Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices 29749 

5See 19 CFR 351.205(e). 

6See letter from the petitioner, ‘‘Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties on Rubber Bands from Thailand and China— 

Petitioner’s Request for Postponement of the 

Preliminary Determinations in the Antidumping 

Duty Cases,’’ dated June 11, 2018. 

are currently due no later than July 10, 

2017. 

Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

Commerce to issue the preliminary 

determination in an LTFV investigation 

within 140 days after the date on which 

Commerce initiated the investigation. 

However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act 

permits Commerce to postpone the 

preliminary determination until no later 

than 190 days after the date on which 

Commerce initiated the investigation if: 

(A) The petitioner makes a timely 

request for a postponement; or (B) 

Commerce concludes that the parties 

concerned are cooperating, that the 

investigation is extraordinarily 

complicated, and that additional time is 

necessary to make a preliminary 

determination. Under 19 CFR 

351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a 

request for postponement 25 days or 

more before the scheduled date of the 

preliminary determination and must 

state the reasons for the request. 

Commerce will grant the request unless 

it finds compelling reasons to deny the 

request.5

On June 11, 2018, Alliance Rubber Co. 

(the petitioner) submitted timely 

requests pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) to 

postpone the preliminary 

determinations in these LTFV 

investigations.6 The petitioner stated 

that it requested postponement because 

Commerce is still conducting its 

antidumping investigations, and 

additional time is necessary for 

interested parties to respond to 

additional requests from Commerce. 

For the reasons stated above and 

because there are no compelling reasons 

to deny the petitioner’s request, 

Commerce, in accordance with section 

733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing 

the deadline for the preliminary 

determinations by 50 days (i.e., 190 

days after the date on which these 

investigations were initiated). As a 

result, Commerce will issue its 

preliminary determinations no later 

than August 29, 2018. In accordance 

with section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the 

final determinations of these 

investigations will continue to be 75 

days after the date of publication of the 

preliminary determinations, unless 

postponed at a later date. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). 

Dated: June 20, 2018. 

Gary Taverman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

performing the non-exclusive functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13672 Filed 6–25–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF830 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Construction at 

the City Dock and Ferry Terminal, in 

Tenakee Springs, Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

Alaska Department of Transportation 

and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) to 

incidentally harass, by Level B 

harassment only, marine mammals 

during construction activities associated 

with a city dock and ferry terminal 

improvement project in Tenakee 

Springs, Alaska. 

DATES: This Authorization is applicable 

from June 1, 2019 through May 31, 

2020. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan Molineaux, 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/national/ 

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

these documents, please call the contact 

listed above. 

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 (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 authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking shall have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), shall 

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. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

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 October 23, 2017, NMFS received 

a request from ADOT&PF for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to 

conducting improvements at the 

Tenakee Springs city dock and ferry 

terminal, in Tenakee Springs, Alaska. 

The application was considered 

adequate and complete on January 30, 

2018. ADOT&PF’s request is for take of 

seven species of marine mammals by 

Level B harassment only. Neither 

ADOT&PF nor NMFS expect mortality 

to result from this activity and, 

therefore, an IHA is appropriate. The 

planned activity is not expected to 

exceed one year, hence, we do not 

expect subsequent MMPA IHAs to be 

issued for this particular activity. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
29750 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices 

Description of Activity 

The ADOT&PF plans to make 

improvements to the Tenakee Springs 

Ferry Terminal located in Tenakee 

Springs, Alaska, on Chichigof Island in 

southeast Alaska (Figure 1–1 of the 

application). The facility is a multifunction dock and active ferry terminal 

located in the center of town (see Figure 

1–2 and Figure 1–3 in application). The 

project’s activities that have the 

potential to take marine mammals 

include vibratory and impact pile 

driving, drilling operations for pile 

installation (down-hole hammer), and 

vibratory pile removal. 

The purpose of the project is to 

replace the existing, aging mooring and 

transfer structures nearing the end of 

their operational life due to corrosion 

and wear with modern facilities that 

provide improved operations for Alaska 

Marine Highway System (AMHS) ferry 

vessels, as well as freight and fueling 

operators, servicing the community of 

Tenakee Springs. Planned 

improvements include the installation 

of new shore side facilities and marine 

structures and the renovation of existing 

structures. This shall accommodate 

cargo and baggage handling, vessel 

mooring, passenger and vehicle access 

gangways, and re-establish existing 

electrical and fuel systems. 

Improvements shall enhance public 

safety and security. 

In-water project construction 

activities shall begin no sooner than 

June 1, 2019. Pile installation and 

removal is expected to be completed in 

93 working days within a 4-month 

window beginning sometime after June 

1, 2019. Pile installation shall be 

intermittent and staggered depending on 

weather, construction and mechanical 

delays, marine mammal shutdowns, and 

other potential delays and logistical 

constraints. Given the possibility of 

schedule delays and other unforeseen 

circumstances, an IHA is being 

requested for a full year, from June 1, 

2019 through May 31, 2020. 

A detailed description of the planned 

activities is provided in the proposed 

IHA for this action found in the 

following Federal Register notice (83 FR 

12152, March 20, 2018). Since that time, 

the only alteration that has been made 

to the planned activities is the addition 

of two pile removals with a vibratory 

hammer. This additional activity has no 

impact on the take numbers or duration 

of the project originally in the Federal 

Register notice (83 FR 12152, March 20, 

2018). Therefore, a detailed description 

of the action is not provided here. 

Please refer to that Federal Register 

notice for the description of the specific 

activity. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue 

an IHA was published in the Federal 

Register on March 20, 2018 (83 FR 

12152). During the 30-day public 

comment period, the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission) submitted a 

letter on April 2, 2018. The Commission 

recommended that NMFS issue the IHA, 

subject to inclusion of the mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting measures. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

recommends NMFS (1) clarify that 

action proponents should use linear 

averaging rather than simple arithmetic 

means to estimate source levels both as 

reported in hydroacoustic monitoring 

reports and for use in applications, (2) 

continue to require that minimum, 

mean, median, and maximum values be 

reported in all hydroacoustic 

monitoring reports, (3) base proxy 

source levels on median rather than 

mean values and (4) continue to require 

action proponents to use practical 

spreading unless site-specific 

transmission loss data are available from 

the project site. 

Response: At this moment, there are 

no studies or data that support the use 

of either the linear mean, arithmetic 

mean, or median when determining 

appropriate proxy source levels. 

However, NMFS is considering the 

Commission’s recommendation at this 

time and may choose to use the linear 

mean or median proxy source levels for 

future actions. In addition, NMFS shall 

continue to require the reporting of 

minimum, mean, median, and 

maximum values in hydroacoustic 

monitoring reports and the use of 

practical spreading when site-specific 

transmission loss data are not available. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

recommends NMFS promptly revise its 

draft rounding criteria in order to share 

them with the Commission in a timely 

manner 

Response: NMFS appreciates the 

Commission’s interest in this matter and 

looks forward to further discussion. 

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 Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR; 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/), and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS 

website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

species/mammals/). We provided a 

description of the specified activity in 

our Federal Register notice announcing 

the authorization (83 FR 12152; March 

20, 2018). Since that time, it was noted 

that the section detailing Steller sea 

lions did not include updated non-pup 

counts conducted between October and 

March from 2004 to 2017 by the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game at the 

Tenakee Cannery Point haulout (the 

closest Steller sea lion haulout to the 

project area). These counts averaged 140 

individuals at the haulout (Jemison 

2017, unpubl. data) which were 

reflected in the Estimated Take Section 

of our Federal Register (83 FR 12152; 

March 20, 2018). All other information 

within these sections remain the same. 

Please refer to that document (83 FR 

12152; March 20, 2018); we provide 

only a summary table here (Table 1). 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS THAT OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA DURING THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITY

Common name Scientific name MMPA stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

Nbest, (CV, Nmin, 

most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenidae 

Humpback whale ........... Megaptera novaeangliae Central North Pacific ..... E, D,Y 10,103 (0.3, 7,890, 

2006).

83 21 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices 29751 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS THAT OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA DURING THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITY—Continued 

Common name Scientific name MMPA stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

Nbest, (CV, Nmin, 

most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Minke whale .................. Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata.

Alaska ........................... -, N N.A ................................ N.A N.A. 

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

Family Delphinidae 

Killer whale .................... Orcinus orca ................. Alaska Resident ............ -, N 2,347 (N.A., 2,347, 

2012) 4.

23.4 1 

West Coast Transient ... -, N 243 (N/A, 243, 2009) 4 .. 2.4 1 

Northern Resident ......... -, N 290 (N/A, 290, 2014) 6 .. 1.96 0 

Family Phocoenidae 

Harbor porpoise ............. Phocoena phocoena ..... Southeast Alaska .......... -, Y 975 (0.10, 896, 2012) 5 5 8.9 5 34 

Dall’s porpoise ............... Phocoenoides dalli ........ Alaska ........................... -, N 83,400 ........................... N.A 38 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

Steller sea lion ............... Eumatopia jubatus ........ Western U.S. 7 .............. E, D, Y 50,983 (N.A., 50,983, 

2016).

320 241 

Eastern U.S. ................. -,-, N 41,638 (N/A, 41,638, 

2015).

2,498 108 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor seal .................... Phoca vitulina richardii .. Glacier Bay/Icy Strait .... -, N 7,210 (N.A., 5,647, 

2011).

169 104 

1ESA 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: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum 

estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable (N/A). 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., 

commercial fisheries, ship strike). 4 N is based on counts of individual animals identified from photo-identification catalogs. 

5 In the SAR for harbor porpoise (NMFS 2017), NMFS identified population estimates and PBR for porpoises within inland Southeast Alaska 

waters (these abundance estimates have not been corrected for g(0); therefore, they are likely conservative). The calculated PBR is considered 

unreliable for the entire stock because it is based on estimates from surveys of only a portion (the inside waters of Southeast Alaska) of the 

range of this stock as currently designated. The Annual M/SI is for the entire stock, including coastal waters. 6Abundance estimates obtained from Towers et al. 2015. 7Abundance, PBR, and Annual M/SI derived from draft 2017 SARs (Muto2017b). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effect of stressors associated with 

the specified activities (e.g., pile driving 

and drilling) has the potential to result 

in behavioral harassment of marine 

mammals in the vicinity of the action 

areas. The Federal Register notice for 

the proposed IHA (83 FR 12152; March 

20, 2018) included a discussion of the 

effects of such disturbance on marine 

mammals, therefore that information is 

not repeated here. 

NMFS described potential impacts to 

marine mammal habitat in detail in our 

Federal Register notice of proposed 

authorization (83 FR 12152; March 20, 

2018). In summary, the project activities 

are not expected to modify existing 

marine mammal habitat. Because of the 

short duration of the activities and the 

relatively small area of the habitat that 

may be affected, the impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term negative 

consequences for individual marine 

mammals or their populations. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes for 

authorization through this IHA, which 

shall inform both NMFS’ consideration 

of whether the number of takes is 

‘‘small’’ 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 are expected to be 

by Level B harassment only, in the form 

of disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to pile driving and 

drilling. Based on the nature of the 

activity and the anticipated 

effectiveness of the mitigation measures 

(i.e., shutdowns—discussed in detail 

below in Mitigation section), Level A 

harassment is neither anticipated nor 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
29752 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices 

authorized. As described previously, no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

for this activity. Below we describe how 

the take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals shall be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that shall 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. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals shall be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

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 decibels (dB) re 

1 micro pascal (mPa) root mean square 

(rms) for continuous (e.g., vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns and impact pile 

driving) sources. 

ADOT&PF’s activity includes the use 

of continuous (vibratory pile driving 

and drilling) and impulsive (impact pile 

driving) sources, and therefore the 120 

and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) thresholds are 

applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 

2016) identifies dual criteria to assess 

auditory injury (Level A harassment) to 

five different marine mammal groups 

(based on hearing sensitivity) because of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). 

These thresholds were developed by 

compiling and synthesizing the best 

available science and soliciting input 

multiple times from both the public and 

peer reviewers to inform the final 

product, and are provided in Table 2 

below. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the thresholds are described in 

NMFS’ 2016 Technical Guidance, which 

may be accessed at: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/ 

guidelines.htm. 

TABLE 2—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds 1

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-frequency cetaceans ................................................ Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB .................................... LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-frequency cetaceans ................................................. Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB .................................... LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-frequency cetaceans ............................................... Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB .................................... LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (underwater) ....................................... Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ................................... LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (underwater) ........................................ Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ................................... LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

1 NMFS 2016. 

Although ADOT&PF’s construction 

activity includes the use of impulsive 

(impact pile driving) and non-impulsive 

(vibratory pile driving and drilling) 

sources, the shutdown zones set by the 

applicant are large enough to ensure 

Level A harassment will be prevented. 

The Level A harassment zones for the 

project are illustrated in Table 4. The 

highest Level A harassment zones 

shown (176 meters for high-frequency 

cetaceans and 148 meters for lowfrequency cetaceans) are less than the 

total distance of the largest shutdown 

zone (200 meters for high- and lowfrequency cetaceans). To assure the 

largest shutdown zone can be fully 

monitored, protected species observers 

(PSOs) shall be positioned in the 

possible best vantage points during all 

piling/drilling activities to guarantee a 

shutdown if a high- and/or lowfrequency cetacean approaches or enters 

the 200-meter shutdown zone. These 

measures are described in full detail 

below in the Mitigation and Monitoring 

Sections. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that feeds into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds. 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

project. Marine mammals are expected 

to be affected via sound generated by 

the primary components of the project, 

i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory pile 

driving, and vibratory pile removal. 

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. 

An impact hammer shall then generally 

be used to place the pile at its intended 

depth. The actual durations of each 

installation method vary depending on 

the type and size of the pile. An impact 

hammer is a steel device that works like 

a piston, producing a series of 

independent strikes to drive the pile. 

Impact hammering typically generates 

the loudest noise associated with pile 

installation. Factors that potentially 

minimize the potential impacts of pile 

installation associated with the project 

include: 

• The relatively shallow waters in the 

project area (Taylor et al., 2008); 

• Land forms around Tenakee Springs 

that shall block the noise from 

spreading; and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices 29753 

• Vessel traffic and other commercial 

and industrial activities in the project 

area that contribute to elevated 

background noise levels. 

In order to calculate distances to the 

Level A and Level B sound thresholds 

for piles of various sizes being used in 

this project, NMFS used acoustic 

monitoring data from other locations 

(see Table 3). Note that piles of differing 

sizes have different sound source levels. 

Empirical data from recent ADOT&PF 

sound source verification (SSV) studies 

at Ketchikan, Kodiak, and Auke Bay, 

Alaska were used to estimate sound 

source levels (SSLs) for vibratory, 

impact, and drilling installations of 30- 

inch steel pipe piles (MacGillivray et al., 

2016, Warner and Austin 2016b, Denes 

et al., 2016a, respectively). These 

Alaskan construction sites were 

generally assumed to best represent the 

environmental conditions found in 

Tenakee and represent the nearest 

available source level data for 30-inch 

steel piles. Similarities among the sites 

include thin layers of soft sediments 

overlying a bedrock layer and 

comparable bedrock depths. However, 

the use of data from Alaska sites was not 

appropriate in all instances. Details are 

described below. 

For vibratory driving of 24-inch steel 

piles, data from two Navy project 

locations in the state of Washington 

were reviewed. These include data from 

proxy sound source values at Navy 

installations in Puget Sound (Navy, 

2015) and along the waterfront at Naval 

Base Kitsap (NBK), Bangor (Navy 2012). 

After assessing these two sources, 

ADOT&PF selected an average source 

level of 161 dB rms, which NMFS 

concurs with as an appropriate sound 

source. In addition, for a fourth project 

at NBK, Bangor, construction crews 

drove 16-inch hollow steel piles with 

measured levels similar to those for the 

24-inch piles. Therefore, NMFS elects to 

use 161 dB rms as a source level for 

vibratory driving of 18-inch and 16-inch 

steel piles. 

For vibratory driving of 14-inch steel 

and timber piles and 12.75-inch steel 

piles, ADOT&PF suggested a source 

level of 155 dB rms, which NMFS also 

concurs with. This source level was 

derived from summary data pertaining 

to vibratory driving of 18-inch steel 

piles in Kake, Alaska (MacGillivray 

2015). 

In their application, ADOT&PF 

derived source levels for impact driving 

of 30-inch steel piles by averaging the 

individual mean values associated with 

impact driving of the same size and type 

from Ketchikan (Warner and Austin 

2016a). Mean values from Ketchikan 

were the most conservative dataset for 

30-inch impact pile driving in Southeast 

Alaska. The average mean value from 

this dataset was 194.7 dB rms and 180.8 

dB sound exposure level (SEL). 

For 24-inch impact pile driving, 

NMFS used data from a Navy (2015) 

study of proxy sound source values for 

use at Puget Sound military 

installations. The Navy study 

recommended a value of 193 dB rms 

and 181 dB SEL, which was derived 

from data generated by impact driving 

of 24-inch steel piles at the Bainbridge 

Island Ferry Terminal Preservation 

project and the Friday Harbor 

Restoration Ferry Terminal project. 

NMFS found this estimated source level 

to be appropriate. 

For impact driving of 20-, 18-, and 14- 

inch steel piles, ADOT&PF used source 

levels of 186.6 dB, 158 dB, and 158 dB 

respectively. These source levels were 

derived from Caltrans SSV studies at the 

Stockton Wastewater Treatment Plant 

(20-inch) and Caltrans SSV studies at 

Prichard Lake Pumping Plant in 

Sacramento, CA (18- and 14-inch) 

(Caltrans 2015). In regards to the drilling 

activities, a source level of 165 dB for 

all pile types originated from ADOT&PF 

SSV studies for piling operations in 

Kodiak, Alaska (Warner and Austin 

2016b). 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATES OF MEAN UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS GENERATED DURING VIBRATORY AND IMPACT PILE

INSTALLATION, DRILLING, AND VIBRATORY PILE REMOVAL

Method and pile type Installation, 

removal, or 

proofing 

Sound level at 10 meters 

Literature source 

Vibratory hammer dB rms 

30-inch steel piles ........... Install .............................. 165.0 Derived from Warner and Austin 

2016a & Denes et al. 2016. 

24-inch steel piles ........... Install .............................. 161.0 Navy 2012, 2015. 

20-inch steel piles ........... Install .............................. 161.0 Navy 2012, 2015. 

18-inch steel piles ........... Remove, Install .............. 161.0 Navy 2012, 2015. 

16-inch steel piles ........... Remove .......................... 161.0 Navy 2012, 2015. 

14-inch steel piles ........... Remove .......................... 155.0 MacGillivray et al. 2015. 

14-inch timber piles ........ Remove, Install .............. 155.0 MacGillivray et al. 2015. 

12.75-inch steel piles ...... Remove .......................... 155.0 MacGillivray et al. 2015. 

Drilling dB rms 

30-inch steel piles ........... Install .............................. 165.0 Derived from Warner and Austin 

2016b. 

24-inch steel piles ........... Install .............................. 165.0 Derived from Warner and Austin 

2016b. 

20-inch steel piles ........... Install .............................. 165.0 Derived from Warner and Austin 

2016b. 

18-inch steel piles ........... Install .............................. 165.0 Derived from Warner and Austin 

2016b. 

Impact hammer dB rms dB SEL dB peak 

30-inch steel piles ........... Proofing .......................... 194.7 180.8 208.6 Warner and Austin 2016a. 

24-inch steel piles ........... Proofing .......................... 193.0 181.0 210.0 Navy 2015 (from 82 FR 31400). 

20-inch steel piles ........... Proofing .......................... 186.5 175.5 207.0 Caltrans 2015. 

18-inch steel piles ........... Proofing .......................... 158.0 ........................ 174.0 Caltrans 2015. 

14-inch timber piles ........ Install .............................. 158.0 ........................ 174.0 Caltrans 2015. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
29754 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices 

1The distance of the modeled SPL from the 

driven pile. 

2The distance from the driven pile of the initial 

measurement. 

The formula below is used to 

calculate underwater sound 

propagation. 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 * log 10 (R1/R2) 

Where: 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical 

spreading equals 15 

NMFS typically recommends a 

default practical spreading loss of 15 dB 

per tenfold increase in distance. 

ADOT&PF analyzed the available 

underwater acoustic data utilizing this 

metric. 

When 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, 

NMFS 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 shall result in some 

degree of overestimate of Level A take. 

However, these tools offer the best way 

to predict appropriate isopleths when 

more sophisticated 3D modeling 

methods are not available, and NMFS 

continues to develop ways to 

quantitatively refine these tools, and 

shall qualitatively address the output 

where appropriate. For stationary 

sources such as pile driving and 

drilling, NMFS’ User Spreadsheet 

predicts the closest distance at which, if 

a marine mammal remained at that 

distance the whole duration of the 

activity, it shall not incur PTS. Inputs 

used in the User Spreadsheet and the 

resulting isopleths are reported in 

Tables 3 and 4. 

TABLE 4—CALCULATED DISTANCES TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND

REMOVAL

Type of pile Activity 

Piles 

installed 

or removed 

per day 

Level A harassment zone 

(meters) 1

Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(meters), 

cetaceans 

and 

pinnipeds 2

Cetaceans Pinnipeds 

LF MF HF PW OW 

Vibratory (120 dB) 

30-inch steel .......... Install 4 .................. 3 11 1 16 7 1 10,000 

24-inch steel, 20- 

inch steel, 18- 

inch steel.

Install 4 .................. 3 6 1 9 4 1 5,412 

18-inch steel, 16- 

inch steel.

Remove 4 .............. 10 13 2 19 8 1 5,412 

14-inch steel, 14- 

inch timber, 

12.75-inch steel.

Remove 5 .............. 10 5 1 8 3 1 2,154 

Drilling (120 dB) 

30-inch steel, 20- 

inch steel.

Install 6 .................. 3 55 5 81 34 3 10,000 

24-inch steel, 18- 

inch steel.

Install 7 .................. 3 42 4 62 26 2 10,000 

Impact (160 dB) 3

30-inch steel .......... Proofing ................ 1 70 3 82 37 3 2,057 

2 110 4 131 59 5 

3 144 6 171 77 6 

24-inch steel .......... Proofing ................ 1 71 3 85 38 3 1,585 

2 113 4 135 61 5 

3 148 6 176 79 6 

20-inch steel .......... Proofing ................ 3 64 3 76 34 3 584 

18-inch steel .......... Proofing ................ 3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 7 

14-inch timber ....... Install .................... 10 1 <1 2 <1 <1 7 

1 Level A Isopleths Calculated Using NMFS’ 2016 Acoustic User Spreadsheet. Source level set at a distance of 10 Meters, a weighting factor 

adjustment of 2 kHz for impulse sources and 2.5 kHz for continuous sources, and a propagation loss value of 15 LogR. 2 Level B Isopleths Calculated using Practical Spreading Loss Model. Source level set at a distance of 10 meters and and a propagation loss 

value of 15 LogR. 3 30 Strikes per pile. 

4 45 minute activity duration. 

5 2.5 hour activity duration. 

6 9 hour activity duration. 

7 6 hour activity duration. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices 29755 

Pulse duration from the SSV studies 

described above are unknown. However, 

all necessary parameters were available 

for the SELcum (cumulative Single Strike 

Equivalent) method for calculating 

isopleths for 30-inch, 24-inch, and 20- 

inch impact piles. Therefore, this 

method was selected for those piles. To 

account for potential variations in daily 

productivity during impact installation, 

isopleths were calculated for different 

numbers of piles that shall be installed 

each day (see Table 4). Should the 

contractor expect to install fewer piles 

in a day than the maximum anticipated, 

a smaller Level A shutdown zone shall 

be employed to monitor take. 

To derive Level A harassment 

isopleths associated with impact driving 

30-inch steel piles, ADOT&PF utilized a 

single strike SEL of 180.8 dB and 

assumed 30 strikes per pile for 1 to 3 

piles per day. For 24-inch and 20-inch 

steel piles, ADOT&PF used a single 

strike SEL of 181 dB SEL and 175.5 SEL 

respectively, also assuming 30 strikes at 

a rate of 1 to 3 piles per day. To 

calculate Level A harassment isopleths 

associated with impact piling 18-inch 

and 14-inch steel/timber piles, a source 

level (rms sound pressure level (SPL)) of 

158 dB was used with a pulse duration 

of .05 seconds. 

To calculate Level A harassment for 

vibratory driving of 30-inch piles, 

ADOT&PF utilized a source level (rms 

SPL) of 165 dB and assumed 45 minutes 

of driving per day. For installing 24, 20, 

and 18-inch piles, ADOT&PF used a 

source level of 161 dB and assumed up 

to 45 minutes of driving per day. For 

removal of 18 and 16-inch piles, 

ADOT&PF assumed use of 18-inch piles 

and used the same source level of 161 

dB for up to 45 minutes. Level A 

harassment for the installation/removal 

of piles 14-inches and under in diameter 

used a source level of 155 dB rms and 

assumed 2.5 hours of driving/removal a 

day. In regards to Level A for drilling, 

a source level of 165 dB rms was used 

for all pile types with varying levels of 

activity for each pile type (see Tables 1 

& 2 of the FR Notice (83 FR 12152; 

March 20, 2018) for information on 

drilling duration and max number of 

piles drilled each day). Results for all 

Level A isopleths are shown in Table 4. 

Isopleths for Level B harassment 

associated with impact (160 dB) and 

vibratory harassment (120 dB) were also 

calculated and are included in Table 4. 

It is important to note that the actual 

area ensonified by pile driving activities 

is constrained by local topography 

relative to the total threshold radius 

(particularly for the Level B ensonified 

zones). The actual ensonified area was 

determined using a straight line-of-sight 

projection from the anticipated pile 

driving locations. Overall, Level A 

harassment zones for impact installation 

are relatively small because of the few 

strikes required to proof the piles. The 

maximum aquatic areas ensonified 

within the Level A harassment isopleths 

do not exceed 0.1 square kilometer 

(km2) (see Figures 6–1 and Figure 6–2 in 

application). The corresponding areas of 

the Level B ensonified zones for impact 

driving and vibratory installation/ 

removal are shown in Table 5 below. 

TABLE 5—CALCULATED AREAS ENSONIFIED WITHIN LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND

REMOVAL

Type of pile Activity 

Level B harassment zone (km2), 

cetaceans and 

pinnipeds 

Vibratory (120 dB) 

30-inch steel ............................................................................. Install ........................................................................................ 78.9 

24-, 20-, 18-, and 16-inch steel ................................................ Install ........................................................................................ 45.3 

14-, 12.75-inch steel, and 14-inch timber ................................ Remove .................................................................................... 7.3 

Drilling (120 dB) 

30-, 24-, 20-, and 18-inch steel ................................................ Install ........................................................................................ 78.9 

Impact (160 dB) 

30-inch steel ............................................................................. Proofing .................................................................................... 6.7 

24-inch steel ............................................................................. Proofing .................................................................................... 4.0 

20-inch steel ............................................................................. Proofing .................................................................................... 0.6 

18-inch steel ............................................................................. Proofing .................................................................................... <0.1 

14-inch timber ........................................................................... Install ........................................................................................ <0.1 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Final 

Take Estimates 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that shall inform the take calculations. 

Potential exposures to impact and 

vibratory pile driving noise for each 

threshold were estimated using local 

marine mammal density datasets where 

available and local observational data. 

As previously stated, only Level B take 

shall be considered for this action as 

Level A take shall be avoided via 

mitigation (i.e., shutdown). Each 

shutdown zone fully covers the extent 

of each corresponding Level A zone for 

all piling and drilling activities (See 

Tables 4 and 6). Level B take is 

calculated differently for some species 

based on differences in density, yearround habitat use, and other contextual 

factors. See below for specific 

methodologies by species. 

Steller Sea Lions 

Steller sea lion abundance in the 

project area is highly seasonal in nature 

with sea lions being most active 

between October and March (Figure 4– 

2). Level B exposure estimates are 

conservatively based on the average 

winter (October to March) abundance of 

140 sea lions at the Tenakee Cannery 

haulout, which is 8.9 km away from the 

project site (Jemison, 2017, unpublished 

data). However, it is unlikely that the 

entire Steller sea lion population from 

the Tenakee Cannery haulout shall 

forage to the west near the Tenakee 

Springs ferry terminal. Additionally, 

Steller sea lions do not generally forage 

every day, but tend to forage every 1– 

2 days and return to haulouts to rest 

between foraging trips (Merrick and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
29756 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices 

Loughlin 1997; Rehburg et al., 2009). 

Overall, this information indicates that 

only half of the Steller sea lions at the 

Tenakee Cannery haulout (i.e., average 

of 140 during winter) is likely to 

approach the project site on any given 

day and be exposed to sound levels that 

constitute behavioral harassment. As a 

result, an estimated 70 individuals is a 

conservative estimate of the number of 

Steller sea lions likely to forage in the 

underwater behavioral harassment zone 

on a given day. Therefore: 70 Steller sea 

lions per day * 93 days of potential 

exposure = 6,510 potential exposures. 

Each of these exposures will result in 

Level B take only, as Level A take is 

neither requested nor authorized due to 

shutdown measures. 

To assign take to the eastern distinct 

population segment (eDPS) and western 

DPS (wDPS) stocks of Steller sea lions, 

data from researchers at NMFS’ Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center were used. 

Researchers at NMFS’ Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center state that roughly 17.8 

percent of Steller sea lions at the 

Tenakee Cannery Point haulout are 

members of the wDPS whereas 82.2 

percent are from the eDPS (L. Fritz, 

pers. comm; L. Fritz, unpublished data). 

Therefore, it is estimated that only 1,159 

takes (17.8 percent of 6,510) have the 

potential to occur for wDPS Steller sea 

lions and 5,351 (82.2 percent of 6,510) 

takes have the potential to occur for 

eDPS Steller sea lions. In addition, since 

there is only an average of 140 Steller 

sea lions located at the Tenakee Cannery 

haulout, it is predicted that only 115 

(82.2 percent of 140) individuals from 

the eDPS and 25 (17.8 percent of 140) 

individuals from the wDPS have the 

potential to be harassed. 

Harbor Seals 

Harbor seals are non-migratory; 

therefore, the exposure estimates are not 

dependent on season. We anticipate 

Level B harbor seal take to be relatively 

high, given the presence of three 

established haulouts within the largest 

(10 km) Level B harassment zone of the 

project site. The best available 

abundance estimate for Tenakee Inlet is 

259 individual harbor seals (London, J., 

pers. comm.). 

The number of harbor seals that could 

potentially be exposed to elevated 

sound levels for the project was 

estimated by calculating density * area 

* number of days of activity. The total 

density of harbor seals in Tenakee inlet 

is approximately 1.11 animals per km2

(259 harbor seals/233.35 km2 of 

available habitat in Tenakee Inlet). 

However, the action area is equivalent 

to 78.9 km2. Therefore: 1.11 harbor seals 

per km2 * 78.9 km2 * 93 days of 

potential exposure = 8,144 potential 

exposures. Each of these exposures will 

result in Level B take only, as Level A 

take is neither requested nor authorized 

due to shutdown measures. 

Harbor Porpoises 

Harbor porpoises are non-migratory; 

therefore, our exposure estimates are not 

dependent on season. Harbor porpoise 

surveys conducted in southeast Alaska 

during the summers of 1991–1993, 

2006, 2007, and 2010–2012 included 

Chatham Strait (near the action area). 

The average density estimate for all 

survey years in Chatham Strait was 

0.013 harbor porpoise per square km 

(Dahlheim et al., 2015). Surveys in 

1997, 1998, and 1999 reported an 

average harbor porpoise density of .033 

per square km in Southeast Alaska 

(Hobbs and Waite 2010). Based density 

estimates from Hobbs and Waite (2010), 

a more conservative density estimate, 

we estimate that approximately 2.6 (.033 

* 78.9) harbor porpoises could occur 

daily within the 78.9 square km Level 

B harassment zone. Therefore: 2.6 

harbor porpoises per day * 93 days of 

potential exposure = 242 potential 

exposures. Each of these exposures will 

result in Level B take only, as Level A 

take is neither requested nor authorized 

due to shutdown measures. 

Dall’s Porpoises 

Dall’s porpoise are non-migratory; 

therefore, our exposure estimates are not 

dependent on season. Based on 

anecdotal evidence citing rare 

occurrences of the species in the action 

area, we anticipate approximately one 

observation of a Dall’s porpoise pod in 

the Level B harassment zone each week 

during construction (Lewis, S., pers. 

comm.). Based on an average pod size 

of 3.7 (Wade et al., 2003), we estimate 

49 Dall’s porpoise could be exposed to 

Level B harassment noise during the 93 

day construction period (i.e., 3.7 

individuals per week * 13.2 weeks of 

potential exposure = 48.84 (rounded up 

to 49) total potential exposures). Each of 

these exposures will result in Level B 

take only, as Level A take is neither 

requested nor authorized due to 

shutdown measures. 

Killer Whales 

Local marine mammal experts 

indicate that approximately one killer 

whale pod is observed in Tenakee Inlet 

each month, year-round (Lewis, S., pers. 

comm.). It is assumed that all three 

killer whale stocks are equally likely to 

occur in the area because no data exist 

on relative abundance of the three 

stocks in Tenakee Inlet. The exposure 

estimate is conservatively based on a 

resident pod size, which has been 

quantified and is known to be a larger 

than other stocks. Resident killer whales 

occur in a mean group size of 19.3 

during the fall in southeast Alaska 

(Dahlheim et al., 2009). Therefore, we 

assume that a total of approximately 60 

killer whales could be exposed to Level 

B harassment over the course of the 

project (i.e., (19.3 individuals per pod * 

1 pods per month) * 3.1 months = 59.83 

(rounded up to 60)). Since there are no 

data that exist for killer whale stocks in 

Tenakee Inlet, 60 Level B takes were 

applied to each stock. Each of these 

exposures will result in Level B take 

only, as Level A take is neither 

requested nor authorized due to 

shutdown measures. 

Humpback Whales 

Humpback whales are present in 

Tenakee Inlet year-round. Local experts 

indicate that as many as 12 humpback 

whales are present on some days from 

spring through fall, with lower numbers 

during the winter (S. Lewis and M. 

Dahlheim, pers. comm.). We 

conservatively estimate that half of 

those, or six individuals on average, 

could be exposed to Level B harassment 

during each day of pile installation and 

removal, therefore: 6 humpback whales 

per day * 93 days of exposure = 558 

potential exposures. Each of these 

exposures will result in Level B take 

only, as Level A take is neither 

requested nor authorized due to 

shutdown measures. 

Minke Whales 

Minke whales may be present in 

Tenakee Inlet year-round. Their 

abundance throughout southeast Alaska 

is very low, and anecdotal reports have 

not included minke whales near the 

project area. However, minke whales are 

distributed throughout a wide variety of 

habitats and could occur near the 

project area. Therefore, we 

conservatively estimate that one minke 

whale could be exposed to Level B 

harassment each month during 

construction or a total of three minke 

whales during the 93-day construction 

period. Each of these exposures will 

result in Level B take only, as Level A 

take is neither requested nor authorized 

due to shutdown measures. 

Mitigation Measures 

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 impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices 29757 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such 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 such 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 shall 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. 

In addition to the measures described 

later in this section, ADOT&PF shall 

employ the following standard 

mitigation measures: 

• Conduct briefings between 

construction supervisors and crews and 

the marine mammal monitoring team 

prior to the start of all pile driving 

activity, and when new personnel join 

the work, to explain responsibilities, 

communication procedures, marine 

mammal monitoring protocol, and 

operational procedures; 

• For in-water heavy machinery work 

other than pile driving (e.g., standard 

barges, tug boats), 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 the pile location; or (2) 

positioning of the pile on the substrate 

via a crane (i.e., stabbing the pile); 

• Work may only occur during 

daylight hours, when visual monitoring 

of marine mammals can be conducted; 

• For those marine mammals for 

which Level B take has not been 

requested, in-water pile installation/ 

removal and drilling shall shut down 

immediately when the animals are 

sighted; 

• If Level B take reaches the 

authorized limit for an authorized 

species, pile installation shall be 

stopped as these species approach the 

Level B zone to avoid additional take of 

them. 

The following measures shall apply to 

ADOT&PFs mitigation requirements: 

Establishment of Shutdown Zone for 

Level A—For all pile driving/removal 

and drilling activities, ADOT&PF shall 

establish a shutdown zone. The purpose 

of a shutdown zone is generally to 

define an area within which shutdown 

of activity shall occur upon sighting of 

a marine mammal (or in anticipation of 

an animal entering the defined area). 

For all in-water heavy machinery 

activities, a 10 meter shutdown zone 

will be required. In addition, during 

impact installation of 24-inch and 30- 

inch steel piles at a frequency of 2 or 3 

piles per day, PSOs shall implement a 

200-meter shutdown zone for Dall’s 

porpoises, minke whales, and 

humpback whales (low- and highfrequency cetaceans). The placement of 

PSOs during all pile driving and drilling 

activities (described in detail in the 

Monitoring and Reporting Section) shall 

ensure that each shutdown zone is 

visible during pile driving and drilling 

activities. All shutdown zones, with 

their corresponding sound source type 

are presented in Table 6 below. 

TABLE 6 SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR VARIOUS PILE DRIVING/DRILLING ACTIVITIES FOR MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

Sound source type 

Shutdown zone radii 

(meters) 

Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

Highfrequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

1—Vibratory pile driving/removal, drilling, and impact pile 

driving (all impact pilling activities not expressed in the 

column directly below) ...................................................... 100 100 100 50 50 

Impact Installation of 24-inch and 30-inch steel piles at a 

frequency of two or three piles per day ........................... 200 100 200 100 100 

3—In Water Heavy Machinery Activities (Non pile driving 

and drilling activities) ........................................................ 10 10 10 10 10 

Establishment of Monitoring Zones for 

Level B—ADOT&PF shall establish 

Level B disturbance zones or zones of 

influence (ZOI) which are areas where 

SPLs are equal to or exceed the 160 dB 

rms threshold for impact driving and 

the 120 dB rms threshold during 

vibratory driving and drilling. 

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 cease of activity should the 

animal enter the shutdown zone. The 

Level B zones are depicted in Table 4. 

As shown, the largest Level B zone is 

equal to 78.9 km2, making it impossible 

for the PSOs to view the entire 

harassment area. Due to this, Level B 

exposures shall be recorded and 

extrapolated based upon the number of 

observed take and the percentage of the 

Level B zone that was not visible. 

Soft Start—The use of a soft-start 

procedure are believed to provide 

additional protection to marine 

mammals by providing warning and/or 

giving marine mammals a chance to 

leave the area prior to the hammer 

operating at full capacity. For impact 

pile driving, contractors shall be 

required to provide an initial set of 

strikes from the hammer at 40 percent 

energy, each strike followed by no less 

than a 30-second waiting period. This 

procedure shall be conducted a total of 

three times before impact pile driving 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
29758 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices 

begins. Soft Start is not required during 

vibratory pile driving and removal 

activities. 

Pre-Activity Monitoring—Prior to the 

start of daily in-water construction 

activity, or whenever a break in pile 

driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, 

the observer shall observe the shutdown 

and monitoring zones for a period of 30 

minutes. The shutdown zone shall be 

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 30 minutes (for cetaceans) 

and 15 minutes (for pinnipeds). If the 

Level B harassment zone has been 

observed for 30 minutes and nonpermitted species are not present within 

the zone, soft start procedures can 

commence and work can continue even 

if visibility becomes impaired within 

the Level B zone. When a marine 

mammal permitted for Level B take is 

present in the Level B harassment zone, 

piling activities may begin and Level B 

take shall be recorded. As stated above, 

if the entire Level B zone is not visible 

at the start of construction, piling or 

drilling activities can begin. If work 

ceases for more than 30 minutes, the 

pre-activity monitoring of both the Level 

B and shutdown zone shall commence. 

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 shall 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 action area. Effective 

reporting is critical both for compliance 

as well as ensuring that the most value 

is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

Monitoring shall be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after pile driving and 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 

equipment is no more than thirty 

minutes. 

PSOs shall be land-based observers. A 

primary PSO shall be placed at the 

terminal where pile driving shall occur. 

A second observer shall range the 

uplands on foot or by ATV via Tenakee 

Ave., and go from Grave Point east of 

the harbor up and west of the project 

site to get a full view of the Level A zone 

and as much of the Level B zone as 

possible. PSOs shall scan the waters 

using binoculars, and/or spotting 

scopes, and shall use a handheld GPS or 

range-finder device to verify the 

distance to each sighting from the 

project site. All PSOs shall be trained in 

marine mammal identification and 

behaviors and are required to have no 

other project-related tasks while 

conducting monitoring. In addition, 

monitoring shall be conducted by 

qualified observers, who shall be placed 

at the best vantage point(s) practicable 

to monitor for marine mammals and 

implement shutdown/delay procedures 

when applicable by calling for the 

shutdown to the hammer operator. 

Qualified observers are trained and/or 

experienced professionals, with the 

following minimum qualifications: 

• Visual acuity in both eyes 

(correction is permissible) sufficient for 

discernment of moving targets at the 

water’s surface with ability to estimate 

target size and distance; use of 

binoculars may be necessary to correctly 

identify the target. 

• Independent observers (i.e., not 

construction personnel). 

• Observers must have their CVs/ 

resumes submitted to and approved by 

NMFS 

• Advanced education in biological 

science or related field (i.e., 

undergraduate degree or 

higher).Observers may substitute 

education or training for experience. 

• Experience and ability to conduct 

field observations and collect data 

according to assigned protocols (this 

may include academic experience). 

• At least one observer must have 

prior experience working as an observer. 

• 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 and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were suspended to avoid 

potential incidental injury from 

construction sound of marine mammals 

observed within a defined shutdown 

zone; and marine mammal behavior. 

• 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. 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report shall be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal activities. It 

shall include an overall description of 

work completed, a narrative regarding 

marine mammal sightings, and 

associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, 

the report must include: 

• Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period; 

• Weather parameters (e.g., percent 

cover, visibility); 

• Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tide state); 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices 29759 

• Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

sex and age class of marine mammals; 

• Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 

including bearing and direction of travel 

and distance from pile driving activity; 

• Distance from pile driving activities 

to marine mammals and distance from 

the marine mammals to the observation 

point; 

• Locations of all marine mammal 

observations; and 

• Other human activity in the area. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft final 

report shall constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by the IHA, such as an 

injury, serious injury or mortality, 

ADOT&PF shall immediately cease the 

specified activities and report the 

incident to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator. 

The report shall include the following 

information: 

• Description of the incident; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

Beaufort sea state, visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities shall not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS shall work with ADOT&PF to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. ADOT&PF shall not be able 

to resume their activities until notified 

by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone. 

In the event that ADOT&PF discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead PSO determines that the cause 

of the injury or death is unknown and 

the death is relatively recent (e.g., in 

less than a moderate state of 

decomposition as described in the next 

paragraph), ADOT&PF shall 

immediately report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding 

Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska 

Regional Stranding Coordinator. The 

report shall include the same 

information identified in the paragraph 

above. Activities shall be able to 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

shall work with ADOT&PF to determine 

whether modifications in the activities 

are appropriate. 

In the event that ADOT&PF discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal and 

the lead PSO determines that the injury 

or death is not associated with or related 

to the activities authorized in the IHA 

(e.g., previously wounded animal, 

carcass with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

ADOT&PF shall report the incident to 

the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or 

by email to the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours 

of the discovery. ADOT&PF shall 

provide photographs, video footage (if 

available), or other documentation of 

the stranded animal sighting to NMFS 

and the Marine Mammal Stranding 

Network. 

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). 

As stated in the mitigation section, 

shutdown zones equal to or exceeding 

Level A isopleths shown in Table 4 

shall be implemented, and in this case, 

Level A take is not anticipated nor 

authorized. Behavioral responses of 

marine mammals to pile driving and 

removal at the ferry terminal, 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, removal, 

and drilling shall occur for 93 days, any 

harassment shall be temporary. In 

addition, the project was designed with 

relatively small-diameter piles, which 

shall avoid the elevated noise impacts 

associated with larger piles. In addition, 

there are no known biologically 

important areas near the project zone 

that shall be moderately or significantly 

impacted by the construction activities. 

The region of Tenakee Inlet where the 

project shall take place is located in a 

developed area with regular marine 

vessel traffic. Although there is a harbor 

seal haulout approximately one km 

south of the project site, it shall not be 

located within the project’s Level B 

zone. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized. 

• There are no known biologically 

important areas within the project area. 

• ADOT&PF shall implement 

mitigation measures such as vibratory 

driving piles to the maximum extent 

practicable, soft-starts, and shut downs. 

• Monitoring reports from similar 

work in Alaska 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 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the activity shall 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
29760 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices 

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. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

Overall, ADOT&PF proposes 15,566 

total Level B takes of these marine 

mammals. Table 7 below shows take as 

a percent of population for each of the 

species listed above. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY EXPOSED TO LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT SOUND LEVELS

Species DPS/Stock 

Number of 

exposures to 

Level B 

harassment 

total and by 

stock 

Number of 

individuals 

potentially 

exposed to 

Level B 

harassment 

Stock 

abundance 

Percent of 

population 1

Steller sea lion .................................. Eastern DPS .................................... 5,351 115 41,638 <0.3 

Western DPS ................................... 1,159 25 53,303 <0.1 

Harbor seal ....................................... Glacier Bay/Icy Strait ....................... 8,144 259 7,210 3.6 

Harbor porpoise ................................ Southeast Alaska ............................. 242 242 975 24.8 

Dall’s porpoise .................................. Alaska ............................................... 49 49 83,400 <0.1 

Killer whale ........................................ West Coast transient ........................ 60 60 243 24.7 

Alaska resident ................................. 60 60 2,347 2.6 

Northern Resident ............................ 60 60 290 20.7 

Humpback whale .............................. Mexico DPS/Central North Pacific ... 558 558 10,103 5.5 

Minke whale ...................................... Alaska ............................................... 3 3 N/A N/A 

Total ........................................... ........................................................... 15,686 1,434 N/A N/A

1The percent of population is based on the proportion of take that is expected to occur from each stock based on abundance (see Table 1). 

Killer whale stocks are assumed to be equally likely to occur. 

N/A: Not Applicable or no stock population assessment is available. 

Table 7 presents the number of 

animals that could be exposed to 

received noise levels causing Level B 

harassment for the work at the Tenakee 

Springs Ferry Terminal. Our analysis 

shows that less than 25 percent of each 

affected stock could be taken by 

harassment. Therefore, the numbers of 

animals authorized to be taken for all 

species shall be considered small 

relative to the relevant stocks or 

populations even if each estimated 

taking occurred to a new individual—an 

extremely unlikely scenario. For harbor 

porpoise, the abundance estimates used 

in the percentage of population were 

taken from inland Southeast Alaska 

waters. These abundance estimates have 

not been corrected for g(0) and are likely 

conservative, therefore it is expected for 

the percentage of population that shall 

be taken to be overestimated. In 

addition, high percentage totals for 

northern resident (20.7 percent) and 

western transient (24.7 percent) killer 

whales were based on the possibility 

that all 60 takes for killer whales shall 

occur for each stock, which is a highly 

unlikely scenario. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the activity (including the 

mitigation and monitoring measures) 

and the anticipated take of marine 

mammals, NMFS finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals shall 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 shall not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. The project is not 

known to occur in an important 

subsistence hunting area. It is a 

developed area with regular marine 

vessel traffic. However, ADOT&PF plans 

to provide advanced public notice of 

construction activities to reduce 

construction impacts on local residents, 

ferry travelers, adjacent businesses, and 

other users of the Tenakee Springs ferry 

terminal and nearby areas. This shall 

include notification to local Alaska 

Native tribes that may have members 

who hunt marine mammals for 

subsistence. Of the marine mammals 

considered in this IHA application, only 

harbor seals are known to be used for 

subsistence in the project area. If any 

tribes express concerns regarding 

project impacts to subsistence hunting 

of marine mammals, further 

communication between shall take 

place, including provision of any project 

information, and clarification of any 

mitigation and minimization measures 

that may reduce potential impacts to 

marine mammals. 

Based on the description of the 

specified activity, the measures 

described to minimize adverse effects 

on the availability of marine mammals 

for subsistence purposes, and the 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS has determined that there shall 

not be an unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from ADOT&PF’s 

activities. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with NMFS’ Alaska Regional 

Office, whenever we propose to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices 29761 

authorize take for endangered or 

threatened species. 

NMFS Alaska Region issued a 

Biological Opinion to NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources which concluded 

the city dock and improvement project 

is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of WDPS Steller sea lions or 

Mexico DPS humpback whales or 

adversely modify critical habitat 

because none exists within the action 

area. 

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 action 

(i.e., the issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization) with respect 

to potential impacts on the human 

environment. This action is consistent 

with categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental 

harassment authorizations 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 IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

we have issued an IHA to ADOT&PF for 

conducting the described construction 

activities related to city dock and ferry 

terminal improvements from June 1, 

2019 through May 31, 2020 provided 

the previously described mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: June 20, 2018. 

Elaine T. Saiz, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13591 Filed 6–25–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control 

Program: Intent To Find That Georgia 

Has Satisfied All Conditions of 

Approval Placed on Its Coastal 

Nonpoint Pollution Control Program 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, and 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to find that 

Georgia has satisfied all conditions of 

approval on its coastal nonpoint 

pollution control program. 

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

and Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) (the federal agencies) invite 

public comment on the agencies’ 

proposed finding that Georgia has 

satisfied all conditions on the 2002 

approval of the State’s coastal nonpoint 

pollution control program (coastal 

nonpoint program). The Coastal Zone 

Act Reauthorization Amendments 

(CZARA) directs states and territories 

with coastal zone management programs 

previously approved under Section 306 

of the Coastal Zone Management Act to 

develop and implement coastal 

nonpoint programs, which must be 

submitted to the federal agencies for 

approval. Prior to making such a 

finding, NOAA and EPA invite public 

input on the federal agencies’ reasoning 

for this proposed finding. 

DATES: Individuals or organizations 

wishing to submit comments on the 

proposed findings document should do 

so by July 26, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Comments can be made by 

email to: ocm.czara@noaa.gov, or in 

writing to Joelle Gore, Chief, 

Stewardship Division (N/OCM6), Office 

for Coastal Management, NOS, NOAA, 

1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, 

Maryland 20910, phone (240) 533–0813, 

to the ATTN: Georgia Coastal Nonpoint 

Program. All comments received will be 

posted without change to https://

coast.noaa.gov/czm/pollutioncontrol/, 

including any personal information 

provided. The federal agencies may 

publish any comment received. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The federal agencies will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e. on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Copies of the proposed Findings 

Document may be found on NOAA’s 

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control 

Program website at https://

coast.noaa.gov/czm/pollutioncontrol/. 

Additional background information on 

the state’s program may be obtained 

upon request from: Allison Castellan, 

Stewardship Division (N/OCM6), Office 

for Coastal Management, NOS, NOAA, 

1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, 

Maryland 20910, phone (240) 533–0799, 

email allison.castellan@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act 

Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA), 

16 U.S.C. 1455b(a), requires that each 

state (or territory) with a coastal zone 

management program previously 

approved under section 306 of the 

Coastal Zone Management Act must 

prepare and submit to the federal 

agencies a coastal nonpoint pollution 

control program for approval. Georgia 

originally submitted its program to the 

federal agencies for approval in 

December 1999. The federal agencies 

provided public notice of and invited 

public comment on their proposal to 

approve, with conditions, the Georgia 

program (66 FR 49643). The federal 

agencies approved the program by letter 

dated June 4, 2002, subject to the 

conditions specified in the letter (67 FR 

38471). The federal agencies propose to 

find, and invite public comment on the 

proposed findings, that Georgia has now 

fully satisfied all conditions of the 

earlier approval of its coastal nonpoint 

program. 

Over time, Georgia has made changes 

to its program in order to satisfy the 

identified conditions. As explained in 

the proposed findings document, the 

federal agencies have determined that 

Georgia has fully met all conditions 

originally placed on its program. The 

proposed findings document describes 

how the State program has satisfied the 

conditions. 

The proposed findings document for 

Georgia’s program as well as 

information on the Coastal Nonpoint 

Program in general is available for 

download on the NOAA website at 

https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/pollution

control/. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES