30120 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 

Dated: June 22, 2018. 

Sarah Brabson, 

NOAA PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13808 Filed 6–26–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for clearance the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). 

Agency: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Title: West Coast Limited Entry 

Groundfish Fixed Gear Economic Data 

Collection. 

OMB Control Number: 0648–xxxx. 

Form Number(s): None. 

Type of Request: Regular (request for 

a new information collection). 

Number of Respondents: 320. 

Average Hours per Response: Initial 

telephone screen, 2 minutes; follow-up 

detailed survey, 22 minutes. 

Burden Hours: 64. 

Needs and Uses: This is a request for 

a new information collection. 

The Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center is conducting a cost and earnings 

survey of active vessels operating with 

a limited entry groundfish permit that 

has a fixed gear (longline and/or pot) 

endorsement. Commercial fisheries 

economic data collections implemented 

by the Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center (NWFSC) have contributed to 

legally mandated analyses required 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(MFCMS), the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), and Executive 

Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). 

Surveys implemented by the NWFSC 

since 2005 have covered West Coast 

harvesters, processors, and coastal 

communities. These surveys have 

focused on the federally managed 

groundfish and salmon fisheries as well 

as the closely related crab and shrimp 

fisheries. This document describes a 

data collection covering catcher vessels 

operate with a limited entry groundfish 

permit that has a fixed gear (longline 

and/or pot) endorsement. During 2012 

there were 169 vessels active on the 

West Coast that held a federal 

groundfish limited entry permit with a 

fixed gear endorsement. These 169 

vessels landed $46.5 million of fish on 

the West Coast, including $25.3 million 

of groundfish (including $22.5 million 

of sablefish) and $16.6 million of crab. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

This information collection request 

may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow 

the instructions to view Department of 

Commerce collections currently under 

review by OMB. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to OIRA_Submission@

omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806. 

Dated: June 22, 2018. 

Sarah Brabson, 

NOAA PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13809 Filed 6–26–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for clearance the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Title: Washington and Oregon Charter 

Vessel Survey. 

OMB Control Number: 0648–xxxx. 

Form Number(s): None. 

Type of Request: Regular (request for 

a new information collection). 

Number of Respondents: 320. 

Average Hours per Response: Initial 

telephone screen: 2 minutes; follow-up 

detailed survey: 22 minutes. 

Burden Hours: 64. 

Needs and Uses: This request is for a 

new information collection. 

The Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center will conduct a cost and earnings 

survey of active marine charter fishing 

vessel companies in Washington and 

Oregon. The data collected will be used 

by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) to address statutory and 

regulatory mandates to determine the 

quantity and distribution of net benefits 

derived from living marine resources as 

well as to predict the economic impacts 

from proposed management options on 

charter fishing businesses, shore side 

industries, and fishing communities. In 

particular, these economic data 

collection programs contribute to legally 

mandated analyses required under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(MFCMS), the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), and Executive 

Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

This information collection request 

may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow 

the instructions to view Department of 

Commerce collections currently under 

review by OMB. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax 

to (202) 395–5806. 

Dated: June 22, 2018. 

Sarah Brabson, 

NOAA PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13810 Filed 6–26–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG291 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Pile Driving 

Activities for the Restoration of Pier 

62, Seattle Waterfront, Elliott Bay 

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 request 

from the Seattle Department of 

Transportation (Seattle DOT) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to pile driving activities for 

the restoration of Pier 62, Seattle 

Waterfront, Elliott Bay in Seattle, 

Washington (Season 2). Pursuant to the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to 

incidentally take marine mammals 

during the specified activities. NMFS 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 30121 

will consider public comments prior to 

making any final decision on the 

issuance of the requested MMPA 

authorization and agency responses will 

be summarized in the final notice of our 

decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than July 27, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Physical 

comments should be sent to 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

and electronic comments should be sent 

to ITP.egger@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments received 

electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the applications 

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/ 

incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities. 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 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. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, or 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). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

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 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

Summary of Request 

On January 27, 2018, NMFS received 

a request from the Seattle DOT for a 

second IHA to take marine mammals 

incidental to pile driving activities for 

the restoration of Pier 62, Seattle 

Waterfront, Elliott Bay in Seattle, 

Washington. A revised request was 

submitted on May 18, 2018 which was 

deemed adequate and complete. Seattle 

DOT’s request is for take of 12 species 

of marine mammals, by Level B 

harassment and Level A harassment 

(three species only). Neither Seattle 

DOT nor NMFS expects serious injury 

or mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

NMFS previously issued an IHA to 

Seattle DOT for related work for Season 

1 of this activity (82 FR 47176; October 

11, 2017). Seattle DOT complied with 

all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting) of the 

previous IHA and information regarding 

their monitoring results may be found in 

the Description of Marine Mammals in 

the Area of Specified Activities and 

Estimated Take sections. 

This proposed IHA would cover the 

second season of work for the Pier 62 

Project for which Seattle DOT obtained 

a prior IHA (82 FR 47176; October 11, 

2017) and intends to request take 

authorization for subsequent facets of 

the project. The second season of the 

larger project is expected to primarily 

involve the remaining pile driving for 

Pier 62 and Pier 63. If the Seattle DOT 

encounters delays due to poor weather 

conditions, difficult pile driving, or 

other unanticipated challenges, an 

additional in-water work season may be 

necessary. If so, a separate IHA would 

be prepared for the third season of work. 

Description of Specified Activities 

Overview 

The proposed project will replace Pier 

62 and make limited modifications to 

Pier 63 on the Seattle waterfront of 

Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington. The 

existing piers are constructed of 

creosote-treated timber piles and treated 

timber decking, which are failing. The 

proposed project would demolish and 

remove the existing timber piles and 

decking of Pier 62, and replace them 

with concrete deck planks, concrete pile 

caps, and steel piling. The majority of 

the timber pile removal required by the 

project occurred during the 2017–2018 

in-water work season (Season 1). 

The footprint of Pier 62 will remain 

as it currently is, with a small amount 

of additional over-water coverage 

(approximately 3,200 square feet) 

created by a new float system added to 

the south side of Pier 62. This float 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
30122 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 

system is intended for moorage of 

transient, small-boat traffic, and will not 

be designed to accommodate mooring or 

berthing for larger vessels. This includes 

removing 815 timber piles, and will 

require installation of 180 steel piles for 

Pier 62. To offset the additional overwater coverage associated with the new 

float system, approximately 3,700 

square feet of Pier 63 will be removed. 

This includes removing 65 timber piles, 

and will require installation of nine 

steel piles to provide structural support 

for the remaining portion of Pier 63. 

Dates and Duration 

In-water construction for this 

application is proposed from August 1, 

2018 to February 28, 2019. Pile removal 

and installation will occur during 

daylight hours, typically during a work 

shift of eight hours or less. Timber pile 

removal for the remaining piles of the 

Pier 62 Project is estimated to occur on 

10 days during the 2018–2019 in-water 

work window. Pile installation will 

occur via vibratory and impact 

hammers. Vibratory hammer use is 

estimated to occur on up to 53 days, and 

impact hammer use may occur on up to 

64 days, for a total of up to 117 days of 

pile installation. Therefore, the total 

number of working days for the project 

is 127. It is expected that many of the 

pile installation days will involve both 

a vibratory and an impact hammer, 

resulting in fewer cumulative days of 

pile installation. It is anticipated that 

the contractor will complete the pile 

installation during the 2018–2019 inwater work window. In-water work may 

occur within a modified or shortened 

work window (September through 

February) to reduce or minimize effect 

on juvenile salmonids. 

Specific Geographic Region 

Pier 62 and Pier 63 are located on the 

downtown Seattle waterfront on Elliot 

Bay in King County, Washington just 

north of the Seattle Aquarium (see 

Figure 1 from the Seattle DOT 

application). The project will occur 

between Pike Street and Lenora Street, 

an urban embayment in central Puget 

Sound. This is an important industrial 

region and home to the Port of Seattle, 

which ranked 8th in the top 10 

metropolitan port complexes in the U.S. 

in 2015. This area includes the 

proposed construction zone, Elliott Bay, 

and a portion of Puget Sound. 

Detailed Description of the Specific 

Activity 

During Season 1, Pier 62 was fully 

removed, including all support piles, 

structural components, and decking. 

The 3,700-square-foot portion of Pier 63 

was also removed. A total of 831 piles 

were removed from Pier 62 and Pier 63 

(see Table 1 below). Timber pile 

removal work in Season 2 (2018–2019 

in-water work window) may occur for 

an estimated 10 days (49 remaining 

timber piles, if the contractor 

encounters deteriorated piles that pose 

a safety hazard or are within the area 

where grated decking or habitat 

improvements are to be installed. 

Seattle DOT estimates 10 days will be 

needed to remove the old timber piles, 

53 days for vibratory installation of steel 

piles, and 64 days for impact 

installation of steel piles for a total of 

127 in-water construction days for both 

Pier 62 and Pier 63 (see Table 1 below). 

Seattle DOT expects most days for 

vibratory and impact installation of steel 

piles will overlap, for a total of fewer 

than 127 days. 

TABLE 3—PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL PLAN

Activity Pile type Number 

of piles 

Completed 

during 

season 1 

Actual 

duration 

season 1 

(days) 

Remaining 

work 

season 2 

Anticipated 

duration 

season 2 

Hours 

per day 

Hammer 

type 

Single 

source 

sound levels 

Additive 

source sound 

levels 

Remove .. Creosote-treated 

timber, 14-inch 1.

880 831 piles removed.19 49 timber piles 10 days ...... 8 Vibratory ..... 2 161 dBRMS ......................

Steel template pile, 

24-inch.

2 ........................ ................ 2 ..................... Daily 3 ......... ................ Vibratory ..... 4 177 dBRMS ......................

Install ...... Steel pile, 30-inch 189 2 steel sheet 

piles installed.

1 189 steel piles 53 days ......

64 days 8 ....

8 

8 

Vibratory .....

Impact ........

6 177 dBRMS

9 189 dBRMS

7 180 dBRMS

10 189 dBRMS

Steel template pile, 

24-inch.

2 ........................ ................ 2 ..................... Daily 3 ......... ................ Vibratory ..... 4 177 dBRMS ......................

Notes: 

1. Assumed to be 14-inch diameter. 

2. Hydroacoustic monitoring during Pier 62 Season 1 showed unweighted RMS ranging from 140 dB to 169 dB, the 75th percentile of these values is 161 dBRMS

and was used to calculate thresholds. 

3. The two template piles will be installed and removed daily. The time associated with this activity is included in the overall 8-hour pile driving day associated with 

installation of the 30-inch steel piles. 

4. Assumed to be no greater than vibratory installation of the 30-inch steel pile. 

6. Source sound from Port Townsend Test Pile Project (WSDOT 2010). 

7. For simultaneous operation of two vibratory hammers installing steel pipe piles, the 180 dBRMS value is based on identical single-source levels, adding three dB 

based on WSDOT rules for decibel addition (2018). 

8. Approximately 20 percent of the pile driving effort is anticipated to require an impact hammer, which results in approximately 11 cumulative days of impact hammer activity. However, the impact hammer activity is sporadic, often occurring for short periods each day. A total of 64 days represents the number of days in which 

pile installation with an impact hammer could occur, with the anticipation that each day’s impact hammer activity would be short. 

9. Source level from Colman Dock Test Pile Project (WSDOT 2016). 

10. For simultaneous operation of one impact hammer and one vibratory hammer installing 30-inch piles, the original dBRMS estimates differ by more than 10 dB, 

so the higher value, 189 dBRMS, is used based on WSDOT rules for decibel addition (2018). 

RMS—root mean square: The square root of the energy divided by the impulse duration. This level is the mean square pressure level of the pulse. It has been 

used by NMFS to describe disturbance-related effects (i.e., harassment) to marine mammals from underwater impulse-type noises. 

WSDOT—Washington State Department of Transportation. 

Approximately 20 percent of the pile 

driving effort is anticipated to require an 

impact hammer. However, the impact 

hammer activity is sporadic, often 

occurring for short periods each day. A 

total of 64 days represents the number 

of days in which pile installation with 

an impact hammer could occur, with 

the anticipation that each day’s impact 

hammer activity would be short. 

The 14-inch (in) timber piles will be 

removed with a vibratory hammer or 

pulled with a clamshell bucket. The 30- 

in steel piles will be installed with a 

vibratory hammer to the extent possible. 

The maximum extent of pile removal 

and installation activities are described 

in Table 1. 

An impact hammer will be used for 

proofing steel piles or when 

encountering obstructions or difficult 

ground conditions. In addition, a pile 

template will be installed to ensure the 

piles are placed properly. The template, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 30123 

which consists of two temporary 24- 

inch pipe piles connected by a 

structural steel frame, is both installed 

and removed with a vibratory hammer; 

the contractor positions the template, 

installs a set of piles, then moves the 

template to a new area. Template piles 

typically do not need to be installed as 

deep as the structural piles; the 

necessary embedment will vary 

depending on the substrate conditions. 

The Seattle DOT anticipates moving the 

template daily, but this will not increase 

the total number of vibratory pile 

driving days. The contractor may elect 

to operate multiple pile crews for the 

Pier 62 Project. As a result, more than 

one vibratory or impact hammer may be 

active at the same time. The Seattle DOT 

will not operate more than two vibratory 

hammers concurrently. For the Pier 62 

Project, there is a low likelihood that 

multiple impact hammers would 

operate in a manner that piles would be 

struck simultaneously; however, as a 

conservative approach we used 

multiple-source decibel rule when 

determining the Level A and B 

harassment zones for this project. Table 

2 provides guidance on adding decibels 

to account for multiple sources (WSDOT 

2015a): 

TABLE 2—MULTIPLE SOURCE DECIBEL

ADDITION

When two decibel 

values differ by: 

Add the following to 

the higher decibel 

value: 

0–1 dB ...................... 3 dB 

TABLE 2—MULTIPLE SOURCE DECIBEL

ADDITION—Continued 

When two decibel 

values differ by: 

Add the following to 

the higher decibel 

value: 

2–3 dB ...................... 2 dB 

4–9 dB ...................... 1 dB 

>10 dB or more ......... 0 dB 

The Seattle DOT anticipates proofing 

10 piles, spread over the different 

geological zones and construction zones 

of the pier foundation. For this proofing 

effort, one impact crane would be 

mobilized. In addition to proofing, if a 

pile reaches refusal (i.e., can be driven 

no farther) with a vibratory hammer, an 

impact hammer would be used to drive 

the pile to the required depth or 

embedment. It is not possible to 

anticipate which piles will need to be 

driven with an impact hammer. 

It is not possible to know in advance 

the location of the crews and hammers 

on a given day, nor how many crews 

will be working each day. The multiplesource decibel addition method does 

not result in significant increases in the 

noise source when an impact hammer 

and vibratory hammer are working at 

the same time, because the difference in 

noise sources is greater than 10 dB. For 

periods when two vibratory hammers 

are operating simultaneously, an 

increase in noise level could be 

generated, and this will be accounted 

for when determining Level A 

Harassment Zones (PTS isopleths) and 

Level B Harassment Zones for all marine 

mammal hearing groups. 

If the Seattle DOT encounters delays 

due to poor weather conditions, difficult 

pile driving, or other unanticipated 

challenges, an additional in-water work 

season may be necessary. If so, a 

separate IHA would be prepared for the 

third season of work. In-water work will 

occur within the designated work 

window (August through February). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

The marine mammal species under 

NMFS’s jurisdiction that have the 

potential to occur in the construction 

area include Pacific harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina), northern elephant seal 

(Mirounga angustirostris), California sea 

lion (Zalophus californianus), Steller 

sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Dall’s 

porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), longbeaked common dolphin (Delphinus 

delphis), common bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus), both southern 

resident and transient killer whales 

(Orcinus orca), humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaengliae), gray whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus), and minke 

whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) 

(Table 3). Of these, the southern 

resident killer whale (SRKW) and 

humpback whale are protected under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

Pertinent information for each of these 

species is presented in this document to 

provide the necessary background to 

understand their demographics and 

distribution in the area. 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN REGION OF ACTIVITY

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

Gray whale ......................... Eschrichtius robustus ................ Eastern North Pacific ................ -; N 20,990 (0.05; 20,125; 

2011).

624 132 

Family Balaenidae: 

Humpback whale ................ Megaptera novaeangliae 

novaeangliae.

California/Oregon/Washington .. E; D 1,918 (0.03; 1,876; 2017) 11.0 ≥9.2 

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

scammoni.

California/Oregon/Washington .. -; N 636 (0.72, 369, 2014) ..... 3.5 ≥1.3 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Killer whale ......................... Orcinus orca ............................. Eastern North Pacific Offshore -; N 240 (0.49, 162, 2014) ..... 1.6 0 

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

Resident.

E; D 83 (na, 83, 2016) ............ 0.14 0 

Long-beaked common dolphin.Dephinus delphis ...................... California ................................... -; N 101,305 (0.49; 68,432, 

2014).

657 ≥35.4 

Bottlenose dolphin .............. Tursiops truncatus .................... California/Oregon/Washington 

Offshore.

-; N 1,924 (0.54; 1,255, 2014) 11 ≥1.6 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

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

2015).

66 ≥7.2 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
30124 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN REGION OF ACTIVITY—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Dall’s Porpoise .................... Phocoenoides dalli .................... California/Oregon/Washington .. -; N 25,750 (0.45, 17,954, 

2014).

172 0.3 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

California sea lion ............... Zalophus californianus .............. U.S. ........................................... -; N 296,750 (na, 153,337, 

2011).

9,200 389 

Steller sea lion .................... Eumetopias jubatus .................. Eastern DPS ............................. -; N 41,638 (-; 41,638; 2015) 2,498 108 

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 

Harbor seal ......................... Phoca vitulina ........................... Washington Northern Inland 

Waters stock.

-; N 11,036 (0.15, -, 1999) .... Undet. 9.8 

Northern elephant seal ....... Mirounga angustirostris ............ California breeding .................... -; N 179,000 (na; 81,368, 

2010).

4,882 8.8 

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

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

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

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 

2—NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: 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. 

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

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

website for whales (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/whales), 

dolphins and porpoises (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/dolphinsporpoises), and pinnipeds (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/seals-sea-lions). 

Table 3 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in Elliott Bay 

and summarizes information related to 

the population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

ESA and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 

follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017). 

PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’s 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’s stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in the 

NMFS’s U.S. 2017 Draft SARs for the 

Pacific (Carretta et al., 2017), Alaska 

(Muto et al., 2017) or the 2016 SARs 

(Carretta et al., 2016) if species numbers 

haven’t changed. All values presented 

in Table 3 are the most recent available 

at the time of publication and are 

available in the 2017 Draft SARs 

(Carretta et al., 2017; Muto et al., 2017) 

or 2016 SARs (Carretta et al. 2016). 

Additional information may be found in 

the 2015 Pacific Navy Marine Species 

Density Database (U.S. Department of 

the Navy (U.S. Navy) 2015) and can also 

be accessed online at: http://

nwtteis.com/Portals/NWTT/files/ 

supporting_technical/REVISED_NWTT_

FINAL_NMSDD_Technical_Report_04_

MAY_2015.pdf. 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the proposed survey areas are 

included in Table 3. As described 

below, all 12 species temporally and 

spatially co-occur with the activity to 

the degree that take is reasonably likely 

to occur, and we have proposed 

authorizing it. 

Summary of Season 1 Pier 62 Marine 

Mammal Occurrence 

Marine mammal monitoring during 

pile driving/removal activities occurred 

for 21 days, between December 29, 

2017, and February 21, 2018. 

Throughout the Season 1 monitoring 

season, a total of 167 California sea lions 

and 72 harbor seals were observed, 

mostly at the Alki and Magnolia sites, 

but only a few were taken by Level B 

harassment. Eight California sea lions 

and ten harbor seals were taken by Level 

B harassment. There were no takes by 

Level A harassment nor any serious 

injuries or mortalities. No other species 

were observed. 

Harbor Seal 

Individual harbor seals occur along 

the Elliott Bay shoreline. There is one 

documented harbor seal haulout area 

near Bainbridge Island, approximately 6 

miles (9.66 km) from Pier 62. The 

haulout, which is estimated at less than 

100 animals, consists of intertidal rocks 

and reef areas around Blakely Rocks and 

is within the area of potential effects but 

at the outer extent near Bainbridge 

Island (Jefferies et al. 2000), though 

harbor seals also make use of docks, 

buoys and beaches in the area. The level 

of use of this haulout during the fall and 

winter is unknown, but is expected to 

be much less than during the spring and 

summer, as air temperatures become 

colder than water temperatures, 

resulting in seals in general hauling out 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 30125 

less. Harbor seals are perhaps the most 

commonly observed marine mammal in 

the area of potential effects. 

Six harbor seals were observed (and 

taken) within the Level B Harassment/ 

Monitoring Zone during vibratory 

activity during Season 1 of the Seattle 

DOT Pier 62 project. Higher numbers of 

harbor seals were observed at the Alki 

and Magnolia sites; however, those 

animals were outside the Level B zone 

for vibratory pile removal so were not 

considered as ‘‘taken’’ under the 

previous IHA for Season 1. The number 

of harbor seals observed from all three 

monitoring locations (Alki, Magnolia 

and around the construction site) 

combined ranged from 0 to 11 per day, 

with an average of 3 harbor seals per 

day. 

Marine mammal monitoring also 

occurred on 175 days during Seasons 1, 

2, 3, and 4 of the Elliott Bay Seawall 

Project (EBSP), during which 267 harbor 

seals were documented as takes in the 

Pier 62 Project area (Anchor QEA 2014, 

2015, 2016, and 2017). Numbers of 

harbor seals observed on the project 

varied from zero to seven per day, with 

an average of 1, 1, 2, and 3 observed 

daily in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, 

respectively. Additional marine 

mammal monitoring results in the 

vicinity of the projects, are as follows: 

D 2016 Seattle Test Pile Project: 56 

Harbor seals were observed over 10 days 

in the area that corresponds to the 

upcoming project ZOIs. The maximum 

number sighted during one day was 13 

(Washington State Ferries (WSF) 2016). 

D 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile 

Project: Six harbor seals were observed 

during this one-day project in the area 

that corresponds to the upcoming 

project ZOIs (WSF 2012). 

D 2012 Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 

Project: 281 Harbor seals were observed 

over 29 days in the area that 

corresponds to the upcoming project 

ZOIs (HiKARI 2012). 

Northern Elephant Seal 

No elephant seals were observed 

during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 

62 project. Marine mammal monitoring 

also occurred on 175 days during 

Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the EBSP, 

during which no elephant seals were 

observed in the project area (Anchor 

QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017). 

Similarly, no elephant seals were 

observed during monitoring for the 2012 

Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project, the 

2016 Seattle Test Pile Project, or the 

2012 Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 Project 

(WSF 2016). 

California Sea Lion 

California sea lions are often observed 

in the area of potential effects. There are 

four documented haulout sites near 

Bainbridge Island, approximately six 

miles from Pier 62, and two 

documented haulout sites between 

Bainbridge Island and Magnolia 

(Jefferies et al. 2000). The nearest 

documented California sea lion haulout 

sites are 3 km (2 miles) southwest of 

Pier 62, although sea lions also make 

use of docks and buoys in the area. 

Eight California sea lions were 

observed (and taken) within the Level B 

Harassment/Monitoring Zone during 

vibratory activity during Season 1 of the 

Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. Higher 

numbers of California sea lions were 

observed at the Alki and Magnolia sites; 

however, those animals were outside 

the Level B zone for vibratory pile 

removal so were not considered as 

‘‘taken’’ under the previous IHA for 

Season 1. The number of sea lions 

observed from all three monitoring 

locations (Alki, Magnolia and around 

the construction site) combined ranged 

from 0 to 13 per day, with an average 

of 8 sea lions per day. 

Marine mammal monitoring also 

occurred on 175 days during Seasons 1, 

2, 3, and 4 of the EBSP, during which 

951 California sea lions were 

documented as takes in the project area 

(Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 

2017). California sea lions were 

frequently observed (average seven per 

day in 2014 and 2015, three per day in 

2016 and 2017, and a maximum of 15 

over a day) hauled out on two 

navigational buoys within the project 

area (near Alki Point) and swimming 

along the shoreline. Additional marine 

mammal monitoring results in the 

vicinity of the projects, are as follows: 

D 2016 Seattle Test Pile project: 12 

California sea lions were observed over 

10 days in the area that corresponds to 

the upcoming project ZOIs. The 

maximum number sighted during one 

day was four (WSF 2016). 

D 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile 

project: 15 California sea lions were 

observed during this one-day project in 

the area that corresponds to the 

upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2012). 

D 2012 Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 

project: 382 California sea lions were 

observed over 29 days in the area that 

corresponds to the upcoming project 

ZOIs. The maximum number sighted 

during one day was 37; however seals, 

may have been double counted during 

these observations (HiKARI 2012). 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions are a rare visitor to 

the Pier 62 area of potential effects. 

Steller sea lions use haulout locations in 

Puget Sound. The nearest haulout to the 

project area is located approximately six 

miles away (9.66 km). This haulout is 

composed of net pens offshore of the 

south end of Bainbridge Island. The 

population of Steller sea lions at this 

haulout has been estimated at less than 

100 individuals (Jeffries et al. 2000). 

No steller sea lions were observed 

during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 

62 project. Marine mammal monitoring 

occurred on 175 days during Seasons 1, 

2, 3, and 4 of the EBSP, during which 

three Steller sea lions were observed 

and documented as takes in the project 

area (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, 

and 2017). 

No Steller sea lions were observed 

during monitoring for the 2012 Seattle 

Slip 2 Batter Pile Project or the 2016 

Seattle Test Pile Project (WSF 2016). 

Killer Whale 

The Eastern North Pacific SRKW and 

West Coast Transient (transient) stocks 

of killer whale may be found near the 

project site. The SRKW live in three 

family groups known as the J, K and L 

pods. The Southern Residents are listed 

as endangered under the ESA. Transient 

killer whales generally occur in smaller 

(less than 10 individuals), less 

structured pods (NMFS 2013). 

According to the Center for Whale 

Research (CWR) (2015), they tend to 

travel in small groups of one to five 

individuals, staying close to shorelines, 

often near seal rookeries when pups are 

being weaned. The transient killer 

whale sightings have become more 

common since mid-2000. Unlike the 

SRKW pods, transients may be present 

in an area for hours or days as they hunt 

pinnipeds. 

A long-term database maintained by 

the Whale Museum contains sightings 

and geospatial locations of SRKWs, 

among other marine mammals, in 

inland waters of Washington State 

(Osborne 2008). Data are largely based 

on opportunistic sightings from a 

variety of sources (i.e., public reports, 

commercial whale watching, 

Soundwatch, Lime Kiln State Park landbased observations, and independent 

research reports), but the database is 

regarded as a robust but difficult to 

quantify inventory of occurrences. The 

data provide the most comprehensive 

assemblage of broad-scale habitat use by 

the SRKW in inland waters. 

Based on reports from 1990 to 2008, 

the greatest number of unique killer 

whale sighting-days near or in the area 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
30126 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 

of potential effects occurred from 

November through January, although 

observations were made during all 

months except May (Osborne 2008). 

Most observations were of SRKWs 

passing west of Alki Point (82 percent 

of all observations), which lies on the 

edge or outside the area of potential 

effects; this pattern is potentially due to 

the high level of human disturbance or 

highly degraded habitat features 

currently found within Elliott Bay. J 

Pod, with an estimated 23 members, is 

the pod most likely to appear yearround near the San Juan Islands, in the 

lower Puget Sound near Seattle, and in 

Georgia Strait at the mouth of the Fraser 

River. J Pod tends to frequent the west 

side of San Juan Island in mid to late 

spring (CWR 2011, 2017). 

An analysis of sightings in 2011 

described an estimated 93 sightings of 

SRKWs near the area of potential effects 

(Whale Museum 2011). During this 

same analysis period, 12 transient killer 

whales were also observed near the area 

of potential effects. The majority of all 

sightings in this area are of groups of 

killer whales moving through the main 

channel between Bainbridge Island and 

Elliott Bay and outside the area of 

potential effects (Whale Museum 2011). 

The purely descriptive format of these 

observations makes it impossible to 

discern what proportion of the killer 

whales observed entered the area of 

potential effects; however, it is assumed 

that individuals do enter this area on 

occasion. 

No killer whales were observed 

during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 

62 project. Marine mammal monitoring 

also occurred on 175 days during 

Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 (2014, 2015, 2016, 

and 2017) of the EBSP, during which 

two killer whales were documented as 

takes in the project area (unknown if 

SRKW or transient), and one pod of six 

whales was also observed in Elliott Bay 

more than 30 minutes before or after 

pile driving activity (no take 

documented; Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 

2016, 2017). This pod of six whales 

were not identified as SRKW or 

transients. 

During the 2016 Seattle Test Pile 

project, 0 SRKW were observed over 10 

days in the area that corresponds to the 

upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2016). 

During the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter 

Pile project, 0 SRKW were observed 

during this one day project in the area 

that corresponds to the upcoming 

project ZOIs (WSF 2012). On February 

5, 2016, a pod of up to 7 transients were 

reported in the area (Orca Network 

Archive Report 2016a). 

Long-Beaked Common Dolphin 

No long-beaked common dolphins 

were observed during Season 1 of the 

Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. Marine 

mammal monitoring also occurred on 

175 days during Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 

(2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017) of the 

EBSP, during which no long-beaked 

common dolphins were observed in the 

project area (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 

2016, 2017). 

No long-beaked common dolphins 

were observed during monitoring for the 

2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project, 

the 2016 Seattle Test Pile Project, or the 

2012 Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 project. 

However, there were reported sightings 

in the Puget Sound in the summer of 

2016. Beginning on June 16, longbeaked common dolphins were 

observed near Victoria, British 

Columbia. Over the following weeks, a 

pod of 15 to 20 (including a calf) was 

observed in central and southern Puget 

Sound. They were positively identified 

as long-beaked common dolphins (Orca 

Network 2016a). This is the first 

confirmed observation of a pod of longbeaked common dolphins in 

Washington waters—NMFS states that 

as of 2012, long-beaked common 

dolphins had not been observed during 

surveys in Washington waters (Carretta 

et al. 2016). Two individual long-beaked 

common dolphins were observed in 

2011, one in August and one in 

September (Whale Museum 2015). 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

NOAA offshore surveys from 1991 to 

2014 resulted in no sightings during 

study transects off the Oregon or 

Washington coasts (NOAA 2017d). 

However, in October 2017, multiple 

sightings of a bottlenose dolphin were 

reported to Orca Network throughout 

the Puget Sound and in Elliott Bay. Two 

bottlenose dolphins were observed in 

Elliott Bay in one week of monitoring 

(WSDOT 2017) and a group of seven 

dolphins were observed in 2017 and 

were positively identified as part of the 

CA coastal stock (Cascadia Research 

Collective, 2017). It is acknowledged 

that bottlenose dolphins could occur 

within the project area. 

No bottlenose dolphins were observed 

during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 

62 project. In addition, no bottlenose 

dolphins were observed during 

monitoring for the EBSP, the 2012 

Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project or the 

2016 Seattle Test Pile Project (Anchor 

QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017; WSF 

2012, 2016). 

Gray Whale 

Gray whale sightings are typically 

reported in February through May and 

include an observation of a gray whale 

off the ferry terminal at Pier 52 heading 

toward the East Waterway in March 

2010 (CWR 2011). Three gray whales 

were observed near the project area 

during 2011 (Whale Museum 2011), but 

the narrative format of the observations 

make it difficult to discern whether 

these individuals entered the area of 

potential effects. It is assumed that gray 

whales might rarely occur in the area of 

potential effects. 

No gray whales were observed during 

Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 

project. No gray whales were observed 

during monitoring for Seasons 1, 2,3, or 

4 of the EBSP (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 

2016, and 2017), the 2012 Seattle Slip 

2 Batter Pile Project, the 2016 Seattle 

Test Pile Project, or the 2012 Seattle 

Aquarium Pier 60 Project (Anchor QEA 

2014, 2015, 2016; WSF 2016a). 

Humpback Whale 

Prior to 2016, humpback whales were 

listed under the ESA as an endangered 

species worldwide. Following a 2015 

global status review (Bettridge et al., 

2015), NMFS established 14 distinct 

population segments (DPS) with 

different listing statuses (81 FR 62259; 

September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. 

The DPSs that occur in U.S. waters do 

not necessarily equate to the existing 

stocks designated under the MMPA and 

shown in Table 3. Because MMPA 

stocks cannot be portioned, i.e., parts 

managed as ESA-listed while other parts 

managed as not ESA-listed, until such 

time as the MMPA stock delineations 

are reviewed in light of the DPS 

designations, NMFS considers the 

existing humpback whale stocks under 

the MMPA to be endangered and 

depleted for MMPA management 

purposes (e.g., selection of a recovery 

factor, stock status). Within U.S. west 

coast waters, three current DPSs may 

occur: the Hawaii DPS (not listed), 

Mexico DPS (threatened), and Central 

America DPS (endangered). 

Humpback whales are only rare 

visitors to Puget Sound. There is 

evidence of increasing numbers in 

recent years (Falcone et al. 2005). A rare 

encounter with one and possibly two 

humpbacks occurred in Hood Canal 

(well away from the area of potential 

effects) as recently as February 2012 

(Whale Museum 2012). Humpbacks do 

not visit Puget Sound every year and are 

considered rare in the area of potential 

effects (Whale Museum 2011); however, 

they have the potential to occur at least 

during the Pier 62 Project construction 

period. 

No humpback whales were observed 

during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 

62 project. Marine mammal monitoring 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 30127 

also occurred on 175 days during 

Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 (2014, 2015, 2016, 

and 2017) of the EBSP, during which 

two humpback whales were observed in 

the project area (Anchor QEA 2014, 

2015, 2016, and 2017). In addition, no 

humpback whales were observed during 

monitoring for the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 

Batter Pile Project, the 2016 Seattle Test 

Pile Project, or the 2012 Seattle 

Aquarium Pier 60 Project (WSF 2016a). 

Minke Whale 

Minke whales are relatively common 

in the San Juan Islands and Strait of 

Juan de Fuca (especially around several 

of the banks in both the central and 

eastern Strait), but are relatively rare in 

Puget Sound (WSF 2016a). No minke 

whales were observed during Season 1 

of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. No 

minke whales were observed during 

monitoring for Season 1, 2, 4, or 4 of the 

EBSP, the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile 

Project, the 2016 Seattle Test Pile 

Project, or the 2012 Seattle Aquarium 

Pier 60 Project (Anchor QEA 2014, 

2015, 2016; WSF 2016). 

Harbor Porpoise and Dall’s Porpoise 

No harbor porpoise or Dall’s porpoise 

were observed during Season 1 of the 

Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. Marine 

mammal monitoring occurred on 175 

days during Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 (2014, 

2015, 2016, and 2017) of the EBSP, 

during which one harbor porpoise was 

observed and documented as a take in 

the project area; no Dall’s porpoises 

were observed (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 

2016. 2017). 

During the 2012 Seattle Aquarium 

Pier 60 Project, five harbor porpoises 

and one Dall’s porpoise were observed 

over 29 days in the area that 

corresponds to the upcoming project 

ZOIs, with a maximum of three 

observed in one day (HiKARI 2012). 

Neither harbor porpoise nor Dall’s 

porpoise were observed during 

monitoring for the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 

Batter Pile Project or the 2016 Seattle 

Test Pile Project (WSF 2016). 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten 1999; Au and Hastings 2008). To 

reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016a) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 dB 

threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (note 

that these frequency ranges correspond 

to the range for the composite group, 

with the entire range not necessarily 

reflecting the capabilities of every 

species within that group): 

D Low-frequency cetaceans 

(mysticetes): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 hertz (Hz) and 35 

kilohertz (kHz); 

D Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger 

toothed whales, beaked whales, and 

most delphinids): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz; 

D High-frequency cetaceans 

(porpoises, river dolphins, and members 

of the genera Kogia and 

Cephalorhynchus; including two 

members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, 

on the basis of recent echolocation data 

and genetic data): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz; 

D Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between approximately 50 Hz 

to 86 kHz; and 

D Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared 

seals and sea lions): Generalized hearing 

is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 

39 kHz. 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2016a) for a review of 

available information. Twelve marine 

mammal species (8 cetacean and 4 

pinniped (2 otariid and 2 phocid) 

species) have the reasonable potential to 

co-occur with the proposed survey 

activities. Please refer to Table 3. Of the 

cetacean species that may be present, 

three are classified as low-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 

three are classified as mid-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid 

species), and two are classified as highfrequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor and 

Dall’s porpoise). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section later in this 

document will include a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination’’ section 

will consider the content of this section, 

the ‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section, and the ‘‘Proposed 

Mitigation’’ section, to draw 

conclusions regarding the likely impacts 

of these activities on the reproductive 

success or survivorship of individuals 

and how those impacts on individuals 

are likely to impact marine mammal 

species or stocks. 

The Seattle DOT’s Pier 62 Project 

using in-water pile driving and pile 

removal could adversely affect marine 

mammal species and stocks by exposing 

them to elevated noise levels in the 

vicinity of the activity area. 

Exposure to high intensity sound for 

a sufficient duration may result in 

auditory effects such as a noise-induced 

threshold shift (TS)—an increase in the 

auditory threshold after exposure to 

noise (Finneran et al. 2005). Factors that 

influence the amount of threshold shift 

include the amplitude, duration, 

frequency content, temporal pattern, 

and energy distribution of noise 

exposure. The magnitude of hearing 

threshold shift normally decreases over 

time following cessation of the noise 

exposure. The amount of threshold shift 

just after exposure is the initial 

threshold shift. If the threshold shift 

eventually returns to zero (i.e., the 

threshold returns to the pre-exposure 

value), it is a temporary threshold shift 

(Southall et al. 2007). 

Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of 

hearing)—When animals exhibit 

reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds 

must be louder for an animal to detect 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
30128 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 

them) following exposure to an intense 

sound or sound for long duration, it is 

referred to as TS. An animal can 

experience temporary threshold shift 

(TTS) or permanent threshold shift 

(PTS). TTS can last from minutes or 

hours to days (i.e., there is complete 

recovery), can occur 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 be of varying 

amounts (for example, an animal’s 

hearing sensitivity might be reduced 

initially by only 6 dB or reduced by 30 

dB). PTS is permanent, but some 

recovery is possible. PTS can also occur 

in a specific frequency range and 

amount as mentioned above for TTS. 

For marine mammals, published data 

are limited to the captive bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and 

Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran et 

al., 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010a, 

2010b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; 

Lucke et al., 2009; Mooney et al., 2009a, 

2009b; Popov et al., 2011a, 2011b; 

Kastelein et al., 2012a; Schlundt et al., 

2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, 2004). For 

pinnipeds in water, data are limited to 

measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an 

elephant seal, and California sea lions 

(Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et 

al., 2012b). 

Lucke et al. (2009) found a TS of a 

harbor porpoise after exposing it to 

airgun noise with a received SPL at 

200.2 dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 mPa, which 

corresponds to a sound exposure level 

(SEL) of 164.5 dB re: 1 mPa2 s after 

integrating exposure. Because the airgun 

noise is a broadband impulse, one 

cannot directly determine the 

equivalent of rms SPL from the reported 

peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a 

conservative conversion factor of 16 dB 

for broadband signals from seismic 

surveys (McCauley et al. 2000) to 

correct for the difference between peakto-peak levels reported in Lucke et al. 

(2009) and rms SPLs, the rms SPL for 

TTS would be approximately 184 dB re: 

1 mPa, and the received levels associated 

with PTS (Level A harassment) would 

be higher. However, NMFS recognizes 

that TTS of harbor porpoises is lower 

than other cetacean species empirically 

tested (Finneran and Schlundt 2010; 

Finneran et al. 2002; Kastelein and 

Jennings 2012). 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics, and interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that occurs during a 

time where ambient noise is lower and 

there are not as many competing sounds 

present. Alternatively, a larger amount 

and longer duration of TTS sustained 

during time when communication is 

critical for successful mother/calf 

interactions could have more serious 

impacts. Also, depending on the degree 

and frequency range, the effects of PTS 

on an animal could range in severity, 

although it is considered generally more 

serious because it is a permanent 

condition. Of note, reduced hearing 

sensitivity as a simple function of aging 

has been observed in marine mammals, 

as well as humans and other taxa 

(Southall et al. 2007), so one can infer 

that strategies exist for coping with this 

condition to some degree, though likely 

not without cost. 

Masking—In addition, chronic 

exposure to excessive, though not highintensity, noise could cause masking at 

particular frequencies for marine 

mammals that utilize sound for vital 

biological functions (Clark et al. 2009). 

Acoustic masking is when other noises 

such as from human sources interfere 

with animal detection of acoustic 

signals such as communication calls, 

echolocation sounds, and 

environmental sounds important to 

marine mammals. Therefore, under 

certain circumstances, marine mammals 

whose acoustical sensors or 

environment are being severely masked 

could also be impaired from maximizing 

their performance fitness in survival 

and reproduction. 

Masking occurs at the frequency band 

that the animals utilize. Therefore, since 

noise generated from vibratory pile 

driving activity is mostly concentrated 

at low frequency ranges, it may have 

less effect on high frequency 

echolocation sounds by odontocetes 

(toothed whales). However, lower 

frequency man-made noises are more 

likely to affect detection of 

communication calls and other 

potentially important natural sounds 

such as surf and prey noise. It may also 

affect communication signals when they 

occur near the noise band and thus 

reduce the communication space of 

animals (e.g., Clark et al. 2009) and 

cause increased stress levels (e.g., Foote 

et al. 2004; Holt et al. 2009). 

Unlike TS, masking, which can occur 

over large temporal and spatial scales, 

can potentially affect the species at 

population, community, or even 

ecosystem levels, as well as individual 

levels. Masking affects both senders and 

receivers of the signals and could have 

long-term chronic effects on marine 

mammal species and populations. 

Recent science suggests that low 

frequency ambient sound levels have 

increased by as much as 20 dB (more 

than three times in terms of sound 

pressure level) in the world’s ocean 

from pre-industrial periods, and most of 

these increases are from distant 

shipping (Hildebrand 2009). For Seattle 

DOT’s Pier 62 Project, noises from 

vibratory pile driving and pile removal 

contribute to the elevated ambient noise 

levels in the project area, thus 

increasing potential for or severity of 

masking. Baseline ambient noise levels 

in the vicinity of project area are high 

due to ongoing shipping, construction 

and other activities in the Puget Sound. 

Behavioral disturbance—Finally, 

marine mammals’ exposure to certain 

sounds could lead to behavioral 

disturbance (Richardson et al., 1995), 

such as: changing durations of surfacing 

and dives, number of blows per 

surfacing, or moving direction and/or 

speed; reduced/increased vocal 

activities; changing/cessation of certain 

behavioral activities (such as socializing 

or feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where noise sources are located; 

and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds 

flushing into water from haulouts or 

rookeries). 

The onset of behavioral disturbance 

from anthropogenic noise depends on 

both external factors (characteristics of 

noise sources and their paths) and the 

receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography) and is also 

difficult to predict (Southall et al., 

2007). Currently NMFS uses a received 

level of 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) to predict 

the onset of behavioral harassment from 

impulse noises (such as impact pile 

driving), and 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for 

continuous noises (such as vibratory 

pile driving). For the Seattle DOT’s Pier 

62 Project, both of these noise levels are 

considered for effects analysis because 

Seattle DOT plans to use both impact 

and vibratory pile driving, as well as 

vibratory pile removal. 

The biological significance of many of 

these behavioral disturbances is difficult 

to predict, especially if the detected 

disturbances appear minor. However, 

the consequences of behavioral 

modification could be biologically 

significant if the change affects growth, 

survival, and/or reproduction, which 

depends on the severity, duration, and 

context of the effects. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 30129 

Habitat—The primary potential 

impacts to marine mammal habitat are 

associated with elevated sound levels 

produced by pile driving and removal 

associated with marine mammal prey 

species. However, other potential 

impacts to the surrounding habitat from 

physical disturbance are also possible. 

Prey species for the various marine 

mammals include marine invertebrates 

and fish species. Short-term effects 

would occur to marine invertebrates 

during removal of existing piles. This 

effect is expected to be minor and shortterm on the overall population of 

marine invertebrates in Elliott Bay. 

Construction will also have temporary 

effects on salmonids and other fish 

species in the project area due to 

disturbance, turbidity, noise, and the 

potential resuspension of contaminants. 

All in-water work will occur during the 

designated in-water work window, to 

minimize effects on juvenile salmonids 

with the exception of some Chinook 

salmon that may be found along the 

seawall into October. Additionally, 

marine resident fish species are only 

present in limited numbers along the 

seawall during the in-water work season 

and primarily occur during the summer 

months, when work would not be 

occurring (Anchor QEA 2012). 

SPLs from impact pile driving has the 

potential to injure or kill fish in the 

immediate area. These few isolated fish 

mortality events are not anticipated to 

have a substantial effect on prey species 

population or their availability as a food 

resource for marine mammals. 

Studies also suggest that larger fish 

are generally less susceptible to death or 

injury than small fish. Moreover, 

elongated forms that are round in cross 

section are less at risk than deep-bodied 

forms. Orientation of fish relative to the 

shock wave may also affect the extent of 

injury. Open water pelagic fish (e.g., 

mackerel) seem to be less affected than 

reef fishes. The results of most studies 

are dependent upon specific biological, 

environmental, explosive, and data 

recording factors. 

The huge variation in fish 

populations, including numbers, 

species, sizes, and orientation and range 

from the detonation point, makes it very 

difficult to accurately predict mortalities 

at any specific site of detonation. Most 

fish species experience a large number 

of natural mortalities, especially during 

early life-stages, and any small level of 

mortality caused by the Seattle DOT’s 

impact pile driving will likely be 

insignificant to the population as a 

whole. 

For non-impulsive sound such as that 

of vibratory pile driving, experiments 

have shown that fish can sense both the 

strength and direction of sound 

(Hawkins 1981). Primary factors 

determining whether a fish can sense a 

sound signal, and potentially react to it, 

are the frequency of the signal and the 

strength of the signal in relation to the 

natural background noise level. 

The level of sound at which a fish 

will react or alter its behavior is usually 

well above the detection level. Fish 

have been found to react to sounds 

when the sound level increased to about 

20 dB above the detection level of 120 

dB (Ona 1988); however, the response 

threshold can depend on the time of 

year and the fish’s physiological 

condition (Engas et al. 1993). 

During construction activity of the 

Pier 62 Project, only a small fraction of 

the available habitat would be 

ensonified at any given time. 

Disturbance to fish species would be 

short-term and fish would return to 

their pre-disturbance behavior once the 

pile driving activity ceases. Thus, the 

proposed construction would have 

little, if any, impact on the abilities of 

marine mammals to feed in the area 

where construction work is proposed. 

Finally, the time of the proposed 

construction activity would avoid the 

spawning season of the ESA-listed 

salmonid species between March and 

July. 

Short-term turbidity is a water quality 

effect of most in-water work, including 

pile driving. Cetaceans are not expected 

to be close enough to the Pier 62 Project 

to experience turbidity, and any 

pinnipeds will be transiting the terminal 

area and could avoid localized areas of 

turbidity. Therefore, the impact from 

increased turbidity levels is expected to 

be discountable to marine mammals. 

For these reasons, any adverse effects 

to marine mammal habitat in the area 

from the Seattle DOT’s proposed Pier 62 

would not be significant. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which informed both NMFS’s 

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 would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as exposure to 

pile driving activities has the potential 

to result in disruption of behavioral 

patterns for individual marine 

mammals. There is also some potential 

for auditory injury (Level A harassment) 

to result, primarily for high frequency 

species due to larger predicted auditory 

injury zones. Auditory injury is unlikely 

to occur for mid-frequency species and 

most pinnipeds. The proposed 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

(i.e., shutdown zones, use of a bubble 

curtain, etc. as discussed in detail below 

in ‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ section), are 

expected to minimize the severity of 

such taking to the extent practicable. 

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 will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

these levels in a day; (3) the density or 

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the proposed take 

estimates. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

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. 2011). 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
30130 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 

based on received level to estimate the 

onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS 

predicts that marine mammals are likely 

to be behaviorally harassed in a manner 

we consider Level B harassment when 

exposed to underwater anthropogenic 

noise above received levels of 120 dB re 

1 mPa root mean square (rms) for 

continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, 

drilling) sources and above 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., impact pile driving sources. Seattle 

DOT’s proposed activity includes the 

use of continuous (vibratory pile driving 

and removal) and impulsive (impact 

pile driving) sources, and therefore the 

120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) are 

applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’s Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (NMFS, 2016a) 

identifies dual criteria to assess auditory 

injury (Level A harassment) to five 

different marine mammal groups (based 

on hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). Seattle DOT’s proposed 

activity includes the use of continuous 

(vibratory pile driving and removal) and 

impulsive (impact pile driving) sources. 

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 4 

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: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/ 

document/underwater-acousticthresholds-onset-permanent-andtemporary-threshold-shiftshttp://

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

guidelines.htm. 

TABLE 4—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset thresholds 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Lpk,flat: 219 dB ..................................................................

LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ..............................................................

LE,LF,24h: 199 dB 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Lpk,flat: 230 dB ..................................................................

LE,MF,24h: 185 dB .............................................................

LE,MF,24h: 198 dB 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Lpk,flat: 202 dB ..................................................................

LE,HF,24h: 155 dB .............................................................

LE,HF,24h: 173 dB 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) ....................................................

(Underwater) ....................................................................

Lpk,flat: 218 dB ..................................................................

LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ............................................................

LE,PW,24h: 201 dB 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) ....................................................

(Underwater) ....................................................................

Lpk,flat: 232 dB ..................................................................

LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ............................................................

LE,OW,24h: 219 dB 

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

also be considered. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that fed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds. 

Background noise is the sound level 

that would exist without the proposed 

activity (pile driving and removal, in 

this case), while ambient sound levels 

are those without human activity 

(NOAA 2009). The marine waterway of 

Elliott Bay is very active, and human 

factors that may contribute to 

background noise levels include ship 

traffic. Natural actions that contribute to 

ambient noise include waves, wind, 

rainfall, current fluctuations, chemical 

composition, and biological sound 

sources (e.g., marine mammals, fish, and 

shrimp; Carr et al. 2006). Background 

noise levels were compared to the 

relevant threshold levels designed to 

protect marine mammals to determine 

the Level B Harassment Zones for noise 

sources. Based on hydroacoustic 

monitoring conducted during Season 1 

of the Pier 62 Project to determine 

background noise in the vicinity of the 

project, the background level of 124 dB 

rms was used to calculate the 

attenuation for vibratory pile driving 

and removal in Season 2 (Greenbusch 

Group 2018). Although NMFS’s 

harassment threshold is typically 120 

dB for continuous noise, recent sitespecific measurements collected by The 

Greenbusch Group (2018) as required by 

the Season 1 IHA indicate that ambient 

sound levels are typically higher than 

this sound level and ranged from 117 dB 

to 145 dB. Therefore, we used the, 124 

dB rms (also the same noise level as 

Season 1), as the relevant threshold for 

Season 2 of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 

project, assuming that any noise 

generated by the project below 124 dB 

would be subsumed by the existing 

background noise and have little 

likelihood of causing additional 

behavioral disturbance. 

The source level of vibratory removal 

of 14-in timber piles is based on 

hydroacoustic monitoring 

measurements conducted at the Pier 62 

project site during Season 1 vibratory 

removal (Greenbusch Group 2018). The 

recorded source level ranged from 140 

to 169 dB rms re 1 micropascal (mPa) at 

10 meters (m) from the pile, with the 

75th percentile at 161 dB rms. This 

level, 161 dB rms, was chosen as the 

source value for vibratory timber 

removal in Season 2 because it is a 

conservative estimate of potential noise 

generation; 75 percent of the timber pile 

removal noise generated in Season 1 

was on average lower than 161 dB rms. 

The sound source levels for installation 

of the 30-in steel piles and 24-in 

template piles are based on surrogate 

data compiled by WSDOT. This value 

was also used for other pile driving 

projects (e.g., WSDOT Seattle 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 30131 

Multimodal Construction Project— 

Colman Dock (82 FR 31579; July 7, 

2017)) in the same area as the Seattle 

Pier 62 project. In February of 2016, 

WSDOT conducted a test pile project at 

Colman Dock. The measured results 

from Colman Dock were used for that 

project and also here to provide source 

levels for the prediction of isopleths 

ensonified over thresholds for the 

Seattle Pier 62 project. The results 

showed that the sound pressure level 

(SPL) root-mean-square (rms) for impact 

pile driving of a 36-in steel pile is 189 

dB re 1 mPa at 14 m from the pile 

(WSDOT 2016b). This value is also used 

for impact driving of the 30-in steel 

piles, which is a precautionary 

approach. Source level of vibratory pile 

driving of 36-in steel piles is based on 

test pile driving at Port Townsend in 

2010 (Laughlin 2011). Recordings of 

vibratory pile driving were made at a 

distance of 10 m from the pile. The 

results show that the SPLrms for 

vibratory pile driving of 36-in steel pile 

was 177 dB re 1 mPa (WSDOT 2016a). 

The source sound level of 177 dB is 

used for vibratory steel installation of 

30-in piles and 24-in template piles. The 

template pile activity occurs in 

conjunction with vibratory installation 

of 30-in steel piles. As such, the 

template pile activity is conservatively 

included as part of 30-in vibratory steel 

installation for the purposes of 

estimating take and monitoring the 

project activities. Sound generated by 

template pile activity (removal and 

installation of 24-in steel piles) is 

expected to be quieter than sound 

generated during vibratory steel 

installation of 30-in piles, because the 

piles are smaller and do not need to be 

driven as deep as structural, permanent 

30-in steel piles. 

The method of incidental take 

requested is Level B acoustical 

harassment of marine mammals within 

the 160 dB rms disturbance threshold 

(impact pile driving); the 120 dB rms 

disturbance threshold (vibratory pile 

driving); and the 120 dB rms 

disturbance threshold for vibratory 

removal of piles. Therefore, three 

different Level B Harassment/ 

Monitoring Zones were established and 

will be in place during pile driving 

installation or removal (Table 5). 

Measured ambient noise levels in the 

area are 124 dB; therefore, NMFS only 

considers take likely to occur in the area 

ensonified above 124 dB, as pile driving 

noise below 124 dB would likely be 

masked or their impacts diminished 

such that any reactions would not be 

considered take as a result of the high 

ambient noise levels. 

For the Level B Harassment/ 

Monitoring Zones, sound waves 

propagate in all directions when they 

travel through water until they dissipate 

to background levels or encounter 

barriers that absorb or reflect their 

energy, such as a landmass. Therefore, 

the area of the Level B Harassment/ 

Monitoring Zones was determined using 

land as the boundary on the north, east 

and south sides of the project. On the 

west, land was also used to establish the 

zone for vibratory driving. From Alki on 

the south and Magnolia on the north, a 

straight line of transmission was 

established out to Bainbridge Island. For 

impact driving (and vibratory removal), 

sound dissipates much quicker and the 

impact zone stays within Elliott Bay. 

Pile-related construction noise would 

extend throughout the nearshore and 

open water environments to just west of 

Alki Point and a limited distance into 

the East Waterway of the Lower 

Duwamish River, a highly industrialized 

waterway. Because landmasses block inwater construction noise, a ‘‘noise 

shadow’’ created by Alki Point is 

expected to be present immediately 

west of this feature (refer to Seattle 

DOT’s application for maps depicting 

the Level B Harassment/Monitoring 

Zones). 

TABLE 5—LEVEL B ZONE HARASSMENT/MONITORING ZONES DESCRIPTIONS AND DURATION OF ACTIVITY

Sound source Activity Construction 

method 

Level B 

threshold 

(m) 

Level B 

harassment 

zones 

(km2) 2

Days of 

activity 

1 .......................... Removal of 14-in Timber Piles ...... Vibratory 1 ....................................... 1,848 4.8 10 

2 .......................... Installation of 30-in Steel Piles and 

Temporary 24-in Template Steel 

Piles.

Vibratory 1 ....................................... 54,117 91 53 

3 .......................... Installation of 30-in Steel Piles ...... Impact ............................................ 2,929 2.3 64 

Notes: 

1The Level B thresholds for vibratory installation and removal were calculated to 124 dB rms as the actual ambient noise level rather than 120 

dB. 2The Level B Harassment Zones are not based on the distances given but represent actual ensonified area given the surrounding land configuration of Elliott Bay. 

When NMFS Technical Guidance 

(NMFS 2016) was published, in 

recognition of the fact that ensonified 

area/volume could be more technically 

challenging to predict because of the 

duration component in the new 

thresholds, we developed a User 

Spreadsheet that includes tools to help 

predict a simple isopleth that can be 

used in conjunction with marine 

mammal density or occurrence to help 

predict takes. We note that because of 

some of the assumptions included in the 

methods used for these tools, we 

anticipate that isopleths produced are 

typically going to be overestimates of 

some degree, which will result in some 

degree of overestimate of Level A 

harassment take. However, these tools 

offer the best way to predict appropriate 

isopleths when more sophisticated 3D 

modeling methods are not available, and 

NMFS continues to develop ways to 

quantitatively refine these tools, and 

will qualitatively address the output 

where appropriate. For stationary 

sources such as vibratory and impact 

pile driving, NMFS’s User Spreadsheet 

predicts the closest distance at which, if 

a marine mammal remained at that 

distance the whole duration of the 

activity, it would not incur PTS. Inputs 

used in the User Spreadsheet, and the 

resulting isopleths/Level A Harassment 

Zones are reported below. 

The PTS isopleths were identified for 

each hearing group for impact and 

vibratory installation and removal 

methods that will be used in the Pier 62 

Project. The PTS isopleth distances 

were calculated using the NMFS 

acoustic threshold calculator (NMFS 

2016), with inputs based on measured 

and surrogate noise measurements taken 

during the EBSP and from WSDOT, and 

estimating conservative working 

durations (Table 6 and Table 7). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
30132 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 6—NMFS TECHNICAL ACOUSTIC GUIDANCE USER SPREADSHEET INPUT TO PREDICT PTS ISOPLETHS/LEVEL A 

HARASSMENT

[User Spreadsheet Input] 

Sound source 

1 

Sound source 

2 

Sound source 

3 

Spreadsheet Tab Used (A) Vibratory 

pile driving 

(removal) 

(A) Vibratory 

pile driving 

(installation) 

(E.1) Impact 

pile driving 

(installation) 

Source Level (rms SPL) .............................................................................................................. a 161 dB b 180 dB ........................

Source Level (Single Strike/shot SEL) ........................................................................................ ........................ ........................ c 176 dB 

Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz) ............................................................................................. 2.5 2.5 2 

(a) Number of strikes in 1 h ........................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 20 

(a) Activity Duration (h) within 24-h period .................................................................................. 8 8 4 

Propagation (xLogR) .................................................................................................................... 15 15 15 

Distance of source level measurement (meters) † ...................................................................... 10 10 14 

aGreenbusch Group 2018. Pier 62 Project—Draft Acoustic Monitoring Season 1 (2017/2018) Report. Prepared for City of Seattle Department 

of Transportation. April 9, 2018. bSource level for 30-in steel piles was from test pile driving at Port Townsend Ferry Terminal in 2010. SPLrms for vibratory pile driving was 

177 dB re 1 μPa. and 3 dB was added for use of two hammers. cSource information is from the Underwater Sound Level Report: Colman Dock Test Pile Project 2016. 

TABLE 7—NMFS TECHNICAL ACOUSTIC GUIDANCE USER SPREADSHEET OUTPUT FOR PREDICTED PTS ISOPLETHS AND

LEVEL A HARASSMENT DAILY ENSONIFIED AREAS

[User Spreadsheet Output] 

Sound source type 

PTS isopleth (meters) 

Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

High-frequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

Otariid 

Pinnipeds 

1—Vibratory (pile removal) .............................................. 27.3 2.4 40.4 16.6 1.2 

2—Vibratory (installation) ................................................. 504.8 44.7 746.4 306.8 21.5 

3—Impact (installation) .................................................... 88.6 3.2 105.6 47.4 3.5 

Level A Harassment Daily ensonified area (km2) a

Vibratory (pile removal) .................................................... 0.001171 0.0000091 0.002564 0.000433 0.0000023 

Vibratory (installation) ...................................................... 0.400275 0.003139 0.875111 0.147853 0.000726 

Impact (installation) .......................................................... 0.012331 0.000016 0.017517 0.003529 1.92423E–05 

Note: 

a Daily ensonified areas were divided by two to only account for the ensonified area within the water and not over land. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Calculation and Estimation 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that informed the take calculation and 

we describe how the marine mammal 

occurrence information is brought 

together to produce a quantitative take 

estimate. In some cases (e.g., harbor 

seals and California sea lions) we used 

local monitoring to calculate estimated 

take; however, We also present take 

estimates (where available) using the 

species density data from the 2015 

Pacific Navy Marine Species Density 

Database (U.S. Navy 2015), as a 

comparison for estimated take of marine 

mammals. For harbor porpoise, we 

estimated take using the density 

estimates provided in Jefferson et al., 

2016 as this is the best available density 

information for this species. 

Where species density is available, 

take estimates are based on average 

marine mammal density in the project 

area multiplied by the area size of 

ensonified zones within which received 

noise levels exceed certain thresholds 

(i.e., Level A and B harassment) from 

specific activities, then multiplied by 

the total number of days such activities 

would occur. 

Unless otherwise described, 

incidental take is estimated by the 

following equation: 

Incidental take estimate = species 

density * zone of influence * days 

of pile-related activity 

However, adjustments were made for 

nearly every marine mammal species, 

whenever their local abundance is 

known through monitoring during 

Season 1 activities and other monitoring 

efforts. In those cases, the local 

abundance data was used for take 

calculations for the authorized take 

instead of general animal density (see 

below). 

Harbor Seal 

The take estimate for harbor seals for 

Pier 62 is based on local seal abundance 

information using the maximum 

number of seals (13) sighted in one day 

during the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project 

multiplied by the total of 127 pile 

driving days for the Seattle DOT Pier 62 

Project Season 2 for 1,651 seals. Fiftythree of the 127 days of activity would 

involve installation by vibratory pile 

driving, which has a much larger Level 

A Harassment Zone (306.8 m) than the 

Level A Harassment Zones for vibratory 

removal (16.6 m) and impact pile 

driving (47.4 m). Harbor seals may be 

difficult to observe at greater distances, 

therefore, during vibratory pile driving, 

it may not be known how long a seal is 

present in the Level A Harassment 

Zone. We estimate that four instances of 

harbor seals may occur by Level A 

harassment during these 53 days. Four 

instances of potential take by Level A 

harassment was based the local 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 30133 

observational data for harbor seals, the 

larger ensonified area during vibratory 

pile driving for installation, and our best 

professional judgment that an animal 

would remain within the injury zone for 

prolonged exposure of intense noise. 

The instances of take by Level B 

harassment (1,651 seals) was adjusted to 

exclude those already counted for 

instances of take bye Level A 

harassment, so the proposed authorized 

instances of take by Level B harassment 

is 1,647 harbor seals. 

As a comparison, using U.S. Navy 

species density estimates (U.S. Navy 

2015) for the inland waters of Puget 

Sound, potential take of harbor seal is 

shown in Table 8. Based on these 

calculations, instances of take by Level 

A is estimated at 10 harbor seals from 

vibratory pile driving and instances of 

take by Level B is estimated at 6,107 

harbor seals from all sound sources. 

However, observational data from 

previous projects on the Seattle 

waterfront have documented only a 

fraction of what is calculated using the 

Navy density estimates for Puget Sound. 

For example, between zero and seven 

seals were observed daily for the EBSP 

and 56 harbor seals were observed over 

10 days in the area with the maximum 

number of 13 harbor seals sighted 

during the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project 

(WSF 2016). During marine mammal 

monitoring for Season 1 of the Seattle 

DOT Pier 62 Project, 10 harbor seals 

were observed within the Level B 

Harassment/Monitoring Zone during 

vibratory activity. Project activities in 

Season 1, primarily timber vibratory 

removal, had a smaller Level B 

Harassment/Monitoring Zone than 

vibratory steel installation (the primary 

activity for Seasons 2), so it is expected 

that harbor seal observations and takes 

in Season 2 will be greater and will 

more closely resemble observational 

data from other monitoring efforts such 

as EBSP and Seattle Test Pile Project. 

TABLE 8—HARBOR SEAL ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Sound source Species density 

Level A 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

take 

Level A 

Estimated take 

Level B 

1 ............................................ 1.219 0.000176 4.8 10 0 58. 

2 ............................................ 1.219 0.147853 91 53 10 5,879 (*Adjusted 5,869). 

3 ............................................ 1.219 0.003529 2.3 64 0 180. 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

* Number of Level B takes was adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A takes. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

For the Northern elephant seal, the 

Whale Museum (as cited in WSDOT 

2016a) reported one sighting in the 

relevant area between 2008 and 2014. In 

addition, based on U.S. Navy species 

density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), 

potential take of northern elephant seal 

is expected to be zero. Therefore, the 

Seattle DOT is requesting authorization 

for an instance of take by Level B 

harassment of one northern elephant 

seal. 

California Sea Lion 

The take estimate of California sea 

lions for Pier 62 is based on Season 1 

marine mammal monitoring for the 

Seattle DOT Pier 62 Project and four 

seasons of local sea lion abundance 

information from the EBSP. Marine 

mammal visual monitoring during the 

EBSP indicates that a maximum of 15 

sea lions were observed in a day during 

4 years of project monitoring (Anchor 

QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017). Based on 

a total of 127 pile driving days for the 

Seattle Pier 62 project Season 2, it is 

estimated that up to 1,905 California sea 

lions (15 sea lions multiplied by 127 

days) could be exposed to noise levels 

associated with ‘‘take.’’ Since the 

calculated Level A Harassment Zones of 

otariids are all very small (Table 7), we 

do not consider it likely that any sea 

lions would be taken by Level A 

harassment. Therefore, all California sea 

lion takes estimated here are expected to 

be takes by Level B harassment and 

NMFS proposes to authorize instances 

of take by Level B harassment of 1,905 

California sea lions. 

As a comparison, using the U.S. Navy 

species density estimates (U.S. Navy 

2015) for the inland waters of 

Washington, including Eastern Bays and 

Puget Sound, potential take of California 

sea lion is shown in Table 9. The 

estimated instances of take by Level B 

harassment is 636 California sea lions. 

However, the Seattle DOT believes that 

this estimate is unrealistically low, 

based on local marine mammal 

monitoring. 

Sound source Species 

density 

Level A 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A take 

Estimated 

Level B take 

1 ............................................................... 0.1266 2.26E–06 4.8 10 0 6 

2 ............................................................... 0.1266 0.000726 91 53 0 611 

3 ............................................................... 0.1266 1.92423E–05 2.3 64 0 19 

Note: 

km 2—square kilometers. 

Steller Sea Lion 

No local monitoring data of Steller sea 

lions is available. Therefore, the 

estimated take for Steller sea lions is 

based on U.S. Navy species density 

estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), and is 

shown in Table 10. Since the calculated 

Level A Harassment Zones of otariids 

are all very small (Table 7), we do not 

consider it likely that any Steller sea 

lions would be taken by Level A 

harassment. The Seattle DOT is 

requesting authorization instances of 

take by Level B harassment of 185 

Steller sea lions. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
30134 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 10—STELLER SEA LION ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Sound source Species density 

Level A 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.0368 2.26E–06 4.8 10 0 2 

2 ............................................................... 0.0368 0.000726 91 53 0 178 

3 ............................................................... 0.0368 1.92423E–05 2.3 64 0 5 

Note: 

km 2—square kilometers. 

Southern Resident Killer Whale 

The take estimate of SRKW for Pier 62 

is based on local data and information 

from the Center for Whale Research 

(CWR). J-pod is the pod most likely to 

appear in the lower Puget Sound near 

Seattle with a group size of 

approximately 23 SRKW in 2017, 24 in 

2016, and 29 in 2015. (CWR 2017). 

Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize 

instances of take by Level B harassment 

of 23 SRKW based on a single 

occurrence of one pod (i.e., J Pod—23 

individuals) that would be most likely 

to be seen near Seattle. Since the Level 

A Harassment Zones of mid-frequency 

cetaceans are small (Table 7), we do not 

consider it likely that any SRKW would 

be taken by Level A harassment. 

The Seattle DOT will coordinate with 

the Orca Network and the CWR in an 

attempt to avoid all take of SRKW, but 

it may be possible that a group may 

enter the Level B Harassment/ 

Monitoring Zones before Seattle DOT 

could shut down due to the larger size 

of the Level B Harassment/Monitoring 

Zones particularly during vibratory pile 

driving (installation). 

As a comparison, using the U.S. Navy 

species density estimates (U.S. Navy 

2015) the density for the SRKW is 

variable across seasons and across the 

range. The inland water density 

estimates vary from 0.000000 to 

0.000090/km2 in summer, 0.001461 to 

0.004760/km2 in fall, and 0.004761 to 

0.020240/km2 in winter. Therefore, 

estimated takes as shown in Table 11 

are based on the highest density 

estimated during the winter season 

(0.020240/km2) for the SRKW 

population. With the variable winter 

density, estimates can range from 24 to 

102 SRKW, with the upper take estimate 

greater than the estimated population 

size. 

TABLE 11—SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALE ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Sound source Species 

density 

Level A 

ZOI (km2) 

Level B 

ZOI (km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

take 

1 0.020240 0.0000091 4.8 10 0 1 

2 0.020240 0.003139 91 53 0 98 

3 0.020240 0.000016 2.3 64 0 3 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

Transient Killer Whale 

The take estimate of transient killer 

whales for Pier 62 is based on local data. 

Seven transients were reported in the 

project area (Orca Network Archive 

Report 2016a). Therefore, NMFS 

proposes to authorize instances of take 

by Level B harassment of 42 transient 

killer whales, which would cover up to 

2 groups of up to 7 transient whales 

entering into the project area and 

remaining there for three days. Since the 

Level A Harassment Zones of midfrequency cetaceans are small (Table 7), 

we do not consider it likely that any 

transient killer whales would be taken 

by Level A harassment. 

As a comparison, based on U.S. Navy 

species density estimates (U.S. Navy 

2015), potential take of transient killer 

whale is shown in Table 12. As with the 

SRKW, the density estimate of transient 

killer whales is variable between 

seasons and regions. Density estimates 

range from 0.000575 to 0.001582/km2 in 

summer, from 0.001583 to 0.002373/ 

km2 in fall, and from 0.000575 to 

0.001582/km2 in winter. Work could 

occur throughout summer, fall and 

winter, so the highest estimate, fall 

density, was used to conservatively 

estimate take. For instances of take by 

Level B harassment, this results in a 

take estimate of twelve SRKW. 

However, the Seattle DOT believes that 

this estimate is low based on local data 

of seven transients that were reported in 

the area (Orca Network Archive Report 

2016a). 

TABLE 12—TRANSIENT KILLER WHALE ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Sound source Species 

density 

Level A 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.002373 0.000004 4.8 10 0 0 

2 ............................................................... 0.002373 0.003139 91 53 0 12 

3 ............................................................... 0.002373 0.000016 2.3 64 0 0 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 30135 

Long-beaked Common Dolphin 

The take estimate of Long-beaked 

common dolphin for Pier 62 is based on 

local monitoring data.. In 2016, the Orca 

Network (2016c) reported a pod of up to 

20 long-beaked common dolphins. 

Therefore, the Seattle DOT is requesting 

authorization for instances of take by 

Level B harassment of 20 long-beaked 

common dolphins. Since the Level A 

Harassment Zones of mid-frequency 

cetaceans are all very small (Table 7), 

we do not consider it likely that the 

long-beaked common dolphin would be 

taken by Level A harassment. Based on 

U.S. Navy species density estimates 

(U.S. Navy 2015), potential instances 

take of long-beaked common dolphin is 

expected to be zero; therefore, we 

believe it more appropriate to use local 

monitoring data. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

The take estimate of bottlenose 

dolphin for Pier 62 is based on local 

monitoring data. In 2017 the Orca 

Network (2017) reported sightings of a 

bottlenose dolphin in Puget Sound and 

in Elliott Bay, and WSDOT observed 

two bottlenose dolphins in one week 

during monitoring for the Colman Dock 

Multimodal Project (WSDOT 2017). In 

addition, a group of seven dolphins 

were observed in 2017 and were 

positively identified as part of the CA 

coastal stock (Cascadia Research 

Collective, 2017). Bottlenose dolphins 

typically travel in groups of 2 to 15 in 

coastal waters (NOAA 2017). Therefore, 

the Seattle DOT is requesting instances 

of takes by Level B harassment of seven 

bottlenose dolphins. Since the Level A 

Harassment Zones of mid-frequency 

cetaceans are all very small (Table 7), 

we do not consider it likely that the 

common bottlenose dolphin would be 

taken by Level A harassment. Based on 

U.S. Navy species density estimates 

(U.S. Navy 2015), instances of potential 

take by Level B harassment of bottlenose 

dolphin is expected to be zero; 

therefore, we believe it more 

appropriate to use local monitoring 

data. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Species density estimates from 

Jefferson et al. (2016), is the best 

available density data available for the 

potential take of harbor porpoise and is 

shown in Table 13. Instances of take by 

Level A harassment is estimated at 32 

harbor porpoises and instances of take 

by Level B harassment is estimated at 

3,431 exposures to harbor porpoises. 

Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize 

instances take by Level A harassment of 

32 harbor porpoises and instances of 

take by Level B harassment of 3,431 

harbor porpoises. 

TABLE 13—HARBOR PORPOISE ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON JEFFERSON et al., (2016) 

Sound source Species 

density 

Level A 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

take 

1 ............................................ 0.69 0.002564 4.8 10 0 33. 

2 ............................................ 0.69 0.875111 91 53 32 3,328 (* Adjusted 3,296). 

3 ............................................ 0.69 0.017517 2.3 64 0 102. 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers 

* Number of Level B takes was adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A takes. Take is instances not individuals. 

Dall’s Porpoise 

No local monitoring data of Dall’s 

porpoise is available. Therefore, the 

estimated instances of take for Dall’s 

porpoise is based on U.S. Navy species 

density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), as 

shown in Table 14. Based on these 

calculations, NMFS proposes to 

authorize instances of take by Level A 

harassment of two Dall’s porpoise and 

instances take by Level B harassment of 

196 Dall’s porpoise. 

TABLE 14—DALL’S PORPOISE ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Sound 

source 

Species 

density 

Level A ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

take 

1 ............. 0.039 0.002564 4.8 10 0 2. 

2 ............. 0.039 0.875111 91 53 2 190 (* Adjusted 188). 

3 ............. 0.039 0.017517 2.3 64 0 6. 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

* Number of Level B takes was adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A takes. 

Humpback Whale 

Based on U.S. Navy species density 

estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential 

take of humpback whale is shown in 

Table 15. Although the standard take 

calculations would result in an 

estimated take of less than one 

humpback whale, to be conservative, 

the Seattle DOT is requesting 

authorization for instances of take by 

Level B harassment of five humpback 

whales based on take during previous 

work in Elliott Bay where two 

humpback whales were observed, 

including one take, during the 175 days 

of work during the previous four years 

(Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 

2017). Since the Level A Harassment 

Zones of low-frequency cetaceans are 

smaller during vibratory removal (27.3 

m) or impact installation (88.6 m) 

compared to the Level A Harassment 

Zone for vibratory installation (504.8 m) 

(Table 7), we do not consider it likely 

that any humpbacks would be taken by 

Level A harassment during removal or 

impact installation. We also do not 

believe any humpbacks would be taken 

during vibratory installation due to the 

ability to see humpbacks easily during 

monitoring and additional coordination 

with the Orca Network and the CWR 

which would enable the work to be shut 

down before a humpback would be 

taken by Level A harassment. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
30136 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 15—HUMPBACK WHALE ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Sound 

source 

Species 

density 

Level A ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A take 

Estimated 

Level B take 

1 ............................................................... 0.00001 0.001171 4.8 10 0 0 

2 ............................................................... 0.00001 0.400275 91 53 0 0 

3 ............................................................... 0.00001 0.012331 2.3 64 0 0 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

Gray Whale 

No local monitoring data of gray 

whales is available. Therefore, the 

instances of estimated take for gray 

whales is based on U.S. Navy species 

density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), as 

shown in Table 16. Therefore, the 

Seattle DOT is requesting authorization 

for instances of take by Level B 

harassment of four gray whales. Since 

the Level A Harassment Zones of lowfrequency cetaceans are smaller during 

vibratory removal (27.3 m) or impact 

installation (88.6 m) compared to the 

Level A Harassment Zone for vibratory 

installation (504.8 m) (Table 7), we do 

not consider it likely that any gray 

whales would be taken by Level A 

harassment during removal or impact 

installation. We also do not believe any 

gray whales would be taken by Level A 

harassment during vibratory installation 

due to the ability to see gray whales 

easily during monitoring and additional 

coordination with the Orca Network and 

the CWR, which would enable the work 

to be shut down before a gray whale 

would be taken by Level A harassment. 

TABLE 16—GRAY WHALE ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Sound 

source 

Species 

density 

Level A ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A take 

Estimated 

Level B take 

1 ............................................................... 0.00051 0.001171 4.8 10 0 0 

2 ............................................................... 0.00051 0.400275 91 53 0 3 

3 ............................................................... 0.00051 0.012331 2.3 64 0 1 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

Minke Whale 

Between 2008 and 2014, the Whale 

Museum (as cited in WSDOT 2016a) 

reported one sighting in the relevant 

area. To be conservative the Seattle DOT 

is requesting authorization for instances 

of take by Level B harassment of two 

minke whales, based on previous 

sightings in the construction area by the 

Whale Museum. Based on the low 

probability that a minke whale would be 

observed during the project and then 

also enter into a Level A zone, we do 

not consider it likely that any minke 

whales would be taken by Level A 

harassment. As a comparison, based on 

U.S. Navy species density estimates 

(U.S. Navy 2015), the instance of 

potential take of minke whales is 

expected to be zero (Table 17). 

TABLE 17—MINKE WHALE ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Level B 

zone 

Species 

density 

Level A ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B ZO I 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A take 

Estimated 

Level B take 

1 ............................................................... 0.00003 0.001171 4.8 10 0 0 

2 ............................................................... 0.00003 0.400275 91 53 0 <1 

3 ............................................................... 0.00003 0.012331 2.3 64 0 0 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

The summary of the authorized take 

by Level A and Level B Harassment is 

described below in Table 18. 

TABLE 18—SUMMARY OF REQUESTED INCIDENTAL TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT

Species Stock size Authorized 

Level A take 

Authorized 

Level B take Authorized total take % of population 

Pacific harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina).

11,036 4 1,647 a .................................. 1,651 .................................... 14.96. 

Northern elephant seal 

(Mirounga angustirostris).

179,000 0 1 b ......................................... 1 ........................................... Less than 1. 

California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus).

296,750 0 1,905 c .................................. 1,905 .................................... Less than 1. 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias 

jubatus).

41,638 0 185 ....................................... 185 ....................................... Less than 1. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 30137 

TABLE 18—SUMMARY OF REQUESTED INCIDENTAL TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT—Continued 

Species Stock size Authorized 

Level A take 

Authorized 

Level B take Authorized total take % of population 

Southern resident killer 

whale DPS (Orcinus orca).

83 0 23 (single occurrence of one 

pod) d.

23 (single occurrence of one 

pod).

27.1. 

Transient killer whale 

(Orcinus orca).

240 0 42 e ....................................... 42 ......................................... 17.5. 

Long-beaked common dolphin (Dephinus capensis).101,305 0 20 f ....................................... 20 ......................................... Less than 1. 

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus).

1,924 0 7 g ......................................... 7 ........................................... Less than 1. 

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena).

11,233 32 3,431 .................................... 3,463 .................................... 30.82. 

Dall’s porpoise 

(Phocoenoides dalli).

25,750 2 196 ....................................... 198 ....................................... Less than 1. 

Humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaengliae).

1,918 0 5 h ......................................... 5 ........................................... Less than 1. 

Gray whale (Eschrichtius 

robustus).

20,990 0 4 ........................................... 4 ........................................... Less than 1. 

Minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata).

636 0 2 i .......................................... 2 ........................................... Less than 1. 

Note: 

aThe take estimate is based on a maximum of 13 seals observed on a given day during the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project. The number of 

Level B takes was adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A takes. bThe take estimate is based on The Whale Museum (as cited in WSDOT 2016a) reporting one sighting of a northern elephant seal in the area 

between 2008 and 2014. cThe take estimate is based on a maximum of 15 California sea lions observed on a given day during 4 monitoring seasons of the EBSP 

project. dThe take estimate is based on a single occurrence of one pod of SRKW (i.e., J-pod of 24 SRKW) that would be most likely to be seen near 

Seattle. eThe take estimate is based on local data which is greater than the estimates produced using the Navy density estimates. 

fThe take estimate is based on the Orca Network (2016c) reporting a pod of up to 20 long-beaked common dolphins. 

gThe take estimate is based on local data. A group of seven dolphins were observed in Puget Sound in 2017 and were positively identified as 

part of the CA coastal stock (Cascadia Research Collective, 2017). . hThe take estimate is based on take during previous work in Elliott Bay, where two humpback whales were observed and is greater than what 

was calculated using 2015 Navy density estimates. iThe take estimate is based on The Whale Museum (as cited in WSDOT 2016a) reporting one sighting in the relevant area. Although the take 

calculations would result in an estimated take of less than one minke whale, to be conservative the Seattle DOT is requesting take of two minke 

whales. 

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 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 (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 will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) the likelihood 

of effective implementation (probability 

implemented as planned), and; 

(2) the practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations. 

Several measures for mitigating effects 

on marine mammals and their habitat 

from the pile installation and removal 

activities at Pier 62 are described below. 

Timing Restrictions 

All work will be conducted during 

daylight hours. 

Pre-Construction Briefing 

Seattle DOT shall conduct briefings 

for construction supervisors and crews, 

the monitoring team, and Seattle DOT 

staff prior to the start of all pile driving 

activity, and when new personnel join 

the work, in order to explain 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, the marine mammal 

monitoring protocol, and operational 

procedures. 

Bubble Curtain 

A bubble curtain will be used during 

pile driving activities with an impact 

hammer to reduce sound levels. Seattle 

DOT has stated as part of their specified 

activity that they and has agreed to 

employ a bubble curtain during impact 

pile driving of steel piles and will 

implement the following bubble curtain 

performance standards: 

(i) The bubble curtain must distribute 

air bubbles around 100 percent of the 

piling perimeter for the full depth of the 

water column. 

(ii) The lowest bubble curtain ring 

will be deployed on or as close to the 

mudline for the full circumference of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
30138 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 

the ring as possible, without causing 

turbidity. 

(iii) Seattle DOT will require that 

construction contractors train personnel 

in the proper balancing of air flow to the 

bubblers, and will require that 

construction contractors submit an 

inspection/performance report for 

approval by Seattle DOT within 72 

hours following the performance test. 

Corrections to the attenuation device to 

meet the performance standards will 

occur prior to impact driving. 

Shutdown Zones 

Shutdown Zones will be implemented 

to protect marine mammals from Level 

A harassment (Table 20 below). The 

PTS isopleths described in Table 7 were 

used as a starting point for calculating 

the shutdown zones; however, Seattle 

DOT will implement a minimum 

shutdown zone of a 10 m radius around 

each pile for all construction methods 

for all marine mammals. Therefore, in 

some cases the shutdown zone will be 

slightly larger than was calculated for 

the PTS isopleths as described in Table 

7 (i.e., for mid-frequency cetaceans and 

otariid pinnipeds). Outside of any Level 

A take authorized, if a marine mammal 

is observed at or within the Shutdown 

Zone, work will shut down (stop work) 

until the individual has been observed 

outside of the zone, or has not been 

observed for at least 15 minutes for all 

marine mammals. A determination that 

the shutdown zone is clear must be 

made during a period of good visibility 

(i.e., the entire shutdown zone and 

surrounding waters must be visible to 

the naked eye). If a marine mammal 

approaches or enters the shutdown zone 

during activities or pre-activity 

monitoring, all pile driving activities at 

that location shall be halted or delayed, 

respectively. If pile driving is halted or 

delayed due to the presence of a marine 

mammal, the activity may not resume or 

commence until either the animal has 

voluntarily left and been visually 

confirmed beyond the shutdown zone 

and 15 minutes have passed without redetection of the animal. 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. 

TABLE 20—SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR VARIOUS PILE DRIVING ACTIVITIES FOR MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

Sound source type 

Shutdown Zones 

(meters) 

Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

Highfrequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

1—Vibratory (pile removal) .................................................. 27 10 40 17 10 

2—Vibratory (installation) ..................................................... 505 45 746 307 22 

3—Impact (installation) ........................................................ 89 10 106 47 10 

Additional Shutdown Measures 

For in-water heavy machinery 

activities other than pile driving, 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. 

Seattle DOT will implement 

shutdown measures if the cumulative 

total number of individuals observed 

within the Level B Harassment/ 

Monitoring Zones (below in Table 21) 

for any particular species reaches the 

number authorized under the IHA and 

if such marine mammals are sighted 

within the vicinity of the project area 

and are approaching the Level B 

Harassment/Monitoring Zone during inwater construction activities. 

Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones 

Seattle DOT will monitor the Level B 

Harassment/Monitoring Zones as 

described in Table 21. 

TABLE 21—LEVEL B HARASSMENT/MONITORING ZONES FOR VARIOUS PILE DRIVING ACTIVITIES

Activity Construction 

method 

Level B 

threshold 

(m) 

Level B ZOI 

(km2) 

Removal of 14-in Timber Piles ................................................................................................. Vibratory ........... 1,848 4.8 

Installation of 30-in Steel Piles ................................................................................................. Vibratory ........... 54,117 91 

Installation of 30-in Steel Piles ................................................................................................. Impact ............... 2,929 2.3 

Soft-Start for Impact Pile Driving 

Each day at the beginning of impact 

pile driving or any time there has been 

cessation or downtime of 30 minutes or 

more without impact pile driving, 

Seattle DOT will use the soft-start 

technique by providing an initial set of 

three strikes from the impact hammer at 

40 percent energy, followed by a 30- 

secondwaiting period, then two 

subsequent three-strike sets. 

Additional Coordination 

The project team will monitor and 

coordinate with local marine mammal 

networks on a daily basis (i.e., Orca 

Network and/or the CWR) for sightings 

data and acoustic detection data to 

gather information on the location of 

whales prior to pile removal or pile 

driving activities. The project team will 

also coordinate with WSF to discuss 

marine mammal sightings on days when 

pile driving and removal activities are 

occurring on their nearby projects. 

Marine mammal monitoring will be 

conducted to collect information on the 

presence of marine mammals within the 

Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones 

for this project. In addition, reports will 

be made available to interested parties 

upon request. With this level of 

coordination in the region of activity, 

Seattle DOT will get real-time 

information on the presence or absence 

of whales before starting any pile 

driving or removal activities. 

During Season 1, Seattle DOT carried 

out additional voluntary mitigation 

measures during pile driving and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 30139 

removal activities to minimize impacts 

from noise on the Seattle Aquarium’s 

captive marine mammals as well as for 

air and water quality concerns. These 

measures were successfully coordinated 

and implemented, and Seattle DOT will 

implement the same measures during 

Season 2 work, as follows: 

1. If aquarium animals are determined 

by the Aquarium veterinarian to be 

distressed, Seattle DOT will coordinate 

with Aquarium staff to determine 

appropriate next steps, which may 

include suspending pile driving work 

for 30 minutes, provided that 

suspension does not pose a safety issue 

for the Pier 62 project construction 

crews. 

2. Seattle DOT will make reasonable 

efforts to take at least one regularly 

scheduled 20-minute break in pile 

driving each day. 

3. Seattle DOT will regularly 

communicate with the Aquarium staff 

when pile driving is occurring. 

4. Seattle DOT will further coordinate 

with the Aquarium to determine 

appropriate methods to avoid and 

minimize impacts to water quality. 

5. Seattle DOT does not anticipate the 

project resulting in impacts associated 

with airborne dust. If, during 

construction, odors associated with the 

project are an issue, Seattle DOT will 

coordinate with its contractor to 

determine appropriate mitigation 

measures. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s mitigation measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the mitigation measures provide the 

means of effecting the least practicable 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

and their habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking.’’ The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) 

indicate that requests for authorizations 

must include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present in the action 

area. Effective reporting is critical both 

to compliance as well as ensuring that 

the most value is obtained from the 

required monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Marine mammal monitoring will be 

conducted at all times during in-water 

pile driving and pile removal activities 

in strategic locations around the area of 

potential effects as described below: 

D During pile removal or installation 

with a vibratory hammer, three to four 

monitors would be used, positioned 

such that each monitor has a distinct 

view-shed and the monitors collectively 

have overlapping view-sheds (refer to 

Appendix A, Figures 1–3 of the Seattle 

DOT’s application). 

D During pile driving activities with 

an impact hammer, one monitor, based 

at or near the construction site, will 

conduct the monitoring. 

D In the case(s) where visibility 

becomes limited, additional land-based 

monitors and/or boat-based monitors 

may be deployed. 

D Monitors will record take when 

marine mammals enter the relevant 

Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones 

based on type of construction activity. 

D If a marine mammal approaches a 

Shutdown Zone, the observation will be 

reported to the Construction Manager 

and the individual will be watched 

closely. If the marine mammal crosses 

into a Shutdown Zone, a stop-work 

order will be issued. In the event that a 

stop-work order is triggered, the 

observed marine mammal(s) will be 

closely monitored while it remains in or 

near the Shutdown Zone, and only 

when it moves well outside of the 

Shutdown Zone or has not been 

observed for at least 15 minutes for 

pinnipeds and small cetaceans and 30 

minutes for large whales will the lead 

monitor allow work to recommence. 

Protected Species Observers 

Seattle DOT will employ NMFSapproved protected species observers 

(PSOs) to conduct marine mammal 

monitoring for its Pier 62 Project. The 

PSOs will observe and collect data on 

marine mammals in and around the 

project area for 30 minutes before, 

during, and for 30 minutes after all pile 

removal and pile installation work. 

NMFS-approved PSOs will meet the 

following requirements: 

1. Independent observers (i.e., not 

construction personnel) are required. 

2. At least one observer must have 

prior experience working as an observer. 

3. Other observers may substitute 

education (undergraduate degree in 

biological science or related field) or 

training for experience. 

4. Where a team of three or more 

observers are required, one observer 

should be designated as lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator. The lead 

observer must have prior experience 

working as an observer. 

5. NMFS will require submission and 

approval of observer CVs. 

6. PSOs will monitor marine 

mammals around the construction site 

using high-quality binoculars (e.g., 

Zeiss, 10 x 42 power) and/or spotting 

scopes. Due to the different sizes of the 

Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones 

from different pile sizes, several 

different Level B Harassment/ 

Monitoring Zones and different 

monitoring protocols corresponding to a 

specific pile size will be established. 

7. If marine mammals are observed, 

the following information will be 

documented: 

(A) Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends; 

(B) Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period; 

(C) Weather parameters (e.g., percent 

cover, visibility); 

(D) Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tide state); 

(E) Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

sex and age class of marine mammals; 

(F) Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
30140 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 

including bearing and direction of travel 

and distance from pile driving activity; 

(G) Distance from pile driving 

activities to marine mammals and 

distance from the marine mammals to 

the observation point; 

(H) Locations of all marine mammal 

observations; and 

(I) Other human activity in the area. 

Acoustic Monitoring 

In addition, acoustic monitoring will 

occur on up to six days per in-water 

work season to evaluate, in real time, 

sound production from construction 

activities and will capture all 

hammering scenarios that may occur 

under the proposed project. Background 

noise recordings (in the absence of pilerelated work) will also be made during 

the study to provide a baseline 

background noise profile. Acoustic 

monitoring will follow NMFS’s 2012 

Guidance Documents: Sound 

Propagation Modeling to Characterize 

Pile Driving Sounds Relevant to Marine 

Mammals; Data Collection Methods to 

Characterize Impact and Vibratory Pile 

Driving Source Levels Relevant to 

Marine Mammals; and Data Collection 

Methods to Characterize Underwater 

Background Sound Relevant to Marine 

Mammals in Coastal Nearshore Waters 

and Rivers of Washington and Oregon. 

The results and conclusions of the 

acoustic monitoring will be summarized 

and presented to NMFS with 

recommendations on any modifications 

to this plan or Shutdown Zones. 

Reporting Measures 

Marine Mammal Monitoring Report 

Seattle DOT will submit a draft 

marine mammal monitoring report 

within 90 days after completion of the 

in-water construction work, the 

expiration of the IHA (if issued), or 60 

days prior to the requested date of 

issuance of any subsequent IHA, 

whichever sooner. The report would 

include data from marine mammal 

sightings as described: Date, time, 

location, species, group size, and 

behavior, any observed reactions to 

construction, distance to operating pile 

hammer, and construction activities 

occurring at time of sighting and 

environmental data for the period (i.e., 

wind speed and direction, sea state, 

tidal state, cloud cover, and visibility). 

The marine mammal monitoring report 

will also include total takes, takes by 

day, and stop-work orders for each 

species. NMFS will have an opportunity 

to provide comments on the report, and 

if NMFS has comments, Seattle DOT 

will address the comments and submit 

a final report to NMFS within 30 days. 

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 

(Level A harassment), serious injury, or 

mortality, Seattle DOT would 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and immediately report the 

incident to the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS and the 

NMFS’ West Coast Stranding 

Coordinator. The report must include 

the following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Name and type of vessel involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Description of the incident; 

• Status of all sound source use in the 

24 hrs preceding the incident; 

• Water depth; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, sea state, 

cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hrs 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 would not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS would work with Seattle DOT to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. Seattle DOT may not 

resume their activities until notified by 

NMFS via letter, email, or telephone. 

Reporting of Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the event that Seattle DOT 

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 (i.e., in less than a moderate state 

of decomposition as described in the 

next paragraph), Seattle DOT will 

immediately report the incident to the 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS 

and the NMFS’ West Coast Stranding 

Coordinator. The report must include 

the same information identified in the 

paragraph above. Activities may 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

would work with Seattle DOT to 

determine whether modifications in the 

activities are appropriate. 

In the event that Seattle DOT 

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), Seattle DOT will 

report the incident to the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS and the 

NMFS Stranding Hotline and/or by 

email to the NMFS’ West Coast 

Stranding Coordinator within 24 hrs of 

the discovery. Seattle DOT would 

provide photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS. 

Activities may continue while NMFS 

reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. 

Acoustic Monitoring Report 

Seattle DOT will submit an Acoustic 

Monitoring Report within 90 days after 

completion of the in-water construction 

work or the expiration of the IHA (if 

issued), whichever comes earlier. The 

report will provide details on the 

monitored piles, method of installation, 

monitoring equipment, and sound levels 

documented during both the sound 

source measurements and the 

background monitoring. NMFS will 

have an opportunity to provide 

comments on the report or changes in 

monitoring for a third season (if 

needed), and if NMFS has comments, 

Seattle DOT will address the comments 

and submit a final report to NMFS 

within 30 days. If no comments are 

received from NMFS within 30 days, the 

draft report will be considered final. 

Any comments received during that 

time will be addressed in full prior to 

finalization of the report. 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 30141 

(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). 

No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized for the Pier 62 

Project (Season 2). Takes that are 

anticipated and authorized are expected 

to be limited to short-term Level A and 

Level B (behavioral) harassment. Marine 

mammals present in the vicinity of the 

action area and taken by Level A and 

Level B harassment would most likely 

show overt brief disturbance (startle 

reaction) and avoidance of the area from 

elevated noise levels during pile driving 

and pile removal. However, many 

marine mammals showed no observable 

changes during Season 1 of the Pier 62 

project and similar project activities for 

the EBSP. 

A fair number of instances of takes are 

expected to be repeat takes of the same 

animals. This is particularly true for 

harbor porpoise, because they generally 

use subregions of Puget Sound, and the 

abundance of the Seattle sub-region 

from the Puget Sound Study was 

estimated to be 147 animals, which is 

much lower than the calculated take. 

Very few harbor porpoises have been 

observed during past projects in Elliott 

Bay (ranging from one to five harbor 

porpoises). 

There are two endangered species that 

may occur in the project area, 

humpback whales and SRKW. However, 

few humpbacks are expected to occur in 

the project area and few have been 

observed during previous projects in 

Elliott Bay. SRKW have occurred in 

small numbers in the project area. 

Seattle DOT will shut down in the Level 

B Harassment/Monitoring Zones should 

they meet or exceed the take of one 

occurrence of one pod (J-pod, 24 

whales). 

There is ESA-designated critical 

habitat in the vicinity of Seattle DOT’s 

Pier 62 Project for SRKW. However, this 

IHA is authorizing the harassment of 

marine mammals, not the production of 

sound, which is what would result in 

adverse effects to critical habitat for 

SRKW. 

There is one documented harbor seal 

haulout area near Bainbridge Island, 

approximately 6 miles (9.66 km) from 

Pier 62. The haulout, which is estimated 

at less than 100 animals, consists of 

intertidal rocks and reef areas around 

Blakely Rocks and is at the outer edge 

of potential effects at the outer extent 

near Bainbridge Island (Jefferies et al. 

2000). The recent level of use of this 

haulout is unknown. Harbor seals also 

make use of docks, buoys, and beaches 

in the project area, as noted in marine 

mammal monitoring reports for Season 

1 of the Pier 62 Project and for the EBSP 

(Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 

2017).The observational data from 

previous projects on the Seattle 

waterfront have documented only a 

fraction of what is calculated using the 

Navy density estimates for Puget Sound; 

therefore, we believe the actual take will 

be much lower than the calculated take. 

Similarly, the nearest Steller sea lion 

haulout to the project area is located 

approximately 6 miles away (9.66 km) 

and is also on the outer edge of potential 

effects. This haulout is composed of net 

pens offshore of the south end of 

Bainbridge Island. There are four 

documented California sea lion haulout 

areas near Bainbridge Island as well, 

approximately six miles from Pier 62, 

and two documented haulout areas 

between Bainbridge Island and 

Magnolia (Jefferies et al. 2000). The 

haulouts consist of buoys and floats, 

and some are within the area of 

potential effects, but at the outer extent, 

and some are just outside the area of 

potential effects (Jefferies et al. 2000). 

California sea lions were also frequently 

observed during marine mammal 

monitoring for Season 1 of the Pier 62 

project (average of eight sea lions) at the 

Alki monitoring site and were 

frequently observed resting on two 

buoys in the southwest area of Elliott 

Bay. California sea lions were also 

frequently observed during the EBSP 

(average seven per day in 2014 and 

2015, and three per day in 2016 and 

2017; Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, 

and 2017), resting on two navigational 

buoys within the project area (near Alki 

Point) and swimming along the 

shoreline near the project. 

The project also is not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammal habitat, as 

analyzed in the ‘‘Potential Effects of 

Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals and their Habitat’’ section. 

Project activities would not 

permanently modify existing marine 

mammal habitat. The activities may kill 

some fish and cause other fish to leave 

the area temporarily, thus impacting 

marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities in a limited portion of the 

foraging range; but, 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. Therefore, given the 

consideration of potential impacts to 

marine mammal prey species and their 

physical environment, Seattle DOT’s 

Pier 62 Project would not adversely 

affect marine mammal habitat. 

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 stocks through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized. 

• Takes that are anticipated and 

authorized are expected to be limited to 

short-term Level B harassment 

(behavioral) and a small number of takes 

of Level A harassment for three species. 

• The project also is not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitat. 

• There are no known important 

feeding or pupping areas. There are 

haulouts for California sea lions, harbor 

seals and Steller sea lions. However, 

they are at the most outer edge of the 

potential effects and approximately 6.6 

miles from Pier 62. There are no other 

known important areas for marine 

mammals. 

• For nine of the twelve species, take 

is less than one percent of the stock 

abundance. Instances of take for the 

other three species (harbor seals, killer 

whales, and harbor porpoise) range from 

about 15–31 percent of the stock 

abundance. One occurrence of J-pod of 

SRKW would account for 29 percent of 

the stock abundance. However, when 

the fact that a fair number of these 

instances are expected to be repeat takes 

of the same animals is considered, 

particularly for harbor porpoise, the 

number of individual marine mammals 

taken is significantly lower. 

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 preliminarily finds that the total 

marine mammal take from the proposed 

activity will have a negligible impact on 

all affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
30142 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 

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 factors may be 

considered in the analysis, such as the 

temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

Take of nine of the twelve species is 

less than one percent of the stock 

abundance. Instances of take for the 

SRKW and transient killer whales, 

harbor seals, and harbor porpoise ranges 

from about 15–31 percent of the stock 

abundance. However, when the fact that 

a fair number of these instances are 

expected to be repeat takes of the same 

animals is considered, the number of 

individual marine mammals taken is 

significantly lower. Specifically, for 

example, Jefferson et al., 2016 

conducted harbor porpoise surveys in 

eight regions of Puget Sound, and 

estimated an abundance of 147 harbor 

porpoise in the Seattle area (1,798 

porpoise in North Puget Sound and 599 

porpoise in South Puget Sound). While 

individuals do move between regions, 

we would not realistically expect that 

3000+ individuals would be exposed 

around the pile driving for the Seattle 

DOT’s Pier 62 Project. Considering these 

factors, as well as the general small size 

of the project area as compared to the 

range of the species affected, the 

numbers of marine mammals estimated 

to be taken are small proportions of the 

total populations of the affected species 

or stocks. Further, for SRKW we 

acknowledge that 27.1 percent of the 

stock is authorized to be taken by Level 

B harassment, but we believe that a 

single, brief incident of take of one 

group of any species represents take of 

small numbers for that species. We 

believe transient killer whales also 

represents small numbers, as the 

estimated take is very conservative. 

Estimated take was derived on local 

data of seven transients that were 

observed. However to be conservative, it 

was assumed that up to two groups of 

seven transient killer whales may pass 

through Elliott Bay and stay in the area 

for up to three days for a total of 42 

takes (17.5 percent of the stock). We also 

believe harbor seal take represents small 

numbers. Although 14.96 percent of the 

stock is authorized, the estimated take 

was based on a maximum number of 

harbor seals observed in a day (13) and 

is therefore conservative as to what has 

been observed previously. Observations 

from Season 1 of the Pier 62 project 

ranged from 0 to 11 harbor seals daily. 

Based on the analysis contained herein 

of the proposed activity (including the 

mitigation and monitoring measures) 

and the anticipated take of marine 

mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that small numbers of marine mammals 

will be taken relative to the population 

sizes 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 preliminary 

determined that the total taking of 

affected species or stocks would not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the availability of such species or stocks 

for taking for subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each 

Federal agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the West Coast Regional 

Office (WCRO), whenever we propose to 

authorize take for endangered or 

threatened species. 

NMFS is proposing to authorize take 

of SRKW and humpback whales, which 

are listed under the ESA. The Permit 

and Conservation Division has 

requested initiation of Section 7 

consultation with the West Coast 

Regional Office for the issuance of this 

IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA 

consultation prior to reaching a 

determination regarding the proposed 

issuance of the authorization. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to Seattle DOT for conducting 

piledriving activities at Pier 62 (Season 

2), Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington from 

August 2018 through February 2019, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. This 

section contains a draft of the IHA itself. 

The wording contained in this section is 

proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if 

issued). 

The proposed IHA language is 

provided next. 

1. This Authorization is valid from 

August 1, 2018, through February 28, 

2019. 

2. This Authorization is valid only for 

activities associated with in-water 

construction work at the Seattle 

Department of Transportation’s (Seattle 

DOT) Pier 62 Project (Season 2) in 

Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington. 

3. General Conditions 

(a) The species authorized for taking, 

by Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment, and in the numbers shown 

in Table 18 are: Harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina), northern elephant seal 

(Mirounga angustirostris), California sea 

lion (Zalophus californianus), Steller 

sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Dall’s 

porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), longbeaked common dolphin (Delphinus 

capensis), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus), both southern resident killer 

whale (SRKW) and transient killer 

whale (Orcinus orca), humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae), gray whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus), and minke 

whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). 

(b) The authorization for taking by 

harassment is limited to the following 

acoustic sources and from the following 

activities: 

D Impact pile driving; 

D Vibratory pile driving; and 

D Vibratory pile removal 

4. Prohibitions 

The taking, by incidental harassment 

only, is limited to the species listed 

under condition 3(a) above and by the 

numbers listed in Table 18 of this 

notice. The taking by serious injury or 

death of these species or the taking by 

harassment, injury or death of any other 

species of marine mammal is prohibited 

unless separately authorized or 

exempted under the MMPA and may 

result in the modification, suspension, 

or revocation of this Authorization. 

5. Mitigation Measures 

The holder of this Authorization shall 

be required to implement the following 

mitigation measures: 

(a) Timing Restriction 

In-water construction work shall 

occur only during daylight hours. 

(b) Pre-Construction Briefing 

Seattle DOT shall conduct briefings 

for construction supervisors and crews, 

the monitoring team, and Seattle DOT 

staff prior to the start of all pile driving 

activity, and when new personnel join 

the work, in order to explain 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 30143 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, the marine mammal 

monitoring protocol, and operational 

procedures. 

(c) Bubble Curtain 

A bubble curtain shall be used during 

pile driving activities with an impact 

hammer and will be conducted using 

the following bubble curtain 

performance standards: 

(i) The bubble curtain must distribute 

air bubbles around 10 percent of the 

piling perimeter for the full depth of the 

water column. 

(ii) The lowest bubble curtain ring 

shall be deployed on or as close to the 

mudline for the full circumference of 

the ring as possible, without causing 

turbidity. 

(iii) Seattle DOT shall require that 

construction contractors train personnel 

in the proper balancing of air flow to the 

bubblers, and shall require that 

construction contractors submit an 

inspection/performance report for 

approval by Seattle DOT within 72 

hours following the performance test. 

Corrections to the attenuation device to 

meet the performance standards shall 

occur prior to impact driving. 

(d) Level B Harassment/Monitoring 

Zones 

Seattle DOT shall implement the 

Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones 

as described in Table 5 of this notice. 

(e) Shutdown Zones 

(i) Seattle DOT shall implement 

shutdown measures if a marine mammal 

is detected within or approaching the 

Shutdown Zones as outlined in Table 7. 

Seattle DOT shall implement a 

minimum shutdown zone of 10 m 

radius around each pile for all 

construction methods for all marine 

mammals. 

(ii) If a marine mammal is observed at 

or within the Shutdown Zone, work 

shall stop until the individual has been 

observed outside of the zone, or has not 

been observed for at least 15 minutes for 

all marine mammals. 

(iii) A determination that the 

shutdown zone is clear must be made 

during a period of good visibility (i.e., 

the entire shutdown zone and 

surrounding waters must be visible to 

the naked eye). 

(iv) If a marine mammal approaches 

or enters the shutdown zone during 

activities or pre-activity monitoring, all 

pile driving activities at that location 

shall be halted or delayed, respectively. 

If pile driving is halted or delayed due 

to the presence of a marine mammal, the 

activity may not resume or commence 

until either the animal has voluntarily 

left and been visually confirmed beyond 

the shutdown zone and 15 minutes have 

passed without re-detection of the 

animal. 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. 

(f) Additional Shutdown Measures 

(i) For in-water heavy machinery 

activities other than pile driving, 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. 

(ii) Seattle DOT shall implement 

shutdown measures if the cumulative 

total of individuals observed within the 

Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones 

for any particular species exceeds the 

number authorized under the IHA and 

if such marine mammals are sighted 

within the vicinity of the project area 

and are approaching the Level B 

Harassment/Monitoring Zones during 

in-water construction activities. 

(g) Soft-Start for Impact Pile Driving 

Each day at the beginning of impact 

pile driving or any time there has been 

cessation or downtime of 30 minutes or 

more without pile driving, contractors 

shall initiate soft-start for impact 

hammers by providing an initial set of 

three strikes from the impact hammer at 

40 percent energy, followed by a 30- 

second waiting period, then two 

subsequent three-strike sets. 

(h) Additional Coordination 

The project team shall monitor and 

coordinate with local marine mammal 

sighting networks (i.e., The Orca 

Network and/or The Center for Whale 

Research) on a daily basis for sightings 

data and acoustic detection data to 

gather information on the location of 

whales prior to initiating pile removal 

or pile removal activities. The project 

team shall also coordinate with WSF to 

discuss marine mammal sightings on 

days when pile driving and removal 

activities are occurring on their nearby 

projects. In addition, reports shall be 

made available to interested parties 

upon request. With this level of 

coordination in the region of activity, 

Seattle DOT shall obtain real-time 

information on the presence or absence 

of whales before starting any pile 

driving or removal activities. 

In addition, to minimize impacts from 

noise on the Seattle Aquarium’s captive 

marine mammals as well as for air and 

water quality concerns, Seattle DOT 

shall implement the following: 

(i) If aquarium animals are 

determined by the Aquarium 

veterinarian to be distressed, Seattle 

DOT shall coordinate with Aquarium 

staff to determine appropriate next 

steps, which may include suspending 

pile driving work for 30 minutes, 

provided that suspension does not pose 

a safety issue for the Pier 62 project 

construction crews. 

(ii) Seattle DOT shall make reasonable 

efforts to take at least one regularly 

scheduled 20-minute break in pile 

driving each day. 

(iii) Seattle DOT shall regularly 

communicate with the Aquarium staff 

when pile driving is occurring. 

(iv) Seattle DOT shall further 

coordinate with the Aquarium to 

determine appropriate methods to avoid 

and minimize impacts to water quality. 

(v) Seattle DOT does not anticipate 

the project resulting in impacts 

associated with airborne dust. If, during 

construction, odors associated with the 

project are an issue, Seattle DOT shall 

coordinate with its contractor to 

determine appropriate mitigation 

measures. 

6. Monitoring 

(a) Protected Species Observers 

Seattle DOT shall employ NMFSapproved PSOs to conduct marine 

mammal monitoring for its construction 

project. NMFS-approved PSOs shall 

meet the following qualifications. 

(i) Independent observers (i.e., not 

construction personnel) are required. 

(ii) At least one observer must have 

prior experience working as an observer. 

(iii) Other observers may substitute 

education (undergraduate degree in 

biological science or related field) or 

training for experience. 

(iv) Where a team of three or more 

observers are required, one observer 

should be designated as lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator. The lead 

observer must have prior experience 

working as an observer. 

(v) NMFS shall require submission 

and approval of observer CVs. 

(b) Monitoring Protocols 

PSOs shall be present on site at all 

times during pile removal and driving. 

Marine mammal visual monitoring will 

be conducted for different Level B 

Harassment/Monitoring Zones based on 

different sizes of piles being driven or 

removed. 

(i) A 30-minute pre-construction 

marine mammal monitoring shall be 

required before the first pile driving or 

pile removal of the day. A 30-minute 

post-construction marine mammal 

monitoring shall be required after the 

last pile driving or pile removal of the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
30144 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 

day. If the constructors take a break 

between subsequent pile driving or pile 

removal for more than 30 minutes, then 

additional 30-minute pre-construction 

marine mammal monitoring shall be 

required before the next start-up of pile 

driving or pile removal. 

(ii) During pile removal or installation 

with a vibratory hammer, three to four 

monitors shall be used, positioned such 

that each monitor has a distinct viewshed and the monitors collectively have 

overlapping view-sheds. 

(iii) During pile driving activities with 

an impact hammer, one monitor, based 

at or near the construction site, shall 

conduct the monitoring. 

(iv) Where visibility becomes limited, 

additional land-based monitors and/or 

boat-based monitors shall be deployed. 

(v) Monitors shall record take when 

marine mammals enter their relevant 

Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones 

based on type of construction activity. 

(vi) If a marine mammal approaches a 

Shutdown Zone, the observation shall 

be reported to the Construction Manager 

and the individual shall be watched 

closely. If the marine mammal crosses 

into a Shutdown Zone, a stop-work 

order shall be issued. In the event that 

a stop-work order is triggered, the 

observed marine mammal(s) shall be 

closely monitored while it remains in or 

near the Shutdown Zone, and only 

when it moves well outside of the 

Shutdown Zone or has not been 

observed for at least 15 minutes for 

pinnipeds and small cetaceans and 15 

minutes for large whales will the lead 

monitor allow work to recommence. 

(vii) PSOs shall monitor marine 

mammals around the construction site 

using high-quality binoculars (e.g., 

Zeiss, 10 x 42 power) and/or spotting 

scopes. 

(viii) If marine mammals are 

observed, the following information 

shall be documented: 

(A) Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends; 

(B) Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period; 

(C) Weather parameters (e.g., percent 

cover, visibility); 

(D) Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tide state); 

(E) Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

sex and age class of marine mammals; 

(F) Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 

including bearing and direction of travel 

and distance from pile driving activity; 

(G) Distance from pile driving 

activities to marine mammals and 

distance from the marine mammals to 

the observation point; 

(H) Locations of all marine mammal 

observations; and 

(I) Other human activity in the area. 

(ix) Acoustic Monitoring—Seattle 

DOT shall conduct acoustic monitoring 

up to six days per in-water work season 

to evaluate, in real time, sound 

production from construction activities 

and shall capture all hammering 

scenarios that may occur under the 

planned project. Background noise 

recordings (in the absence of pilerelated work) shall also be made during 

the study to provide a baseline 

background noise profile. Acoustic 

monitoring shall follow NMFS’s 2012 

Guidance Documents: Sound 

Propagation Modeling to Characterize 

Pile Driving Sounds Relevant to Marine 

Mammals; Data Collection Methods to 

Characterize Impact and Vibratory Pile 

Driving Source Levels Relevant to 

Marine Mammals; and Data Collection 

Methods to Characterize Underwater 

Background Sound Relevant to Marine 

Mammals in Coastal Nearshore Waters 

and Rivers of Washington and Oregon. 

7. Reporting 

(a) Marine Mammal Monitoring 

(i) Seattle DOT shall submit a draft 

marine mammal monitoring report 

within 90 days after completion of the 

in-water construction work, the 

expiration of the IHA (if issued), 

whichever comes earlier. The report 

shall include data from marine mammal 

sightings as described in 6(b)(viii).The 

marine mammal monitoring report shall 

also include total takes, takes by day, 

and stop-work orders for each species. 

(ii) If no comments are received from 

NMFS, the draft report shall be 

considered the final report. Any 

comments received during that time 

shall be addressed in full prior to 

finalization of the report. 

(iii) In the unanticipated event that 

the specified activity clearly causes the 

take of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such 

as an injury (Level A harassment) of 

unauthorized species, or serious injury, 

or mortality of any species, Seattle DOT 

shall immediately cease the specified 

activities and immediately report the 

incident to the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS and the 

NMFS’ West Coast Stranding 

Coordinator. The report must include 

the following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Name and type of vessel involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Description of the incident; 

• Status of all sound source use in the 

24 hrs preceding the incident; 

• Water depth; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, sea state, 

cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hrs 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 would not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS shall work with Seattle DOT to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. Seattle DOT shall not 

resume their activities until notified by 

NMFS via letter, email, or telephone. 

(b) Reporting of Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

(i) In the event that Seattle DOT 

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 (i.e., in less than a moderate state 

of decomposition as described in the 

next paragraph), Seattle DOT shall 

immediately report the incident to the 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS 

and the NMFS’ West Coast Stranding 

Coordinator. The report must include 

the same information identified in 

7(a)(iii). Activities may continue while 

NMFS reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. NMFS shall work with Seattle 

DOT to determine whether 

modifications in the activities are 

appropriate. 

(ii) In the event that Seattle DOT 

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), Seattle DOT shall 

report the incident to the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS and the 

NMFS Stranding Hotline and/or by 

email to the NMFS’ West Coast 

Stranding Coordinator within 24 hrs of 

the discovery. Seattle DOT shall provide 

photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS. 

Activities may continue while NMFS 

reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 30145 

(c) Acoustic Monitoring Report 

Seattle DOT shall submit an Acoustic 

Monitoring Report within 90 days after 

completion of the in-water construction 

work, expiration of the IHA (if issued), 

or 60 days prior to the requested date of 

issuance of any subsequent IHA, 

whichever sooner. The report shall 

provide details on the monitored piles, 

method of installation, monitoring 

equipment, and sound levels 

documented during both the sound 

source measurements and the 

background monitoring. NMFS shall 

have an opportunity to provide 

comments on the report or changes in 

monitoring for the second season, and if 

NMFS has comments, Seattle DOT shall 

address the comments and submit a 

final report to NMFS within 30 days. If 

no comments are received from NMFS 

within 30 days, the draft report shall be 

considered final. Any comments 

received during that time shall be 

addressed in full prior to finalization of 

the report. 

8. This Authorization may be 

modified, suspended or withdrawn if 

the holder fails to abide by the 

conditions prescribed herein or if NMFS 

determines the authorized taking is 

having more than a negligible impact on 

the species or stock of affected marine 

mammals. 

9. A copy of this Authorization must 

be in the possession of each contractor 

who performs the construction work at 

the Pier 62 Project. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this Notice of Proposed 

IHA for the proposed pile driving 

activities by Seattle DOT. We also 

request comment on the potential for 

renewal of this proposed IHA as 

described in the paragraph below. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform our final decision on the 

request for MMPA authorization. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a subsequent one-year IHA 

without additional notice when (1) 

another year of identical or nearly 

identical activities as described in the 

Specified Activities section is planned 

or (2) the activities would not be 

completed by the time the IHA expires 

and a subsequent IHA would allow for 

completion of the activities beyond that 

described in the Dates and Duration 

section, provided all of the following 

conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to expiration of 

the current IHA. 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted beyond the initial dates 

either are identical to the previously 

analyzed activities or include changes 

so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) 

that the changes do not affect the 

previous analyses, take estimates, or 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements. 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

• Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

remain the same and appropriate, and 

the original findings remain valid. 

Elaine T. Saiz, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13803 Filed 6–26–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

[Docket No.: PTO–P–2018–0032] 

Patent Cooperation Treaty 

Collaborative Search and Examination 

Pilot Project Between the IP5 Offices 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO), the 

European Patent Office (EPO), the Japan 

Patent Office (JPO), the Korean 

Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) and 

the State Intellectual Property Office of 

the People’s Republic of China (SIPO), 

referred to collectively as the IP5 

Offices, will launch a pilot project on 

Collaborative Search and Examination 

(CS&E) under the Patent Cooperation 

Treaty (PCT). This will be the third such 

pilot. The USPTO, the EPO, and the 

KIPO conducted two previous pilots in 

2010 and in 2011–2012. The third pilot 

is needed to further develop and test the 

concept amongst all the IP5 Offices. In 

particular, this IP5 pilot project aims at 

assessing user interest for a CS&E 

product and the expected efficiency 

gains for the IP5 Offices. 

DATES:

Pilot Effective date: July 1, 2018. 

Duration: Requests to participate in 

the PCT CS&E pilot project may be filed 

with international applications filed 

through the receiving Office of one of 

the IP5 Offices or the International 

Bureau of the World Intellectual 

Property Organization (WIPO) until June 

30, 2020. During each year, the USPTO, 

in its capacity as the main International 

Searching Authority, will accept a total 

of 50 international applications into the 

pilot. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Inquiries regarding the handling of any 

specific application participating in the 

pilot may be directed to Daniel Hunter, 

Director of International Work Sharing, 

Planning, and Implementation, Office of 

International Patent Cooperation, by 

telephone at (571) 272–8050 or by email 

to daniel.hunter@uspto.gov. Inquiries 

concerning this notice may be directed 

to Michael Neas, Deputy Director, 

International Patent Legal 

Administration, by phone (571) 272– 

3289 or by email to michael.neas@

uspto.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Concept 

The concept of CS&E under the PCT 

refers to the collaboration of examiners 

from different International Searching 

Authorities in different regions and with 

different working languages on one 

international application for the 

establishment of an international search 

report and written opinion under PCT 

Chapter I, which, although remaining 

the opinion of the chosen International 

Search Authority, is based on 

contributions from all participating IP5 

Offices. 

Under the pilot project, the examiner 

of the IP5 Office from the chosen 

International Searching Authority under 

PCT Rule 35 for a given international 

application (‘‘the main examiner’’) 

works on the application by conducting 

the search and examination and by 

establishing a provisional international 

search report and written opinion. 

These provisional work products are 

transmitted to examiners from the other 

participating IP5 Offices in their 

capacity as an International Searching 

Authority (‘‘the peer examiners’’). Each 

peer examiner provides the main 

examiner with his contribution, in light 

of the provisional international search 

report and written opinion. The final 

international search report and written 

opinion are subsequently established by 

the main examiner after having taken 

into consideration the contributions of 

the peer examiners. Further details 

regarding the implementation of the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES