

threatened under the ESA and 

designated as depleted under the 

MMPA. Since the 1970s, the average 

annual population growth rate has been 

three percent (NMFS, 2008a). 

Since 2002, observers have rarely seen 

Steller sea lions at Bonneville Dam, 

with less than ten sea lions recorded in 

most years. However, since 2008, the 

numbers of Steller sea lions 

documented at the dam have increased 

steadily to 75 individuals in 2010. The 

most recent stock assessment (NOAA, 

2010) cited 516 individuals as the 

population count for the entire state of 

Washington. No Steller sea lion haulouts or haul-out habitat are known 

within the proposed project area and 

there are no Steller sea lion rookeries in 

Washington. Any Steller sea lions 

present during construction would 

likely be passing through the area. 

All species of pinnipeds produce a 

wide range of social signals, most 

occurring at relatively low frequencies 

(Southall et al., 2007), suggesting that 

hearing is keenest at these frequencies. 

Pinnipeds communicate acoustically 

both on land and underwater, but have 

different hearing capabilities dependent 

upon the medium (air or water). Based 

on numerous studies, as summarized in 

Southall et al. (2007), pinnipeds are 

more sensitive to a broader range of 

sound frequencies underwater than in 

air. Underwater, pinnipeds can hear 

frequencies from 75 Hz to 75 kHz. In air, 

pinnipeds can hear frequencies from 75 

Hz to 30 kHz (Southall et al., 2007). 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals 

The proposed action consists of both 

upland and marine components, but the 

only project component with the 

potential to take marine mammals is 

impact and vibratory pile driving. 

Elevated in-water sound levels from pile 

driving in the proposed project area may 

temporarily impact marine mammal 

behavior. Elevated in-air sound levels 

are not a concern because the nearest 

pinniped haul-out is approximately 60 

miles (97 km) away. Marine mammals 

are continually exposed to many 

sources of sound. For example, 

lightning, rain, sub-sea earthquakes, and 

animals are natural sound sources 

throughout the marine environment. 

Marine mammals produce sounds in 

various contexts and use sound for 

various biological functions including, 

but not limited to, (1) social 

interactions; (2) foraging; (3) orientation; 

and (4) predator detection. Interference 

with producing or receiving these 

sounds may result in adverse impacts. 

Audible distance or received levels will 

depend on the sound source, ambient 

noise, and the sensitivity of the receptor 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Marine 

mammal reactions to sound may depend 

on sound frequency, ambient sound, 

what the animal is doing, and the 

animal’s distance from the sound source 

(Southall et al., 2007). 

Hearing Impairment 

Marine mammals may experience 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment when exposed to loud 

sounds. Hearing impairment is 

classified by temporary threshold shift 

(TTS) and permanent threshold shift 

(PTS). There are no empirical data for 

when PTS first occurs in marine 

mammals; therefore, it must be 

estimated from when TTS first occurs 

and from the rate of TTS growth with 

increasing exposure levels. PTS is likely 

if the animal’s hearing threshold is 

reduced by ≥ 40 dB of TTS. PTS is 

considered auditory injury (Southall et 

al., 2007) and occurs in a specific 

frequency range and amount. Irreparable 

damage to the inner or outer cochlear 

hair cells may cause PTS; however, 

other mechanisms are also involved, 

such as exceeding the elastic limits of 

certain tissues and membranes in the 

middle and inner ears and resultant 

changes in the chemical composition of 

the inner ear fluids (Southall et al., 

2007). Due to proposed mitigation 

measures and source levels in the 

proposed project area, NMFS does not 

expect marine mammals to be exposed 

to PTS levels. 

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) 

TTS is the mildest form of hearing 

impairment that can occur during 

exposure to a loud sound (Kryter, 1985). 

While experiencing TTS, the hearing 

threshold rises and a sound must be 

louder in order to be heard. TTS can last 

from minutes or hours to days, occurs 

in specific frequency ranges (i.e., an 

animal might only have a temporary 

loss of hearing sensitivity between the 

frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can 

occur to varying degrees (e.g., an 

animal’s hearing sensitivity might be 

reduced by 6 dB or by 30 dB). For sound 

exposures at or somewhat above the 

TTS-onset threshold, hearing sensitivity 

recovers rapidly after exposure to the 

sound ends. Few data on sound levels 

and durations necessary to elicit mild 

TTS have been obtained for marine 

mammals. Southall et al. (2007) 

considers a 6 dB TTS (i.e., baseline 

thresholds are elevated by 6 dB) 

sufficient to be recognized as an 

unequivocal deviation and thus a 

sufficient definition of TTS-onset. 

Because it is non-injurious, NMFS 

considers TTS as Level B harassment 

that is mediated by physiological effects 

on the auditory system; however, NMFS 

does not consider onset TTS to be the 

lowest level at which Level B 

harassment may occur. Southall et al. 

(2007) summarizes underwater 

pinniped data from Kastak et al. (2005), 

indicating that a tested harbor seal 

showed a TTS of around 6 dB when 

exposed to a non-pulse noise at SPL 152 

dB re: 1 μPa for 25 minutes. In contrast, 

a tested sea lion exhibited TTS-onset at 

174 dB re: 1 μPa under the same 

conditions as the harbor seal. Data from 

a single study on underwater pulses 

found no signs of TTS-onset in sea lions 

at exposures up to 183 dB re: 1 μPa 

(peak-to-peak) (Finneran et al., 2003). 

There are limited data available on 

the effects of non-pulse noise (for 

example, vibratory pile driving) on 

pinnipeds while underwater; however, 

field and captive studies to date 

collectively suggest that pinnipeds do 

not react strongly to exposures between 

90 and 140 dB re: 1 microPa; no data 

exist from exposures at higher levels. 

Jacobs and Terhune (2002) observed 

wild harbor seal reactions to highfrequency acoustic harassment devices 

around nine sites. Seals came within 44 

m of the active acoustic harassment 

devices and failed to demonstrate any 

behavioral response when received 

SPLs were estimated at 120–130 dB. In 

a captive study (Kastelein, 2006), 

scientists subjected a group of seals to 

non-pulse sounds between 8 and 16 

kHz. Exposures between 80 and 107 dB 

did not induce strong behavioral 

responses; however, a single observation 

from 100 to 110 dB indicated an 

avoidance response. The seals returned 

to baseline conditions shortly following 

exposure. Southall et al. (2007) notes 

contextual differences between these 

two studies; the captive animals were 

not reinforced with food for remaining 

in the noise fields, whereas free-ranging 

animals may have been more tolerant of 

exposures because of motivation to 

return to a safe location or approach 

enclosures holding prey items. While 

most of the pile driving at the proposed 

project site would be vibratory, an 

impact hammer (pulse noise) may be 

used to complete installation and to 

verify the piles’ strength. Vibratory and 

impact pile driving may result in 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 51951 

anticipated hydroacoustic levels 

between 174 and 195 dB root mean 

square. Southall et al. (2007) reviewed 

relevant data from studies involving 

pinnipeds exposed to pulse noise and 

concluded that exposures to 150 to 180 

dB generally have limited potential to 

induce avoidance behavior. 

Vibratory pile driving emits lowfrequency broadband noise, which may 

be detectable by marine mammals 

within the proposed project area. The 

average value of 174 dB RMS from a 

Washington State Department of 

Transportation monitoring project of 

vibratory installation of a 36-inch (917- 

mm) steel pipe pile at Port Townsend 

was used in the noise analysis for 

vibratory pile installation (WSDOT, 

2010b). There is a lack of information 

related to the size of the impact hammer 

and the resulting sound levels for 36- to 

40-inch (914 to 1,016-mm) pile 

installations. Therefore, noise levels 

recorded for a project in Alameda, 

California that installed 40-inch (1,016- 

mm) steel pipe piles using a DELMAG 

D80 impact hammer were used in the 

noise attenuation analysis (Caltrans, 

2009). 

No impacts to pinniped reproduction 

are anticipated because there are no 

known haul-outs or rookeries within the 

proposed project area. NMFS expects 

any impacts to marine mammal 

behavior to be temporary, Level B 

harassment, for two reasons: first, 

animals may avoid the area around the 

hammer, thereby reducing their 

exposure to elevated sound levels; and 

second, pile driving does not occur 

continuously throughout the day; the 

vibratory hammer would operate for 

about 2–3 hours per pile and the impact 

hammer would operate for about 1–2 

hours per pile. The applicant anticipates 

an average of two pilings to be driven 

per day, resulting in a total of 6–10 

hours of pile driving within a 24-hour 

period. Disturbance to marine mammal 

behavior may be in the form of 

temporary avoidance or alteration of 

transiting near the pile driving location. 

In addition, because a vibratory hammer 

would be used as much as possible, and 

the 190 dB isopleth for the impact 

hammer is 70 ft (21 m), marine mammal 

injury or mortality is not likely. Impact 

pile driving would cease if a marine 

mammal is observed nearing or within 

the 190 dB isopleth. For these reasons, 

NMFS expects any changes to marine 

mammal behavior to be temporary and 

result in a negligible impact to affected 

species and stocks. 

Anticipated Effects on Habitat 

A small area of shallow water habitat 

with silt/sand substrate would be 

shaded by the proposed structure, but 

this was minimized by placing the 

structure at a height which would allow 

for some light penetration and by 

lessening the width of the structure. A 

deep water area and shallow water area 

with riprap substrate would also be 

shaded, but these habitats provide few 

functions and are plentiful in the 

surrounding ecosystem. Pile installation 

and removal would result in some 

disturbance of the river substrate; 

however, this disturbance is expected to 

be local and temporary. Pile driving 

activities (i.e., temporary ensonification) 

may impact prey species and marine 

mammals by resulting in avoidance or 

abandonment of the area; however these 

impacts are also expected to be local 

and temporary. Overall, the proposed 

activity is not expected to cause 

significant or long-term impacts on 

marine mammal habitat. 

Essential Fish Habitat consultation is 

ongoing between the Port and NMFS for 

the proposed IHA, but will be 

concluded before NMFS makes a final 

determination on the issuance of an 

IHA. 

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 such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses. 

The applicant has proposed the 

following mitigation measures to 

minimize adverse impacts to marine 

mammals: 

Temporal Restrictions 

The Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife recommends an in-water 

work window of November 1 through 

February 28, annually. This work 

window was designed to protect fish 

species, particularly salmonid eggs and 

fry. However, by limiting pile driving 

activities to this period of time, the peak 

sea lion run to and from the Bonneville 

Dam is also avoided. 

Limited Use of an Impact Hammer 

To the extent possible, a vibratory 

hammer would be used to drive all 

piles. In the event that an impact 

hammer is necessary, a bubble curtain 

or similar noise attenuation method 

would be used as an attenuation device 

to reduce hydroacoustic sound levels to 

avoid the potential for injury. 

Establishment of an Exclusion Zone 

During all in-water impact pile 

driving, the Port would establish a 

preliminary marine mammal exclusion 

zone of 70 ft (21 m) around each pile to 

avoid exposure to sounds at or above 

190 dB. The exclusion zone would be 

monitored during all impact pile driving 

to ensure that no marine mammals enter 

the 70 ft (21 m) radius. The purpose of 

this area is to prevent Level A 

harassment (injury) of any marine 

mammal species. A safety zone for 

vibratory pile driving is unnecessary to 

prevent Level A harassment as source 

levels would not exceed the Level A 

harassment threshold. 

Pile Driving Shut Down and Delay 

Procedures 

If a protected species observer sees a 

marine mammal within or approaching 

the exclusion zone prior to start of 

impact pile driving, the observer would 

notify the on-site construction manager 

(or other authorized individual), who 

would then be required to delay pile 

driving until the marine mammal has 

moved outside of the exclusion zone or 

if the animal has not been resighted 

within 15 minutes. If a marine mammal 

is sighted within or on a path toward 

the exclusion zone during pile driving, 

pile driving would cease until that 

animal has cleared and is on a path 

away from the exclusion zone or 15 

minutes has lapsed since the last 

sighting. 

Soft-Start Procedures 

A ‘‘soft-start’’ technique would be 

used at the beginning of each pile 

installation to allow any marine 

mammal that may be in the immediate 

area to leave before the pile hammer 

reaches full energy. For vibratory pile 

driving, the soft-start procedure requires 

contractors to initiate noise from the 

vibratory hammer for 15 seconds at 40– 

60 percent reduced energy followed by 

a 1-minute waiting period. The 

procedure would be repeated two 

additional times before full energy may 

be achieved. For impact hammering, 

contractors would be required to 

provide an initial set of three strikes 

from the impact hammer at 40 percent 

energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting 

period, then two subsequent three-strike 

sets. The soft-start procedure would be 

conducted prior to driving each pile if 

vibratory hammering ceases for more 

than 30 minutes. 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

applicant’s proposed mitigation 

measures and considered a range of 

other measures in the context of 

ensuring that NMFS prescribes the 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51952 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact on the affected marine 

mammal species and stocks and their 

habitat. Our evaluation of potential 

measures included consideration of the 

following factors in relation to one 

another: (1) The manner in which, and 

the degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure is 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals; (2) the proven or 

likely efficacy of the specific measure to 

minimize adverse impacts as planned; 

and (3) the practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation, including 

consideration of personnel safety, and 

practicality of implementation. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impacts on marine 

mammals species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking’’. The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 

indicate that requests for IHAs 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. 

The Port must designate at least one 

biologically-trained, on-site individual, 

approved in advance by NMFS, to 

monitor the area for marine mammals 

20 minutes before, during, and 20 

minutes after all impact pile driving 

activities and call for shut down if any 

marine mammal is observed within or 

approaching the designated exclusion 

zone (preliminarily set at 70 ft [21 m]). 

In addition, at least two NMFSapproved protected species observers 

would conduct behavioral monitoring at 

least two days per week to estimate take 

and evaluate the behavioral impacts pile 

driving has on marine mammals out to 

the Level B harassment isopleths. Note 

that for impact hammering, this distance 

is about 1.3 mi (2 km). For vibratory 

hammering, this estimated distance is 

about 7 mi (11 km); however, sound will 

dissipate before then (in about 6 mi [9.7 

km]) due to the shape and configuration 

of the river. Protected species observers 

would be provided with the equipment 

necessary to effectively monitor for 

marine mammals (for example, highquality binoculars, spotting scopes, 

compass, and range-finder) in order to 

determine if animals have entered into 

the exclusion zone or Level B 

harassment isopleth and to record 

species, behaviors, and responses to pile 

driving. 

Protected species observers would be 

required to submit a report to NMFS 

within 120 days of expiration of the IHA 

or completion of pile driving, whichever 

comes first. The report would include 

data from marine mammal sightings 

(such as species, group size, and 

behavior), any observed reactions to 

construction, distance to operating pile 

hammer, and construction activities 

occurring at time of sighting. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, 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]. 

Based on the application and 

subsequent analysis, the impact of the 

described pile driving operations may 

result in, at most, short-term 

modification of behavior by small 

numbers of marine mammals within the 

action area. Marine mammals may avoid 

the area or temporarily alter their 

behavior at time of exposure. 

Current NMFS practice regarding 

exposure of marine mammals to 

anthropogenic noise is that in order to 

avoid the potential for injury (PTS), 

cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be 

exposed to impulsive sounds of 180 and 

190 dB or above, respectively. This level 

is considered precautionary as it is 

likely that more intense sounds would 

be required before injury would actually 

occur (Southall et al., 2007). Potential 

for behavioral harassment (Level B) is 

considered to have occurred when 

marine mammals are exposed to sounds 

at or above 160 dB for impulse sounds 

(such as impact pile driving) and 120 dB 

for non-pulse noise (such as vibratory 

pile driving), but below the 

aforementioned thresholds. These levels 

are also considered precautionary. 

Based on empirical measurements 

taken by WSDOT and Caltrans (which 

are presented in the Description of 

Specified Activities section above), 

estimated distances to NMFS’ current 

threshold sound levels from pile driving 

during the proposed construction 

activities are presented in Table 3. 

Effects from the removal of the 177 

wood piles upstream from the main 

construction site are included in the 6- 

mi (9.7 km) Level B isopleth (based at 

Terminal 5) due to the river bend. The 

70-ft distance to the Level A harassment 

threshold provides protected species 

observers plenty of time and adequate 

visibility to prevent marine mammals 

from entering the area during impact 

pile driving. This would prevent marine 

mammals from being exposed to sound 

levels that reach the Level A harassment 

threshold. 

TABLE 3—MODELED UNDERWATER DISTANCES TO NMFS’ MARINE MAMMAL HARASSMENT THRESHOLD LEVELS

Level A 

(190/180 dB) 

Level B harassment 

(160 dB) 

Level B harassment 

(120 dB) 

Impact hammering ................................ 21 m (70 ft) without sound attenuation 

device.

1.3 mi (2 km) ....................................... n/a. 

Vibratory hammering ............................ n/a ........................................................ n/a ........................................................ 6 mi (9.7 km). 

The estimated number of marine 

mammals that could be harassed was 

based on the Army Corps of Engineers’ 

evaluation of pinniped predation on fish 

near the Bonneville Dam in 2010. Based 

on the 2010 Steller sea lion counts at 

Bonneville Dam, the Port requested a 

total take of 50 Steller sea lions. This 

number was reached based on the 

estimated 75 individuals that passed 

through the action area in 2010 during 

their migration to and from Bonneville 

Dam, for a total of 150 individual trips 

through the action area. Since all pile 

installation would occur between 

November 1 and February 28, the peak 

of the run in April and May would be 

avoided. Steller sea lion presence at the 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 51953 

dam in January and February 2010 

represented (conservatively) less than a 

third of the total run for the year. 

Therefore, the Port estimated that no 

more than one-third of the total run of 

Steller sea lions (approximately 25 

individuals) could be exposed to Level 

B harassment. Since each individual 

could potentially be exposed on both 

the upstream and downstream trip, a 

total of 50 takes of Steller sea lions 

could occur. Upon further consultation 

with NMFS Northwest Regional Office, 

and in consideration of steadily 

increasing numbers of Steller sea lions 

since 2008, NMFS is proposing to 

increase the number of Steller sea lions 

that could be exposed to Level B 

harassment. This is based on the fact 

that abundance estimates increased 

three-fold between 2009 and 2010, and 

may continue. Therefore, it is 

reasonable to assume that 2,025 

individuals may make the trip to and 

from the dam during the proposed 

activity (based on a conservative threefold increase in 2011, 2012, and again 

in 2013). Considering the avoidance of 

the peak run and potential exposure 

during the upstream and downstream 

migration, NMFS proposes to authorize 

the incidental take, by Level B 

harassment only, of 1,350 Steller sea 

lion exposures (accounting for one-third 

of the total run—about 675 animals— 

traveling to and from the dam). In 

addition, the Port requested take of 60 

California sea lions (based on the same 

analysis that was applied for Steller sea 

lions) and six harbor seals (the 

maximum number of harbor seals 

documented at Bonneville Dam since 

2002). These numbers take the proposed 

mitigation measures into consideration, 

but are conservative and represent the 

maximum number of animals expected 

to occur within the Level B harassment 

isopleth. The actual number of animals 

that may be harassed is likely to be 

significantly less. 

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers 

Analysis and Determination 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 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.’’ In making a 

negligible impact determination, NMFS 

considers a number of factors which 

include, but are not limited to, number 

of anticipated injuries or mortalities 

(none of which would be authorized 

here), number, nature, intensity, and 

duration of Level B harassment, and the 

context in which takes occur. 

As described above, marine mammals 

would not be exposed to activities or 

sound levels which would result in 

injury (PTS), serious injury, or 

mortality. Pile driving would occur in 

shallow coastal waters of the Columbia 

River. The action area (waters around 

Terminal 5) is not considered significant 

habitat for pinnipeds. The closest haulout is 50 mi (80 km) away, which is 

outside the project area’s largest 

harassment zone. Marine mammals 

approaching the action area would 

likely be traveling or opportunistically 

foraging. The amount of take the Port 

requested for each species, and NMFS 

proposes to authorize, is considered 

small (less than five percent) relative to 

the estimated populations of 22,380 

Pacific harbor seals, 238,000 California 

sea lions, and 30,403 Steller sea lions. 

Marine mammals may be temporarily 

impacted by pile driving noise. 

However, marine mammals are expected 

to avoid the area, thereby reducing 

exposure and impacts. Pile driving 

activities are expected to occur for 

approximately 101 days. Furthermore, 

this section of the Columbia River is a 

highly industrialized area, so animals 

are likely tolerant or habituated to 

anthropogenic disturbance, including 

low level vibratory pile driving 

operations, and noise from other 

anthropogenic sources (such as vessels) 

may mask construction related sounds. 

There is no anticipated effect on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival of 

affected marine mammals. 

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 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS preliminarily determines that the 

proposed pile driving would result in 

the incidental take of small numbers of 

marine mammals, by Level B 

harassment only, and that the total 

taking would have a negligible impact 

on the affected species or stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals implicated by this 

action. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

The Steller sea lion is listed as 

endangered under the ESA with 

confirmed occurrence within the action 

area. NMFS is in the process of 

consulting with the Port and will 

consult internally on the issuance of an 

IHA under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA for the take of Steller sea lions 

incidental to the proposed activity. ESA 

consultation will be concluded prior to 

a determination on the issuance of a 

final IHA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by 

the regulations published by the 

Council on Environmental Quality (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508), and NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6, NMFS is 

preparing an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) to consider the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects to marine mammals 

and other applicable environmental 

resources resulting from issuance of a 

one-year IHA and the potential issuance 

of additional authorizations for 

incidental harassment for the ongoing 

project. Upon completion, this EA will 

be available on the NMFS website listed 

in the beginning of this document. 

Dated: August 10, 2011. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21248 Filed 8–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Availability of Seats for the Stellwagen 

Bank National Marine Sanctuary 

Advisory Council 

AGENCY: Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean 

Service (NOS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Department of Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

applications. 

SUMMARY: The ONMS is seeking 

applicants for the following seat on the 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary Advisory Council: (2) 

Research (Alternate) seats. Applicants 

are chosen based upon their particular 

expertise and experience in relation to 

the seat for which they are applying; 

community and professional affiliations; 

philosophy regarding the protection and 

management of marine resources; and 

possibly the length of residence in the 

area affected by the sanctuary. 

Applicants who are chosen as members 

should expect to serve 3-year terms, 

pursuant to the Council’s Charter. The 

Council consists also of three state and 

three federal non-voting ex-officio seats. 

DATES: Applications are due by 

November 1, 2011. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES