Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39709 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks will 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 Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with NMFS’ ESA Interagency 

Cooperation Division, whenever we 

authorize take for endangered or 

threatened species. 

NMFS’s ESA Interagency Cooperation 

Division issued a Biological Opinion on 

August 6, 2018 to NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources which concluded 

that the USGS’s MATRIX survey is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the sei whale, fin whale, 

sperm whale, and north Atlantic right 

whale or adversely modify critical 

habitat. 

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. Accordingly, 

NMFS prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) to consider the 

environmental impacts associated with 

the issuance of the IHA to USGS. We 

reviewed all comments submitted in 

response to the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (83 FR 25268; May 

31, 2018) prior to concluding our NEPA 

process and deciding whether or not to 

issue a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). NMFS concluded that issuance 

of an IHA to USGS will not significantly 

affect the quality of the human 

environment and prepared and issued a 

FONSI in accordance with NEPA and 

NAO 216–6A. NMFS’s EA and FONSI 

for this activity are available on our 

website at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-research-and-otheractivities. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

we have issued an IHA to USGS for 

conducting the described seismic survey 

activities from August 1, 2018 through 

July 31, 2019 provided the previously 

described mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: August 7, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17170 Filed 8–9–18; 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: Incidental harassment 

authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

Seattle Department of Transportation 

(DOT) to incidentally harass, by Level A 

and B harassment, marine mammals 

during pile driving and removal 

activities associated with the restoration 

of Pier 62, Seattle Waterfront, Elliott Bay 

in Seattle, Washington (Season 2). 

DATES: This Authorization is applicable 

from August 1, 2018 through February 

28, 2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

these documents, please call the contact 

listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated 

to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and either 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, a notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking 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 

In compliance with NOAA policy, the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 

and the Council on Environmental 

Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500– 

1508), NMFS determined the issuance 

of the IHA qualifies to be categorically 

excluded from further NEPA review. 

This action is consistent with categories 

of activities identified in CE B4 of the 

Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39710 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

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. 

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 and removal 

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 IHA will cover the second season 

of work for the Seattle DOT Pier 62 

project and provides take authorization 

for these 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 may be 

prepared for the third season of work. 

Description of Specified Activities 

The planned 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 

planned 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). 

A total of 831 piles were removed 

from Pier 62 and Pier 63 during Season 

1 (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. Pile 

installation will occur via vibratory and 

impact hammers. 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. 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. It is 

anticipated that the contractor will 

complete the pile installation during the 

2018–2019 in-water work window. Inwater work may occur within a 

modified or shortened work window 

(September through February) to reduce 

or minimize effect on juvenile 

salmonids. 

TABLE 1—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 

(dBRMS) 

Additive 

source 

sound 

levels 

(dBRMS) 

Remove ....... Creosote-treated timber, 14- 

inch 1.

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

Steel template pile, 24-inch 2 .................................. .................. 2 ............................... Daily 3 ................. .............. Vibratory ............. 4 177 dB ..............

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

installed.

1 189 steel piles ......... 53 days .............. 8 Vibratory ............. 6 177 dB 7 180 dB 

64 days 8 ............ 8 Impact ................ 9 189 dB 10 189 

dB 

Steel template pile, 24-inch 2 .................................. .................. 2 ............................... Daily 3 ................. .............. Vibratory ............. 4 177 dB ..............

Notes: 

1Assumed 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. 3The 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. 4Assumed to be no greater than vibratory installation of the 30-inch steel pile. 

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

7For 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). 8Approximately 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. 9Source level from Colman Dock Test Pile Project (WSDOT 2016). 

10For 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. 

The contractor may elect to operate 

multiple pile crews for the Seattle DOT 

Pier 62 Project. As a result, more than 

one vibratory or impact hammer may be 

active at the same time. 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 a 

multiple-source decibel (dB) rule when 

determining the Level A and Level B 

harassment zones for this project. Table 

2 provides guidance on adding dBs to 

account for multiple sources (WSDOT 

2015a): 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39711 

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 

2–3 dB ....................... 2 dB 

4–9 dB ....................... 1 dB 

A detailed description of Seattle 

DOT’s planned Pier 62 (Season 2) 

project is provided in the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 

FR 30120; June 27, 2018). Since that 

time, no changes have been made to the 

planned activities. Therefore, a detailed 

description is not provided here. Please 

refer to that Federal Register notice for 

the description of the specific activity. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA was published in the Federal 

Register on June 27, 2018 (83 FR 30120). 

That notice described, in detail, Seattle 

DOT’s activity, the marine mammal 

species that may be affected by the 

activity, and the anticipated effects on 

marine mammals. During the 30-day 

public comment period, NMFS received 

a comment letter from the Marine 

Mammal Commission (Commission). 

Specific comments and responses from 

the Commission’s comment letter are 

provided below. The Commission 

recommended that NMFS issue the IHA, 

subject to inclusion of the proposed 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

commented on errors regarding the 

Level B harassment calculations. 

NMFS Response: NMFS 

acknowledges these errors and has 

corrected them in this notice and in the 

final IHA. 

Comment 2: The Commission asserts 

that NMFS underestimated take 

estimates for harbor seals by Level A 

harassment and take estimates for longbeaked common dolphin, bottlenose 

dolphin, and Northern elephant seal by 

Level B harassment. 

NMFS Response: NMFS does not 

believe the take estimates were incorrect 

in the proposed IHA for these species. 

However, NMFS increased the take 

estimates as suggested, which provides 

more conservative coverage for some 

species. 

Comment 3: The Commission 

commented that NMFS should use the 

Smultea et al., 2017 report rather than 

the Jefferson et al., 2016 density 

estimates for harbor porpoise. The 

Commission also commented on an 

error for the density estimate for minke 

whales. 

NMFS response: NMFS agrees and 

updated the density estimate for harbor 

porpoise by Smultea et al., 2017 and 

accordingly the estimated takes by Level 

A and Level B harassment of harbor 

porpoise decreased. NMFS also 

corrected the density estimate for minke 

whales. 

Comment 4: The Commission 

requested clarification regarding certain 

issues associated with NMFS’ notice 

that one-year renewals could be issued 

in certain limited circumstances and 

expressed concern that the process 

would bypass the public notice and 

comment requirements. The 

Commission also suggested that NMFS 

should discuss the possibility of 

renewals through a more general route, 

such as a rulemaking, instead of notice 

in a specific authorization. The 

Commission further recommended that 

if NMFS did not pursue a more general 

route, that the agency provide the 

Commission and the public with a legal 

analysis supporting our conclusion that 

this process is consistent with the 

requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of 

the MMPA. The Commission also noted 

that NMFS had recently begun utilizing 

abbreviated notices, referencing relevant 

documents, to solicit public input and 

suggested that NMFS use these notices 

and solicit review in lieu of the 

currently proposed renewal process. 

NMFS Response: The process of 

issuing a renewal IHA does not bypass 

the public notice and comment 

requirements of the MMPA. The notice 

of the proposed IHA expressly notifies 

the public that under certain, limited 

conditions an applicant could seek a 

renewal IHA for an additional year. The 

notice describes the conditions under 

which such a renewal request could be 

considered and expressly seeks public 

comment in the event such a renewal is 

sought. Additional reference to this 

solicitation of public comment has 

recently been added at the beginning of 

the FR notices that consider renewals, 

requesting input specifically on the 

possible renewal itself. NMFS 

appreciates the streamlining achieved 

by the use of abbreviated FR notices and 

intends to continue using them for 

proposed IHAs that include minor 

changes from previously issued IHAs, 

but which do not satisfy the renewal 

requirements. However, we believe our 

proposed method for issuing renewals 

meets statutory requirements and 

maximizes efficiency. 

Importantly, such renewals would be 

limited to circumstances where: The 

activities are identical or nearly 

identical to those analyzed in the 

proposed IHA; monitoring does not 

indicate impacts that were not 

previously analyzed and authorized; 

and, the mitigation and monitoring 

requirements remain the same, all of 

which allow the public to comment on 

the appropriateness and effects of a 

renewal at the same time the public 

provides comments on the initial IHA. 

NMFS has, however, modified the 

language for future proposed IHAs to 

clarify that all IHAs, including renewal 

IHAs, are valid for no more than one 

year and that the agency would consider 

only one renewal for a project at this 

time. In addition, notice of issuance or 

denial of a renewal IHA would be 

published in the Federal Register, as 

they are for all IHAs. The option for 

issuing renewal IHAs has been in 

NMFS’s incidental take regulations 

since 1996. See 50 CFR 216.107(e). We 

will provide any additional information 

to the Commission and consider posting 

a description of the renewal process on 

our website before any renewal is issued 

utilizing this process. 

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 

capensis), 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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39712 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

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 capensis ............... 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 

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, -, 1,999) ......... Undet. 9.8 

Northern elephant seal .......... Mirounga angustirostris ........ California breeding ............... -; N 179,000 (na; 81,368, 2010) 4,882 8.8 

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

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

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

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: 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. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual 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 

A detailed description of the species 

likely to be affected by the Seattle DOT 

Pier 62 (Season 2) project, including 

brief introductions to the species and 

relevant stocks as well as available 

information regarding population trends 

and threats, and information regarding 

local occurrence, were provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (83 FR 30120; June 27, 2018); since 

that time, we are not aware of any 

changes in the status of these species 

and stocks; therefore, detailed 

descriptions are not provided here. 

Please refer to that Federal Register 

notice for these descriptions. Please also 

refer to NMFS websites for generalized 

species accounts 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). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

the planned activities for the Seattle 

DOT Pier 62 (Season 2) project have the 

potential to result in Level B behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the action area. 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 mitigation and 

monitoring measures (i.e., exclusion 

zones, use of a bubble curtain, etc. as 

discussed in detail below in 

‘‘Mitigation’’ section), are expected to 

minimize the severity of such taking to 

the extent practicable. 

The project would not result in 

permanent impacts to habitats used 

directly by marine mammals, such as 

haulout sites, but may have potential 

short-term impacts to food sources such 

as marine invertebrates and fish species. 

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 

during the Pier 62 project. The Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 

FR 30120 June 27, 2018) included a 

detailed discussion of the effects of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39713 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and their habitat, and 

therefore, that information is not 

repeated here; please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for that 

information. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which 

informed both NMFS’s consideration of 

whether the number of takes is ‘‘small’’ 

and the negligible impact 

determination. Based on public 

comment, since the Proposed Notice, a 

few minor changes have been made to 

this section, including modifications to 

the density and take estimates for 

species. These changes are reflected in 

the tables and narrative below. 

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 and removal 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 planned mitigation and 

monitoring measures (i.e., shutdown 

zones, use of a bubble curtain, etc. as 

discussed in detail below in 

‘‘Mitigation’’ section), are expected to 

minimize the severity of such taking to 

the extent practicable. Below we 

describe how the take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and (4) and the number of days of 

activities. Below, we describe these 

components in more detail and present 

the 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 permanent 

threshold shift (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 

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 planned 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 planned 

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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39714 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

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 planned 

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 the Washington State 

Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 

This value was also used for other pile 

driving projects (e.g., WSDOT Seattle 

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 SPL rms 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 

must be in place during pile driving 

installation or removal (Table 5). 

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). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39715 

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 ...... 2,929 10.5 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 ............ 1,201 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 must 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 Elillott Bay Seawall Project 

and from WSDOT, and estimating 

conservative working durations (Table 6 

and Table 7). 

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

HARASSMENT

[User Spreadsheet Input] 

Spreadsheet tab used 

Sound source 

1 

Sound source 

2 

Sound source 

3 

(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 Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

High-frequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

PTS Isopleth (meters) 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39716 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

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

LEVEL A HARASSMENT DAILY ENSONIFIED AREAS—Continued 

[User Spreadsheet Output] 

Sound source type Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

High-frequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

Level A Harassment Daily ensonified area (km2) a

Vibratory (pile removal) .......................... 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 

Vibratory (installation) ............................ 0.400 0.00 0.875 0.148 0.00 

Impact (installation) ................................ 0.01 0.0 0.018 0.00 0.0 

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 Smultea et al., 

2017, 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 Level 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 and removal days for the Seattle 

DOT Pier 62 Project Season 2 for 1,651 

seals. Fifty-three 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 

conservatively estimate that 53 

instances of take by Level A harassment 

may occur during these 53 days. Fiftythree instances of potential take by 

Level A harassment was calculated as 

follows: 1 harbor seal per day × 53 days 

of vibratory pile driving within the 307 

m Level A Harassment Zone. The 

instances of take by Level B harassment 

(1,651 seals) was adjusted to exclude 

those already counted for instances of 

take by Level A harassment, so the 

authorized instances of take by Level B 

harassment is 1,598 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 harassment is estimated at 10 harbor 

seals from vibratory pile driving and 

instances of take by Level B harassment 

is estimated at 6,177 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 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

take Level A 

harassment 

Estimated 

take Level B 

harassment 

1 ............................................................... 1.219 0.00 10.5 10 0 128 

2 ............................................................... 1.219 0.148 91 53 10 * 5,879 

3 ............................................................... 1.219 0.00 2.3 64 0 180 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39717 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

* Number of Level B harassment takes was adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A harassment takes. Adjusted 5,869.

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, to be 

conservative. NMFS is authorizing two 

instances of take by Level B harassment 

of northern elephant seals. 

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 and removal 

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 is authorizing 

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 643 California sea lions. 

However, the Seattle DOT believes that 

this estimate is unrealistically low, 

based on local marine mammal 

monitoring. 

TABLE 9—CALIFORNIA SEA LION ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Sound source Species 

density 

Level A 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

harassment 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

harassment 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.1266 0.0 10.5 10 0 13 

2 ............................................................... 0.1266 0.00 91 53 0 611 

3 ............................................................... 0.1266 0.0 2.3 64 0 19 

Note: 

km2—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. NMFS is authorizing 

instances of take by Level B harassment 

of 187 Steller sea lions. 

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

Sound source Species 

density 

Level A 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

harassment 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

harassment 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.0368 0.0 10.5 10 0 4 

2 ............................................................... 0.0368 0.00 91 53 0 178 

3 ............................................................... 0.0368 0.0 2.3 64 0 5 

Note: 

km2—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 is authorizing 

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 must 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– 

0.020240/km2 in winter. Therefore, 

estimated takes as shown in Table 11 

are based on the highest density 

estimated during the winter season 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39718 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

(0.020240/km2) for the SRKW 

population. With the variable winter 

density, the estimate can range from 24 

to 103 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 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

harassment 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

harassment 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.020240 0.0 10.5 10 0 2 

2 ............................................................... 0.020240 0.00 91 53 0 98 

3 ............................................................... 0.020240 0.0 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 is 

authorizing 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 mid-frequency 

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 transient killer 

whales. 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 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

harassment 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

harassment 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.002373 0.0 10.5 10 0 0 

2 ............................................................... 0.002373 0.00 91 53 0 12 

3 ............................................................... 0.002373 0.0 2.3 64 0 0 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

Long-Beaked Common Dolphin 

The take estimate of long-beaked 

common dolphin for Pier 62 is based on 

local monitoring data. The earliest 

documented sighting of long-beaked 

common dolphins in Puget Sound was 

July 2003. In June 2011, two longbeaked common dolphins were sighted 

in South Puget Sound. Sightings 

continued in 2012, and in 2016–17. 

Four to twelve sightings were reported 

regularly, with confirmed sightings of 

up to 30 individuals. Four to six 

dolphins have remained in Puget Sound 

since June 2016 and four animals with 

distinct markings have been seen 

multiple times and in every season of 

the year as of October 2017 (CRC 

2017b). In 2016, the Orca Network 

(2016c) reported a pod of up to 20 longbeaked common dolphins. Therefore, 

NMFS is authorizing instances of take 

by Level B harassment of 7 long-beaked 

common dolphins per month for a total 

of 49 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 of 

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, 

NMFS is authorizing instances of takes 

by Level B harassment of 7 bottlenose 

dolphins per month for a total of 49 

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 

Smultea et al. (2017), is the best density 

data available for the potential take of 

harbor porpoise and is shown in Table 

13. Instances of take by Level A 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39719 

harassment is estimated at 25 harbor 

porpoises and instances of take by Level 

B harassment is estimated at 2,716 

harbor porpoises. Therefore, NMFS is 

authorizing instances of take by Level A 

harassment of 25 harbor porpoises and 

instances of take by Level B harassment 

of 2,716 harbor porpoises. 

TABLE 13—HARBOR PORPOISE ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON SMULTEA et al., 2017 

Sound source Species 

density 

Level A 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

harassment 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

harassment 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.54 0.00 10.5 10 0 57 

2 ............................................................... 0.54 0.875 91 53 25 * 2,604 

3 ............................................................... 0.54 0.018 2.3 64 0 80 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

* Number of Level B harassment takes was adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A harassment takes. Take is instances not individuals. Adjusted 2,579. 

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 is authorizing 

instances of take by Level A harassment 

of two Dall’s porpoise and instances of 

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 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

harassment 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

harassment 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.039 0.00 10.5 10 0 4 

2 ............................................................... 0.039 0.875 91 53 2 * 188 

3 ............................................................... 0.039 0.018 2.3 64 0 6 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

* Number of Level B harassment takes was adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A harassment takes. Adjusted 186. 

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, 

NMFS is authorizing 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. 

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

Sound source Species 

density 

Level A 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

harassment 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

harassment 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.00001 0.00 10.5 10 0 0 

2 ............................................................... 0.00001 0.400 91 53 0 0 

3 ............................................................... 0.00001 0.01 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, NMFS is 

authorizing 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39720 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

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 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

harassment 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

harassment 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.00051 0.00 10.5 10 0 0 

2 ............................................................... 0.00051 0.400 91 53 0 3 

3 ............................................................... 0.00051 0.01 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 of a minke whale 

in the relevant area. 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 ten (Table 17). To be 

conservative NMFS is authorizing the 

take of 10 minkes by Level B 

harassment. 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. 

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

Level B zone Species 

density 

Level A 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

harassment 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

harassment 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.002 0.00 10.5 10 0 0 

2 ............................................................... 0.002 0.400 91 53 0 10 

3 ............................................................... 0.002 0.01 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 AUTHORIZED INCIDENTAL TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT

Species Stock size 

Authorized 

Level A 

harassment 

take 

Authorized Level B 

harassment take Authorized total take % of Population 

Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) .................................... 11,036 53 1,598 a .................................. 1,651 .................................... 14.96. 

Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) .............. 179,000 0 2 b ......................................... 2 ........................................... 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 0 187 ....................................... 187 ....................................... Less than 1. 

Southern resident killer whale DPS (Orcinus orca) ............ 83 0 23 (single occurrence of one 

pod) d.

23 (single occurrence of one 

pod).

27.71. 

Transient killer whale (Orcinus orca) .................................. 240 0 42 e ....................................... 42 ......................................... 17.5. 

Long-beaked common dolphin (Dephinus capensis) ......... 101,305 0 49 f ........................................ 49 ......................................... Less than 1. 

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) ............................. 1,924 0 49 g ....................................... 49 ......................................... Less than 1. 

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) ............................. 11,233 25 2,716 .................................... 2,741 .................................... 24.4.

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 10 ......................................... 10 ......................................... 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 harassment 

takes was adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A harassment 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, but conservatively NMFS estimated two takes. 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 23 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 local data from several sources including Cascadia Research Collective and the Orca Network for 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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39721 

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) and 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 and 

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 must be conducted during 

daylight hours. 

Pre-Construction Briefing 

Seattle DOT must conduct briefings 

for construction supervisors and crews, 

the monitoring team, and Seattle DOT 

staff prior to the start of all pile driving 

and removal 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 must 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 have agreed to employ 

a bubble curtain during impact pile 

driving of steel piles and must 

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 

must be deployed on or as close to the 

mudline for the full circumference of 

the ring as possible, without causing 

turbidity. 

(iii) Seattle DOT must require that 

construction contractors train personnel 

in the proper balancing of air flow to the 

bubblers, and must 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 must 

occur prior to impact driving. 

Shutdown Zones 

Shutdown Zones must be 

implemented to protect marine 

mammals from Level A harassment 

(Table 19 below). The PTS isopleths 

described in Table 7 were used as a 

starting point for calculating the 

shutdown zones; however, Seattle DOT 

must 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 must 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 harassment take authorized, if a 

marine mammal is observed at or within 

the Shutdown Zone, work must 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 

and removal activities at that location 

must be halted or delayed, respectively. 

If pile driving or removal 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 or 

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

removal 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 19—SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR VARIOUS PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL ACTIVITIES FOR MARINE MAMMAL HEARING

GROUPS

Sound source type Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

High-frequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

Shutdown Zones (meters) 

1—Vibratory (pile removal) .................... 28 10 41 17 10 

2—Vibratory (installation) ....................... 505 45 747 307 22 

3—Impact (installation) .......................... 89 10 106 48 10 

Additional Shutdown Measures 

For in-water heavy machinery 

activities other than pile driving, if a 

marine mammal comes within 10 m, 

operations must cease and vessels must 

reduce speed to the minimum level 

required to maintain steerage and safe 

working conditions. 

Seattle DOT must implement 

shutdown measures if the cumulative 

total number of individuals observed 

within the Level B Harassment/ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39722 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

Monitoring Zones (below in Table 20) 

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 must monitor the Level B 

Harassment/Monitoring Zones as 

described in Table 20. 

TABLE 20—LEVEL B HARASSMENT/MONITORING ZONES FOR VARIOUS PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL ACTIVITIES

Activity Construction method 

Level B 

threshold 

(m) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Removal of 14-in Timber Piles .................................................................. Vibratory .......................................... 2,929 10.5 

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

Installation of 30-in Steel Piles .................................................................. Impact .............................................. 1,201 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 must 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- 

second waiting period, then two 

subsequent three-strike sets. Soft start 

must be implemented at the start of each 

day’s impact pile driving and at any 

time following cessation of impact pile 

driving for a period of thirty minutes or 

longer. 

Additional Coordination 

The project team must 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 must 

also coordinate with Washington State 

Ferries to discuss marine mammal 

sightings on days when pile driving and 

removal activities are occurring on their 

nearby projects. Marine mammal 

monitoring must be conducted to collect 

information on the presence of marine 

mammals within the Level B 

Harassment/Monitoring Zones for this 

project. In addition, reports must be 

made available to interested parties 

upon request. With this level of 

coordination in the region of activity, 

Seattle DOT must 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 

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 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. 

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 must be 

conducted at all times during in-water 

pile driving and pile removal activities 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39723 

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 must be 

based at or near the construction site, 

and in addition, two to three additional 

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 In the case(s) where visibility 

becomes limited, additional land-based 

monitors and/or boat-based monitors 

may be deployed. 

D Monitors must record take when 

marine mammals enter the relevant 

Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones 

based on type of construction activity. 

If a marine mammal approaches or 

enters the Shutdown Zone during 

activities or pre-activity monitoring, all 

pile driving or removal activities at that 

location must be halted or delayed, 

respectively. If pile driving or removal 

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 or 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. 

Protected Species Observers 

Seattle DOT must employ NMFSapproved protected species observers 

(PSOs) to conduct marine mammal 

monitoring for its Pier 62 Project. The 

PSOs must 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 must meet the 

following requirements: 

1. Independent PSOs (i.e., not 

construction personnel) are required. 

2. At least one PSO must have prior 

experience working as a marine 

mammal observer during construction 

activities. 

3. Other PSOs may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience. 

4. Where a team of three or more 

PSOs are required, one observer should 

be designated as lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator. The lead 

observer must have prior experience 

working as a marine mammal observer 

during construction. 

5. NMFS must require submission and 

approval of observer CVs. 

Seattle DOT must ensure that 

observers have the following additional 

qualifications: 

1. Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols. 

2. Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors. 

3. Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations. 

4. Writing skills sufficient to prepare 

a report of observations including but 

not limited to the number and species 

of marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior. 

5. Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

PSOs must monitor marine mammals 

around the construction site using highquality 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 

must be established. If marine mammals 

are observed, the following information 

must be documented: 

1. Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends for each day 

conducted (monitoring period); 

2. Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period, 

including how many and what type of 

piles driven; 

3. Deviation from initial proposal in 

pile numbers, pile types, average 

driving times, etc. 

4. Weather parameters in each 

monitoring period (e.g., wind speed, 

percent cover, visibility); 

5. Water conditions in each 

monitoring period (e.g., sea state, tide 

state); 

6. For each marine mammal sighting: 

a. Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

sex and age class of marine mammals; 

b. Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 

including bearing and direction of travel 

and distance from pile driving or 

removal activity; 

c. Location and distance from pile 

driving or removal activities to marine 

mammals and distance from the marine 

mammals to the observation point; and 

d. Estimated amount of time that the 

animals remained in the Level B 

Harassment Zone. 

7. Description of implementation of 

mitigation measures within each 

monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or 

delay); 

8. Other human activity in the area 

within each monitoring period 

9. A summary of the following: 

a. Total number of individuals of each 

species detected within the Level B 

Harassment/Monitoring Zone, and 

estimated as taken if correction factor 

appropriate. 

b. Total number of individuals of each 

species detected within the Shutdown 

Zone and the average amount of time 

that they remained in that zone. 

c. Daily average number of 

individuals of each species 

(differentiated by month as appropriate) 

detected within the Level B 

Harassment/Monitoring Zone, and 

estimated as taken, if appropriate. 

Acoustic Monitoring 

In addition, acoustic monitoring must 

occur on up to six days per in-water 

work season to evaluate, in real time, 

sound production from construction 

activities and must capture all 

hammering scenarios that may occur 

under the planned project. 

The results and conclusions of the 

acoustic monitoring must 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 must submit a draft 

marine mammal monitoring report 

within 90 days after completion of the 

in-water construction work, the 

expiration of the IHA, or 60 days prior 

to the requested date of issuance of any 

subsequent IHA, whichever is earliest. 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39724 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

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 

must also include total takes, takes by 

day, and stop-work orders for each 

species. NMFS must have an 

opportunity to provide comments on the 

report, and if NMFS has comments, 

Seattle DOT must 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 must be considered final. 

Any comments received during that 

time must be addressed in full prior to 

finalization of the report. 

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 must 

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 must 

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 must submit an Acoustic 

Monitoring Report within 90 days after 

completion of the in-water construction 

work or the expiration of the IHA, 

whichever comes earlier. The report 

must 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 must 

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 must 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 must be considered final. 

Any comments received during that 

time must 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 

(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 sub-regions 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, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39725 

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 must shut down in the 

Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones 

should they meet or exceed the take of 

one occurrence of one pod (J-pod, 23 

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). 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 15–28 percent of the stock 

abundance. One occurrence of J-pod of 

SRKW would account for 28 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 finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the planned activity 

will have a negligible impact on all 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

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

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers and so, 

in practice, where estimated numbers 

are available, NMFS compares the 

number of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

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 15–28 percent of the stock 

abundance, all of which NMFS has 

determined comprise small numbers of 

these stocks. Additionally, 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, 

Smultea et al. 2017 conducted harbor 

porpoise surveys in eight regions of 

Puget Sound, and estimated an 

abundance of 168 harbor porpoise in the 

Seattle area (100 in Bainbridge (just 

west of Seattle) and 265 in Southern 

Puget Sound). While individuals do 

move between regions, we would not 

realistically expect that 2,500+ harbor 

porpoise individuals would be exposed 

around the pile driving and removal 

activities 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, 27.71 

percent of the stock is authorized to be 

taken by Level B harassment, but we 

also believe that a single, brief incident 

of take of one group of any species 

represents take of small numbers for 

that species. Based on the analysis 

contained herein of the planned activity 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39726 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

(including the mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS 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 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. 

The Permit and Conservation Division 

consulted under section 7 of the ESA 

with the WCRO for the issuance of this 

IHA. The WCRO concluded that the take 

of marine mammals authorized here is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of SRKW and humpback 

whales and will not result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to the 

Seattle DOT for the harassment of small 

numbers of marine mammals incidental 

to pile driving and removal activities for 

the Pier 62 Project (Season 2) within 

Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington from 

August 1, 2018 to February 28, 2019, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: August 7, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17185 Filed 8–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Advisory Committee on Arlington 

National Cemetery; Notice of Federal 

Advisory Committee Meeting 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory 

Committee meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing this notice to announce that 

the following Federal Advisory 

Committee meeting of the Advisory 

Committee on Arlington National 

Cemetery will take place. 

DATES: The Committee will meet on 

Friday, September 7, 2018 from 10:30 

a.m. to 2:00 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet in 

the Welcome Center Conference Room, 

Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, 

VA 22211. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Timothy Keating, Alternate Designated 

Federal Officer for the Committee, 1– 

877–907–8585 (Voice), (703) 607–8551 

(Facsimile), timothy.p.keating.civ@

mail.mil (Email). Mailing address is 

Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, 

VA 22211. Website: http://

www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/About/ 

Advisory-Committee-on-ArlingtonNational-Cemetery/Charter. The most 

up-to-date changes to the meeting 

agenda can be found on the website. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

meeting is being held under the 

provisions of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 

U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the 

Government in the Sunshine Act of 

1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 

41 CFR 102–3.140 and 102–3.150. 

Purpose of the Meeting: The Advisory 

Committee on Arlington National 

Cemetery is an independent federal 

advisory committee chartered to provide 

the Secretary of the Army independent 

advice and recommendations on 

Arlington National Cemetery, including, 

but not limited to, cemetery 

administration, the erection of 

memorials at the cemetery, and master 

planning for the cemetery. The 

Secretary of the Army may act on the 

Committee’s advice and 

recommendations. 

Agenda: The Committee will receive 

a report by the Remember and Explore 

Subcommittee regarding a proposal to 

erect a commemorative monument 

within ANC and may deliberate a 

recommendation to the sponsor. 

Additionally, the Committee will 

receive a report from the Honor 

Subcommittee regarding fact-finding to 

develop possible courses of action 

regarding the future of ANC to present 

in a roundtable forum with 

representatives of Veteran and Military 

Service Organizations. The 

subcommittee will also report any 

proposed recommendations as a result 

of that roundtable discussion. The 

Committee will study and deliberate 

any recommendations and may formally 

report recommendations to the sponsor 

for keeping ANC open well in to the 

future. 

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102–3.140 

through 102–3.165, and the availability 

of space, this meeting is open to the 

public. Seating is on a first-come basis. 

The Arlington National Cemetery 

conference room is readily accessible to 

and usable by persons with disabilities. 

For additional information about public 

access procedures, contact Mr. Timothy 

Keating, the Alternate Designated 

Federal Officer, at the email address or 

telephone number listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 

CFR 102–3.105(j) and 102–3.140 and 

section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, the public or interested 

organizations may submit written 

comments or statements to the 

Committee, in response to the stated 

agenda of the open meeting or in regard 

to the Committee’s mission in general. 

Written comments or statements should 

be submitted to Mr. Timothy Keating, 

the Alternate Designated Federal 

Officer, via electronic mail, the 

preferred mode of submission, at the 

address listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page 

of the comment or statement must 

include the author’s name, title or 

affiliation, address, and daytime phone 

number. Written comments or 

statements being submitted in response 

to the agenda set forth in this notice 

must be received by the Designated 

Federal Officer at least seven business 

days prior to the meeting to be 

considered by the Committee. The 

Designated Federal Officer will review 

all timely submitted written comments 

or statements with the Committee 

Chairperson, and ensure the comments 

are provided to all members of the 

Committee before the meeting. Written 

comments or statements received after 

this date may not be provided to the 

Committee until its next meeting. 

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.140d, the 

Committee is not obligated to allow a 

member of the public to speak or 

otherwise address the Committee during 

the meeting. Members of the public will 

be permitted to make verbal comments 

during the Committee meeting only at 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES