Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14945 

encourages all stakeholders and users to 

review the Plan and provide comments. 

All comments received will be reviewed 

and considered in the final drafting of 

the NOAA Education Strategic Plan. 

DATES: Public comments on this 

document must be received on or before 

April 10, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The draft Plan will be 

available on the following Web site: 

http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/leadership/

edcouncil/education_plan.html. 

You may submit comments on this 

document, following the format 

guidance below, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Comments 

may be submitted via email to 

Education.Plan@noaa.gov. Include the 

identifier, ‘‘Education Plan Public 

Comment’’ in the subject line. 

• Mail: Marissa Jones, NOAA Office 

of Education, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. Include 

the identifier, ‘‘Education Plan Public 

Comment,’’ on the envelope. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marissa Jones, Education Specialist, 

NOAA Office of Education, (202) 482– 

4592Marissa.Jones@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NOAA’s 

Education Council is soliciting general 

comments on the NOAA Education 

Strategic Plan, which describes how 

NOAA will execute programs and 

activities to achieve cohesive and 

strategic education outcomes. The Plan 

focuses on conducting, developing, 

supporting, promoting, and 

coordinating education activities to 

enhance awareness and understanding 

of mission-related sciences. 

For over 200 years, NOAA has 

imparted scientific knowledge of the 

Earth’s natural systems to benefit 

society and support the agency’s 

mission. During this time, education 

was guided by the vision of leadership, 

the findings of researchers, the 

mandates of legislation for programs 

within NOAA, and to respond to the 

needs of society. 

In 2007, Congress officially 

recognized the role of education in 

NOAA with the passage of the America 

COMPETES Act (Pub. L. 110–69). This 

legislation states: 

‘‘The Administrator, appropriate 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration programs, ocean 

atmospheric science and education 

experts, and interested members of the 

public shall develop a science education 

plan setting forth education goals and 

strategies for the Administration, as well 

as programmatic actions to carry out 

such goals and priorities over the next 

20 years, and evaluate and update such 

plan every 5 years.’’ 

NOAA is revising its Education 

Strategic Plan as specified in the 

America COMPETES Act. Based on 

NOAA’s mission, strengths, and the 

future needs of our society, the draft 

plan includes five education goals: 

Goal 1—Science-Informed Society: An 

informed society has access to, interest 

in, and understanding of NOAA-related 

sciences and their implications for 

current and future events. 

Goal 2—Conservation & Stewardship: 

Individuals and communities are 

actively involved in stewardship 

behaviors and decisions that conserve, 

restore, and protect natural and cultural 

resources related to NOAA’s mission. 

Goal 3—Safety and Preparedness: 

Individuals and communities are 

informed and actively involved in 

decisions and actions that improve 

preparedness, response, and resilience 

to challenges and impacts of hazardous 

weather, changes in climate, and other 

environmental threats monitored by 

NOAA. 

Goal 4—Future Workforce: A diverse 

and highly-skilled future workforce 

pursues careers in disciplines that 

support NOAA’s mission. 

Goal 5—Organizational Excellence: 

NOAA functions in a unified manner to 

support, plan, and deliver effective 

educational programs and partnerships 

that advance NOAA’s mission. 

NOAA welcomes all comments on the 

draft Plan, any inconsistencies 

perceived within the Plan, and any 

omissions of important topics or issues. 

This draft Plan is being issued for 

comment only and is not intended for 

interim use. For any shortcoming noted 

within the draft Plan, please propose 

specific remedies. Suggested changes 

will be incorporated where appropriate, 

and a final Plan will be posted on the 

NOAA Education Council Web site. 

Please follow this format guidance for 

preparing and submitting comments. 

Using the format guidance will facilitate 

the processing of comments and assure 

that all comments are appropriately 

considered. Overview comments should 

be provided first and should be 

numbered. Comments that are specific 

to particular pages, paragraphs, or lines 

of the section should identify the page 

and line numbers to which they apply. 

Please number each page of your 

comments. 

Dated: March 17, 2015. 

Louisa Koch, 

NOAA Director of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06419 Filed 3–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD808 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to a Cruise Ship 

Terminal Project 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from Huna Totem Corporation (HTC) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to construction activities as 

part of the re-development of the Icy 

Strait Point Cruise Ship Terminal in 

Hoonah, Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 

is requesting comments on its proposal 

to issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to HTC to 

incidentally take marine mammals, by 

Level B Harassment only, during the 

specified activity. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than April 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to Jolie 

Harrison, Chief, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. Physical comments 

should be sent to 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and 

electronic comments should be sent to 

ITP.Pauline@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments received 

electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted to the 

Internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14946 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Pauline, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability 

An electronic copy of HTC’s 

application and supporting documents, 

as well as a list of the references cited 

in this document, may be obtained by 

visiting the Internet at: http://

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

incidental/construction.htm. In case of 

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

We are preparing an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) in accordance with 

NEPA and the regulations published by 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

and will consider comments submitted 

in response to this notice as part of that 

process. The EA will be posted at the 

foregoing Web site once it is finalized. 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a 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.’’ 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering [Level B 

harassment]. 

Summary of Request 

On June 23, 2014 NMFS received an 

application from HTC for the taking of 

marine mammals incidental to pile 

driving and removal associated with the 

re-development of the Icy Strait Point 

Cruise Ship Terminal in Hoonah, 

Alaska. HTC submitted a revised 

application on September 9, 2014. On 

February 26, 2015 the applicant 

submitted an addendum to the 

application describing modifications to 

the specified activity. NMFS determined 

that the application was adequate and 

complete on February 27, 2015. HTC 

proposes to conduct in-water work that 

may incidentally harass marine 

mammals (i.e., pile driving and 

removal). In addition, the project would 

include associated upland 

improvements, which are not 

anticipated to have the potential to 

result in incidental take of marine 

mammals. This IHA would be valid 

from June 1 through October 31, 2015. 

However, all pile driving is expected to 

be completed by the end of September. 

October has been included only to cover 

any contingencies that may arise. 

The use of vibratory and impact pile 

driving is expected to produce 

underwater sound at levels that have the 

potential to result in behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals. Species 

with the expected potential to be 

present during the project timeframe 

include the humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae), Steller sea 

lion (Eumatopius jubatus), harbor seal 

(Phoca vitulina), Dall’s porpoise 

(Phocoenoides dalli), gray whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus), harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena), killer whale 

(Orcinus orca), minke whale 

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata), and 

Pacific white-sided dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens). 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

The project would construct a new 

cruise ship berth terminal and 

associated upland improvements at the 

existing facility. The existing facility is 

served by an approximately 100-foot by 

25-foot excursion dock, with an 

approximately 140-foot walkway 

connecting to shoreline. There is also an 

existing 40-foot by 80-foot fishing pier 

which is connected to the shore by an 

approximately 120-foot walkway. The 

new terminal would consist of a floating 

pontoon, which would be connected to 

the shore via a new trestle and transfer 

span. The new terminal would also 

include two new mooring dolphins, two 

new breasting dolphins, and three or 

more new reaction dolphins. Each of 

these would be interconnected via pilesupported catwalks. The proposed 

project would require the installation of 

25 24-inch piles, 21 30-inch piles, 53 

42-inch piles, and 5 60-inch piles. 

Dates and Duration 

In-water work, which is work 

occurring below the mean higher high 

water (MHHW) will be limited to pile 

installation and falsework pile 

extraction. These activities will be 

limited to the period between June 1 

and October 31, 2015 to avoid the 

period (15 April to 31 May) when 

spawning herring are most likely to be 

present within the project area. 

However, all pile driving is expected to 

be completed by the end of September. 

October has been included only to cover 

any contingencies that may arise. 

The project will require the 

installation of 104 steel pipe piles of 

varying diameters below the MHHW. 

Total impact hammer time would not 

exceed 5 minutes per pile for 104 piles 

resulting in less than 10 hours of driving 

time. Total vibratory hammer time 

would not exceed 5 hours per day for 

a maximum of 20 days resulting in a 

total of 100 hours. 

The overall project, including work 

not anticipated to result in incidental 

take, was initiated in September 2014 

and will run through May 2016. 

Specified Geographic Region 

The existing Icy Strait Point site is 

located in Hoonah, Alaska. The project 

site is located at the junction of Icy 

Strait and Port Frederick, in the 

Baranof-Chichagof Islands watershed 

(HUC #19010203). Please see Sheet 1 of 

Appendix A in the HTC application for 

details. 

Detailed Description of Activities 

The proposed action would involve 

construction of a new cruise ship berth 

terminal and associated upland 

improvements at the existing facility. 

The existing facility is served by an 

approximately 100-foot by 25-foot 

excursion dock, with an approximately 

140-foot walkway connecting to 

shoreline. There is also an existing 40- 

foot by 80-foot fishing pier which is 

connected to the shore by an 

approximately 120-foot walkway. The 

new terminal would consist of a floating 

pontoon, which would be connected to 

the shore via a new trestle and transfer 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14947 

span. The new terminal would also 

include two new mooring dolphins, two 

new breasting dolphins, and three or 

more new reaction dolphins. Each of 

these would be interconnected via pilesupported catwalks. 

In-water work (work below the 

MHHW) will be limited to pile 

installation. Over-water work will 

include construction and installation of 

the steel trestle and transfer span, 

construction of the over-water portions 

of the mooring, breasting, and reaction 

dolphins, and construction of the 

catwalk spans. The floating pontoon 

will be fabricated in a dry dock and 

floated into position. 

In-water and over-water components 

of the project would be constructed in 

areas with water depths ranging 

between MHHW and approximately 

¥60 feet mean lower low water 

(MLLW). The majority of the in-water 

and over-water work including 

construction of the mooring, breasting, 

and reaction dolphins; catwalks, a 

portion of the transfer span and floating 

pontoon will be completed between 

approximately ¥25 feet and ¥60 feet 

MLLW. 

A detailed description of in-water and 

over-water project components may be 

found in Table 1 of the HTC 

Application. 

In-water and over-water work will 

primarily be completed using 

equipment mounted on barges and/or 

barge-mounted derricks. It is anticipated 

that a maximum of 3 barges, including 

material barges, will be anchored (four 

anchors per barge) at the site during 

offshore construction. The barges may 

be anchored with spud anchors in 

shallow water and line anchors in 

deeper water. Small vessels will be used 

for crew access and miscellaneous 

construction activities. Limited upland 

equipment will be used to support inwater construction. 

Pile Installation—The over-water 

structures, except for the floating 

pontoon, will likely be founded on steel 

pipe piling. Piling will be set using a 

vibratory hammer. Rock excavation will 

be conducted using a down the hole 

drilling system with an under reaming 

bit. Seating will be achieved with either 

vibratory or impact hammer depending 

on local geotechnical conditions. The 

project will require the installation of a 

total of approximately 104 steel pipe 

piles of varying diameters below the 

MHHW. Piles that will be used include 

24-inch, 30-inch, 42-inch, and 60-inch 

steel pipe piles. Piles will be set by 

vibratory hammer that will cease 

operation as soon as bedrock is 

encountered. Vibratory hammer time 

should be between 10 and 30 minutes 

per pile. It is estimated that each pile 

will need to be driven approximately 50 

feet to hit bedrock. Piles will then be 

drilled into bedrock using a down the 

hole drilling system with an under 

reaming bit for approximately 15 feet. 

This process will take an estimated 3 

hours. This is a low energy air-powered 

system that releases decreased acoustic 

energy compared to impact driving. 

Proofing or seating of the pile into the 

drilled socket would occur with either 

a vibratory or impact hammer 

depending on the rock encountered and 

will be selected in the field based on 

actual sub surface conditions. If a 

vibratory hammer is used it will take 3– 

5 minutes of vibrating. Should an 

impact hammer be required it is 

expected to take 50 blows and 3–5 

minutes of impacting. As described 

previously total vibratory hammer time 

would not exceed a total of 100 hours 

and total impact hammer time would 

result in less than 10 hours of driving 

time. This would occur over 

approximately 16–20 days of driving 

during the 4 month Authorization 

period. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PILINGS TO

BE INSTALLED—DIAMETER AND

NUMBER

Pile size 

(diameter in inches) Number of Piles 

24 ........................... 25 

30 ........................... 21 

42 ........................... 53 

60 ........................... 5 

Total ................... 104 

Trestle and Transfer Span—A new 

steel trestle (482 feet by 18 feet) and 

transfer span (173 feet by 18 feet) with 

associated steel foundations, measuring 

approximately 1,090 square feet, will be 

constructed to allow vehicle and 

pedestrian access between the pontoon 

and upland areas. These spans will be 

supported by approximately fifteen 24- 

inch and twenty-one 30-inch-diameter 

steel pipe piling that will be installed 

per the pile installation methods 

described above. 

Pontoon—A new floating steel 

pontoon (21,500 square feet) with 

associated steel components will be 

constructed to provide a landing surface 

for cruise ship gangways. 

Mooring Dolphins—Two new mooring 

dolphins, measuring 1,150 square feet 

(each approximately 575 square feet), 

will be constructed to provide mooring 

points for lines from the cruise ship 

vessels. The dolphins will be supported 

by 42-inch-diameter steel pipe piles 

(seven and eight piles, respectively). 

Breasting Dolphins—Two new 

breasting dolphins, measuring 1,150 

square feet (total), will be constructed to 

provide mooring points for the lines and 

breasting points for the hulls of cruise 

ship vessels. Each dolphin will be 

supported by ten 42-inch-diameter steel 

pipe piles. 

Reaction Dolphins—Approximately 

three new reaction dolphins, measuring 

1,750 square feet (total), will be 

constructed to maintain the horizontal 

position of the floating pontoon. The 

reaction dolphins will be supported by 

eighteen 42-inch diameter and five 60- 

inch-diameter steel pipe piles (total 

piles used for the three dolphins). 

Catwalks—Eight new catwalk spans, 

measuring 4,150 square feet total (5 feet 

wide by 820 feet plus foundations), will 

be constructed to provide walking 

access between the pontoon and the 

mooring and breasting dolphins. The 

catwalks will be supported by ten 24- 

inch-diameter steel pipe piles. 

Upland Project Components—The 

upland portions of the project include 

numerous improvements to the tourist 

and retail facilities to support the 

increased cruise passenger traffic that 

will result from the new cruise ship 

berth. Construction associated with 

these improvements will have no 

impact on marine mammals. A detailed 

list of these structures may be found in 

the HTC Application. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, ‘‘and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on such species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of such species or stock 

for taking’’ for certain subsistence uses. 

For the proposed project, HTC worked 

with NMFS and proposed the following 

mitigation measures to minimize the 

potential impacts to marine mammals in 

the project vicinity. The primary 

purposes of these mitigation measures 

are to minimize sound levels from the 

activities, and to monitor marine 

mammals within designated zones of 

influence corresponding to NMFS’ 

current Level A and B harassment 

thresholds which are depicted in Table 

4 found later in the Estimated Take by 

Incidental Harassment section. 

Monitoring Protocols—Monitoring 

would be conducted before, during, and 

after pile driving and removal activities. 

In addition, observers shall record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14948 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

activity, and shall document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from piles being driven. 

Observations made outside the 

shutdown zone will not result in 

shutdown; that pile segment would be 

completed without cessation, unless the 

animal approaches or enters the 

shutdown zone, at which point all pile 

driving activities would be halted. 

Monitoring will take place from twenty 

minutes prior to initiation through 

thirty minutes post-completion of pile 

driving activities. Pile driving activities 

include the time to 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. Please see the Marine Mammal 

Monitoring Plan (available at 

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

incidental/construction.htm), developed 

by HTC with our approval, for full 

details of the monitoring protocols. 

The following additional measures 

apply to visual monitoring: 

(1) Monitoring will be conducted by 

qualified observers, who will be placed 

at the best vantage point(s) practicable 

to monitor for marine mammals and 

implement shutdown/delay procedures 

when applicable by calling for the 

shutdown to the hammer operator. 

Qualified observers are trained 

biologists, with the following minimum 

qualifications: 

(a) Visual acuity in both eyes 

(correction is permissible) sufficient for 

discernment of moving targets at the 

water’s surface with ability to estimate 

target size and distance; use of 

binoculars may be necessary to correctly 

identify the target; 

(b) Advanced education in biological 

science or related field (undergraduate 

degree or higher required); 

(c) Experience and ability to conduct 

field observations and collect data 

according to assigned protocols (this 

may include academic experience); 

(d) Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

(e) Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

(f) Writing skills sufficient to prepare 

a report of observations including but 

not limited to the number and species 

of marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were suspended to avoid 

potential incidental injury from 

construction sound of marine mammals 

observed within a defined shutdown 

zone; and marine mammal behavior; 

and 

(g) 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. 

(2) Prior to the start of pile driving 

activity, the shutdown zone will be 

monitored for twenty minutes to ensure 

that it is clear of marine mammals. Pile 

driving will only commence once 

observers have declared the shutdown 

zone clear of marine mammals; animals 

will be allowed to remain in the 

shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their 

own volition) and their behavior will be 

monitored and documented. The 

shutdown zone may only be declared 

clear, and pile driving started, when the 

entire shutdown zone is visible (i.e., 

when not obscured by dark, rain, fog, 

etc.). In addition, if such conditions 

should arise during impact pile driving 

that is already underway, the activity 

would be halted. 

If a marine mammal approaches or 

enters the shutdown zone during the 

course of pile driving operations, 

activity will be halted and delayed until 

either the animal has voluntarily left 

and been visually confirmed beyond the 

shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have 

passed without re-detection of the 

animal. Monitoring will be conducted 

throughout the time required to drive a 

pile. 

Soft Start—The use of a soft start 

procedure is believed to provide 

additional protection to marine 

mammals by warning or providing a 

chance to leave the area prior to the 

hammer operating at full capacity, and 

typically involves a requirement to 

initiate sound from the hammer at 

reduced energy followed by a waiting 

period. This procedure is repeated two 

additional times. It is difficult to specify 

the reduction in energy for any given 

hammer because of variation across 

drivers and, for impact hammers, the 

actual number of strikes at reduced 

energy will vary because operating the 

hammer at less than full power results 

in ‘‘bouncing’’ of the hammer as it 

strikes the pile, resulting in multiple 

‘‘strikes.’’ The project will utilize soft 

start techniques for both impact and 

vibratory pile driving. We require HTC 

to initiate sound from vibratory 

hammers for fifteen seconds at reduced 

energy followed by a thirty-second 

waiting period, with the procedure 

repeated two additional times. For 

impact driving, we require an initial set 

of three strikes from the impact hammer 

at reduced energy, followed by a thirtysecond waiting period, then two 

subsequent three strike sets. Soft start 

will be required at the beginning of each 

day’s pile driving work and at any time 

following a cessation of pile driving of 

20 minutes or longer (specific to either 

vibratory or impact driving). 

In addition to the measures described 

later in this section, HTC would employ 

the following standard mitigation 

measures: 

(a) Conduct briefings between 

construction supervisors and crews, 

marine mammal monitoring team, and 

HTC staff prior to the start of all pile 

driving activity, and when new 

personnel join the work, in order to 

explain responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocol, and operational procedures. 

(b) For in-water heavy machinery 

work other than pile driving (using, e.g., 

standard barges, tug boats, bargemounted excavators, or clamshell 

equipment used to place or remove 

material), if a marine mammal comes 

within 10 m, operations shall cease and 

vessels shall reduce speed to the 

minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions. 

This type of work could include the 

following activities: (1) Movement of the 

barge to the pile location or (2) 

positioning of the pile on the substrate 

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

Monitoring and Shutdown for Pile 

Driving 

The following measures would apply 

to HTC’s mitigation through shutdown 

and disturbance zones: 

Shutdown Zone—For all pile driving 

activities, HTC will establish a 

shutdown zone. Shutdown zones are 

intended to contain the area in which 

SPLs equal or exceed the 180/190 dB 

rms acoustic injury criteria, with the 

purpose being to define an area within 

which shutdown of activity would 

occur upon sighting of a marine 

mammal (or in anticipation of an animal 

entering the defined area), thus 

preventing injury of marine mammals. 

For vibratory driving, HTC’s activities 

are not expected to produce sound at or 

above the 180 dB rms injury criterion 

(see ‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’). As described above, HTC 

would, however, implement a minimum 

shutdown zone of 10 m radius for all 

marine mammals around all vibratory 

pile driving and removal activity and 

100 m radius around impact pile driving 

activity. These precautionary measures 

are intended to further reduce the 

unlikely possibility of injury from direct 

physical interaction with construction 

operations. 

Disturbance Zone—Disturbance zones 

are the areas in which SPLs equal or 

exceed 120 dB rms (for continuous 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14949 

sound) for pile driving installation and 

removal. Disturbance zones provide 

utility for monitoring conducted for 

mitigation purposes (i.e., shutdown 

zone monitoring) by establishing 

monitoring protocols for areas adjacent 

to the shutdown zones. Monitoring of 

disturbance zones enables observers to 

be aware of and communicate the 

presence of marine mammals in the 

project area but outside the shutdown 

zone and thus prepare for potential 

shutdowns of activity. However, the 

primary purpose of disturbance zone 

monitoring is for documenting incidents 

of Level B harassment; disturbance zone 

monitoring is discussed in greater detail 

later (see ‘‘Proposed Monitoring and 

Reporting’’). Nominal radial distances 

for disturbance zones are shown in 

Table 5. Given the size of the 

disturbance zone for vibratory pile 

driving, it is impossible to guarantee 

that all animals would be observed or to 

make comprehensive observations of 

fine-scale behavioral reactions to sound. 

We discuss monitoring objectives and 

protocols in greater depth in ‘‘Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting.’’ 

In order to document observed 

incidents of harassment, monitors 

record all marine mammal observations, 

regardless of location. The observer’s 

location, as well as the location of the 

pile being driven, is known from a GPS. 

The location of the animal is estimated 

as a distance from the observer, which 

is then compared to the location from 

the pile and the estimated ZOIs for 

relevant activities (i.e., pile installation 

and removal). This information may 

then be used to extrapolate observed 

takes to reach an approximate 

understanding of actual total takes. 

Time Restrictions—Work would occur 

only during daylight hours, when visual 

monitoring of marine mammals can be 

conducted. In addition, all in-water 

construction will be limited to the 

period between June 1 and October 31, 

2015. However, all pile driving is 

expected to be completed by the end of 

September. October has only been 

included to cover any contingencies that 

may arise. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

applicant’s proposed mitigation 

measures and considered a range of 

other measures in the context of 

ensuring that NMFS prescribes the 

means of affecting the least practicable 

impact on the affected marine mammal 

species and stocks and their habitat. Our 

evaluation of potential measures 

included consideration of the following 

factors in relation to one another: 

• The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure is 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals. 

• The proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned. 

• The practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation. 

Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed 

by NMFS should be able to accomplish, 

have a reasonable likelihood of 

accomplishing (based on current 

science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed below: 

1. Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may 

contribute to this goal). 

2. A reduction in the numbers of 

marine mammals (total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) exposed to received levels 

of pile driving, or other activities 

expected to result in the take of marine 

mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, 

above, or to reducing harassment takes 

only). 

3. A reduction in the number of times 

(total number or number at biologically 

important time or location) individuals 

would be exposed to received levels of 

pile driving, or other activities expected 

to result in the take of marine mammals 

(this goal may contribute to 1, above, or 

to reducing harassment takes only). 

4. A reduction in the intensity of 

exposures (either total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) to received levels of pile 

driving, or other activities expected to 

result in the take of marine mammals 

(this goal may contribute to a, above, or 

to reducing the severity of harassment 

takes only). 

5. Avoidance or minimization of 

adverse effects to marine mammal 

habitat, paying special attention to the 

food base, activities that block or limit 

passage to or from biologically 

important areas, permanent destruction 

of habitat, or temporary destruction/

disturbance of habitat during a 

biologically important time. 

6. For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation—an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation. 

The potential use of bubble curtains 

was discussed with HTC. However, 

impact driving would only occur for 

brief, irregular periods. Additionally, 

the project is being conducted in 

relatively deep water where it is 

difficult to deploy bubble curtains and 

their efficacy would be uncertain. 

Therefore, NMFS does not propose to 

require the use of bubble curtains. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the proposed mitigation measures 

provide the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on marine mammals 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

TABLE 2—LIST OF MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES UNDER NMFS JURISDICTION THAT OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE HTC 

CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL RE-DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Common name Stock Scientific name ESA Status; 

Strategic Y/N 

Stock abundance (CV, 

Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) * 

Relative 

occurrence 

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

Gray whale .............. Eastern North Pacific 

Stock.

Eschrichtius robustus ..... Not listed/N ......... 19,126 (0.071; 18,017; 

2007).

Uncommon. 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Humpback whale ..... Entire Central North Pacific Stock.Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered/Y ..... 10,103 (0.03; 7,890; 

2006).

Common. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14950 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

TABLE 2—LIST OF MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES UNDER NMFS JURISDICTION THAT OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE HTC 

CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL RE-DEVELOPMENT PROJECT—Continued 

Common name Stock Scientific name ESA Status; 

Strategic Y/N 

Stock abundance (CV, 

Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) * 

Relative 

occurrence 

Minke whale ............ Gulf of Alaska and Western Aleutians.Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata).

Not listed/N ......... Unknown ........................ Uncommon. 

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

Family Delphinidae: 

Pacific white-sided 

dolphin.

entire North Pacific 

Stock.

Lagenorhynchus 

obliquidens.

Not listed/N ......... 26,880 (N/A; N/A; 1990) Uncommon. 

Killer whale .............. AK Resident Stock ......... Orcinus orca .................. Not listed/N ......... 2,347 (N/A; 2,3477; 

2012).

Common. 

GOA, Bering Sea, Aleutian Transient Stock......................................... ............................. 587 (N/A; 587; 2012) ..... Uncommon. 

West Coat Transient 

Stock.

........................................ ............................. 354 (N/A; 243; 2009) ..... Uncommon. 

Family Phocoenidae 

(porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise ...... Southeast Alaskan Stock Phocoena phocoena ...... Not listed/S .......... 11,146 (0.242; 9,116; 

1997).

Common. 

Dall’s porpoise ......... Alaska ............................ Phocoenoides dalli ......... Not listed/NS ....... 83,000 (0.097; N/A; 

1993).

Common 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared 

seals and sea lions): 

Steller Sea Lion ....... Eastern DPS .................. Eumatopius jubatus ....... Not Listed/S ........ 60,131–74,448 (36,551; 

2013).

Common. 

Western DPS ................. ........................................ Endangered/S ..... 55,422 (48,676; 2013) ... Common. 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Harbor seal .............. Glacier Bay/Icy Strait 

Stock.

Phoca vitulina ................ Not listed/NS ....... 5,042 (4,735; 2007) ....... Common. 

* Estimated abundance numbers come primarily from NMFS 2014 Draft Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report (Allen and Angliss 

2014), with the exception of the abundance data for gray whale, which comes from the Draft 2013 Pacific Region Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report (Carretta et al. 2013). 

Nine marine mammal species have 

known distribution ranges that include 

the portion of Icy Strait/Port Frederick 

in which construction activities will 

occur. These are humpback whale, 

Steller sea lion, harbor seal, Dall’s 

porpoise, gray whale, harbor porpoise, 

killer whale, minke whale, and Pacific 

white-sided dolphin. There are specific 

stocks of individual species that may 

occur in the vicinity of the Project area. 

These include the Eastern North Pacific 

stock of gray whale; the North Central 

Pacific Stock of humpback whale; Gulf 

of Alaska and Western Aleutians stock 

of minke whale; North Pacific Stock of 

Pacific white-sided dolphin; Alaska 

Resident stock of killer whale; Golf of 

Alaska, Bering Sea, Aleutian transient 

stock of Killer whale; West coast 

transient stock of killer whale; 

Southeast Alaska stock of harbor 

porpoise; Alaska stock of Dall’s 

porpoise; eastern depleted population 

stock (DPS) of Steller’s sea lion; western 

DPS of Steller’s sea lion; and Glacier 

Bay/Icy Strait stock of harbor seal. 

This IHA application assesses the 

potential impacts of the proposed 

project on these 12 stocks. 

We have reviewed HTC’s detailed 

species descriptions, including life 

history information, for accuracy and 

completeness and refer the reader to 

Section 3 of HTC’s application instead 

of reprinting the information here. 

Please also refer to NMFS’ Web site 

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

mammals) for generalized species 

accounts. Table 2 lists the 12 marine 

mammal stocks that could occur in the 

vicinity of Icy Strait during the project 

timeframe and summarizes key 

information regarding stock status and 

abundance. Please see NMFS’ Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR), available at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, for more 

detailed accounts of these stocks’ status 

and abundance. 

In the species accounts provided here, 

we offer a brief introduction to the 

species and relevant stock as well as 

available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

describe any information regarding local 

occurrence. 

Cetaceans 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales range from 

California to the Chukchi Sea, Hawaii, 

and the Mariana Islands (NMFS 1991). 

During summer and fall, humpback 

whales in the North Pacific forage over 

the continental shelf and along the 

coasts of the Pacific Rim, from Point 

Conception, California, north to the Gulf 

of Alaska, Prince William Sound, and 

Kodiak Island. Within this feeding area 

there are three relatively separate 

populations that migrate from these 

colder, highly productive higherlatitude waters to winter/spring calving 

and mating areas in warmer, lowerlatitude coastal waters. Humpback 

whales in the waters of southeast Alaska 

belong to the Central North Pacific 

stock. This stock forages seasonally in 

the waters of British Columbia and 

Alaska and then, during winter, 

migrates to the Hawaiian Islands for 

mating and calving; however, a portion 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14951 

of the population remains in southeast 

Alaska waters year-round. Humpback 

whales are primarily observed foraging 

in southeast Alaska from May through 

December with numbers peaking in late 

August and September. 

While the estimated population of the 

North Pacific stock remains much lower 

than the population size before whaling, 

humpback whales are increasing in 

abundance throughout much of their 

range. While the species currently 

remains listed as endangered 

throughout its range, the State of Alaska, 

in 2014, filed a petition with NMFS to 

designate the Central North Pacific 

Stock of humpback whale as a DPS and 

to delist this DPS under the ESA 

(ADF&G 2014). 

In the North Pacific, humpback 

abundance was estimated at fewer than 

1,400 whales in 1966, after heavy 

commercial exploitation. The current 

abundance estimate for the Central 

North Pacific stock is approximately 

10,103 whales (Allen and Angliss 2013). 

The population across Southeast Alaska 

experienced a 10.6% annual population 

increase over the 1991–2007 study 

period (Dahlheim et al., 2008). 

Humpback whales have been observed 

within the waters of the action area 

during all months of the year, with 

annual concentrations of humpback 

whales occurring consistently in the 

waters in and adjacent to Icy Strait in 

the spring (April/May) (Dahlheim et al., 

2008). This is probably when whales are 

preying on heavily schooled fishes 

(NMFS 1991). Overall numbers of 

humpback whales tend to increase 

during the summer (June/July) and fall 

(August/September) but are more evenly 

distributed with fewer identifiable 

population concentrations (Dahlheim et 

al. 2008). However, Port Frederick has 

been identified as being of relatively 

higher importance during the later 

summer months, when whales are 

preying more heavily on swarming 

euphasiids (NMFS 1991). 

Dall’s Porpoise 

Dall’s porpoise are only found in the 

North Pacific and adjacent seas. Based 

primarily on the population response 

data and preliminary genetics analyses 

(Winans and Jones 1988), a delineation 

between Bering Sea and western North 

Pacific stocks has been recognized. 

However, similar data are not available 

for the eastern North Pacific, thus one 

stock of Dall’s porpoise is recognized in 

Alaskan waters. Dall’s porpoise along 

the west coast of the continental U. S. 

from California to Washington comprise 

a separate stock (Allen and Angliss 

2013). 

Dall’s porpoise occur throughout 

Alaska, and in general, are considered to 

be common throughout their range 

(Buckland et al. 1993a). This porpoise 

was also one of the most frequently 

sighted species during summer seismic 

surveys in the central and eastern Gulf 

of Alaska and southeast Alaska 

(MacLean and Koski 2005; Hauser and 

Holst 2009). In one study from 1991– 

2007, Dall’s porpoise were encountered 

throughout Southeast Alaska with 

concentrations of animals consistently 

found in Icy Strait (Dahlheim et al., 

2008). Dall’s porpoise also have strong 

seasonal patterns in Southeast Alaska, 

with the highest numbers observed in 

the spring and numbers lowest in the 

fall (Dahlheim et al., 2008). 

The current best population estimate 

for the Alaskan stock of Dall’s porpoise 

is 83,400 (Allen and Angliss 2013). 

However, surveys for this stock are 

greater than 12 years old and, 

consequently, NMFS considers the 

minimum population estimate to be 

‘‘unknown’’, and has also not calculated 

a Potential Biological Removal (PBR) 

level for Dall’s porpoise (Allen and 

Angliss 2013). In the Southeast Alaska 

region, Dall’s porpoise populations 

increased annually by 2.5% between 

1991 and 2007(Dahlheim et al., 2008). 

Dall’s porpoise are not designated as 

‘‘depleted’’ under the MMPA or listed as 

‘‘threatened’’ or ‘‘endangered’’ under the 

Endangered Species Act. The level of 

human-caused mortality and serious 

injury is not known to exceed the PBR, 

which is undetermined as the most 

recent abundance estimate is more than 

8 years old. The Alaska stock of Dall’s 

porpoise is not classified as a strategic 

stock (Allen and Angliss 2013). 

Gray Whale 

Gray whales are common along the 

Gulf of Alaska coast, but rare in the 

inside waters of southeastern Alaska 

(Braham 1984). During a four-year 

opportunistic marine mammal survey in 

Glacier Bay and Icy Strait, only a single 

gray whale was documented (Gabriele 

and Lewis, 2000). 

Gray whales are found primarily in 

shallow water and usually remain closer 

to shore than any other large cetacean. 

Two stocks of gray whales are 

recognized in the Pacific: the Eastern 

North Pacific stock and the Western 

North Pacific stock (Carretta et al. 2013). 

The eastern gray whale population 

ranges from the Chukchi and Beaufort 

seas to the Gulf of California (Rice 

1998). Most of the eastern Pacific 

population makes a round-trip annual 

migration of more than 18,000 km. From 

late May to early October, the majority 

of the population concentrates in the 

northern and western Bering Sea and in 

the Chukchi Sea. However, some 

individuals spend the summer months 

scattered along the coasts of southeast 

Alaska, B.C., Washington, Oregon, and 

northern California. 

The current best population estimate 

for the Eastern North Pacific stock is 

19,126 (Carretta et. al. 2013). In 1994, 

the Eastern North Pacific stock of gray 

whales was removed from the 

Endangered Species List as it was no 

longer considered endangered or 

threatened under the ESA. NMFS has 

not designated gray whales as 

‘‘depleted’’ under the MMPA. Based on 

currently available data, the level of 

human- caused mortality and serious 

injury is not known to exceed the 

potential biological removal (PBR) level 

for Eastern North Pacific gray whales, 

which is calculated at 558 whales per 

year (Carretta et. al. 2013). Therefore, 

Eastern North Pacific gray whales are 

not classified as a strategic stock. 

Harbor Porpoise 

The harbor porpoise inhabits 

temporal, subarctic, and arctic waters. 

In the eastern North Pacific, harbor 

porpoises range from Point Barrow, 

Alaska, to Point Conception, California. 

Harbor porpoise primarily frequent 

coastal waters and in the Gulf of Alaska 

and Southeast Alaska, they occur most 

frequently in waters less than 100 m 

deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010). 

Within the inland waters of Southeast 

Alaska harbor porpoise distribution is 

clumped in several areas with high 

densities observed in the Glacier Bay/

Icy Strait region (Dahlheim et al. 2009, 

Allen and Angliss, 2013). Data collected 

between 2010 and 2012 indicated that 

there are an estimated 322 harbor 

porpoise that reside in the Icy Strait 

area, including Excursion Inlet and Port 

Frederick (Dahlheim 2015). Another 

study found no evidence of seasonality 

for harbor porpoise across spring, 

summer or fall (Dahlheim et al., 2008). 

In Alaska, there are three separate 

stocks of harbor porpoise: Southeast 

Alaska, Gulf of Alaska, and Bering Sea. 

The Southeast Alaska Stock occurs from 

northern B.C. to Cape Suckling, and the 

Gulf of Alaska Stock ranges from Cape 

Suckling to Unimak Pass. The 

population estimates for the Southeast 

Alaska stock is 11,146 (Allen and 

Angliss 2013). However, this abundance 

estimate is based on surveys conducted 

between 1993 and 1997(Dahlheim et. al 

2000). NMFS has not established a PBR 

for Southeast Alaska stock harbor 

porpoise, due to the fact that the 

available abundance estimates are 

greater than 8 years old. Similarly, due 

to the age of the abundance estimates, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14952 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

and due to the fact that the frequency of 

incidental mortality in commercial 

fisheries is not known, the Southeast 

Alaska stock of harbor porpoise is 

classified as a strategic stock. 

Preliminary analysis of harbor porpoise 

trend in Southeast Alaska, as reported 

in NMFS 2012 marine mammal stock 

reports, indicated the population 

declined between 1991 and 2010. 

However, a new estimate shows that 

abundance in 2011 was comparable to 

those from the early 1990s, suggesting 

the decline was not as steep as 

previously thought (Allen and Angliss, 

2014). Dahlheim et al. (2008) noted a 

slight annual increase (0.2%) was found 

for harbor porpoise populations 

between 1991 and 2007. 

Killer Whale 

Although resident in some parts of its 

range, the killer whale can also be 

transient. Killer whale movements 

generally appear to follow the 

distribution of their prey, which 

includes marine mammals, fish, and 

squid. Of eight killer whale stocks 

currently recognized in the Pacific U.S., 

four occur in Southeast Alaskan waters: 

(1) Alaska Residents, from southeast 

Alaska to the Aleutians and Bering Sea, 

(2) Northern Residents, from B.C. 

through parts of southeast Alaska, (3) 

Gulf of Alaska, Aleutians, and Bering 

Sea Transients, from Prince William 

Sound through to the Aleutians and 

Bering Sea, and (4) West Coast 

Transients, from California through 

southeast Alaska (Allen and Angliss 

2013). However, Northern resident killer 

whales have not been observed in the 

Icy Strait area over the course of two 

decades of research and have been 

eliminated from any additional 

consideration (Dahlheim, 2015). 

Resident killer whales have been 

found in all major waterways of 

Southeast Alaska as well as in protected 

bays and inlets and observed in all 

seasons. Two specific resident pods 

were frequently encountered throughout 

Icy Strait. These would be the AG pod 

numbering a minimum of 42 whales and 

the AF pod with a minimum count of 

79 whales. Whales have been seen there 

every month of the year and the Icy 

Strait corridor is a major route for them 

both entering and exiting inland waters. 

The AG pod has been observed inside 

Port Frederick, passing directly off the 

shore of Hoonah (Dahlheim, 2015). 

The current best abundance estimate 

for the North Pacific Alaska Resident 

stock of killer whales is 2,347 (Allen 

and Angliss 2013). This stock of killer 

whales is not designated as ‘‘depleted’’ 

under the MMPA nor are they listed as 

‘‘threatened’’ or ‘‘endangered’’ under the 

ESA. Based on currently available data, 

the level of human- caused mortality 

and serious injury is not known to 

exceed the potential biological removal 

(PBR) level for this stock, which is 

calculated at 23.4 individuals (Allen 

and Angliss 2013). Therefore, the North 

Pacific Alaska Resident stock of killer 

whales is not classified as a strategic 

stock. 

The current best abundance estimate 

for the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, 

and Bering Sea transient stock of killer 

whales is 587 individuals. These whales 

occur mainly from Prince William 

Sound through the Aleutian Islands and 

Bering Sea though their range includes 

all of the U.S. EEZ in Alaska (Allen and 

Angliss, 2013). In recent years, a small 

number of the ‘Gulf of Alaska’ transients 

(identified by genetics and association) 

have been seen in southeastern Alaska 

where previously only West coast 

transients had been seen. 

This stock of killer whales is not 

designated as ‘‘depleted’’ under the 

MMPA nor are they listed as 

‘‘threatened’’ or ‘‘endangered’’ under the 

ESA. Based on currently available data, 

the level of human-caused mortality and 

serious injury is not known to exceed 

the potential biological removal (PBR) 

level for this stock, which is calculated 

at 5.9 individuals (Allen and Angliss 

2013). Therefore, the Gulf of Alaska, 

Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea 

transient stock of killer whales is not 

classified as a strategic stock. 

The West Coast transient stock ranges 

from Southeast Alaska to California. 

Allen and Angliss (2012) provide an 

abundance estimate of 354 for the West 

Coast transient stock. Although this 

estimate is more than eight years old, 

NMFS is not aware of a more recent 

estimate for the entire stock. A more 

recent estimate of 243 whales is 

available, however this estimate 

excludes whales of this stock from 

California. Therefore, 354 describes the 

number of whales believed to occur 

throughout the entire stock’s range, 

including whales from California. A 

notable percentage of whales from the 

West Coast transient stock have never 

been observed in Southeast Alaska. 

Only 155 West Coast transient killer 

whales have been identified as 

occurring in Southeast Alaska according 

to Dahlheim and White (2010). The 

same study identified three pods of 

transients, equivalent to 19 animals, that 

remained almost exclusively in the 

southern part of Southeast Alaska (i.e. 

Clarence Strait and Sumner Strait). 

This stock of killer whales is not 

designated as ‘‘depleted’’ under the 

MMPA nor are they listed as 

‘‘threatened’’ or ‘‘endangered’’ under the 

ESA. Based on currently available data, 

the level of human- caused mortality 

and serious injury is not known to 

exceed the potential biological removal 

(PBR) level for this stock, which is 

calculated at 2.4 individuals (Allen and 

Angliss 2013). Therefore, the West Coast 

transient stock of killer whales is not 

classified as a strategic stock. 

Minke Whale 

In the Northern Hemisphere, minke 

whales are usually seen in coastal areas, 

but can also be seen in pelagic waters 

during northward migrations in spring 

and summer, and southward migration 

in autumn. In the North Pacific, the 

summer range of the minke whale 

extends to the Chukchi Sea; in the 

winter, the whales move farther south 

close within 2° of the equator (Perrin 

and Brownell 2002). 

The International Whaling 

Commission (IWC) recognizes three 

stocks of minke whales in the North 

Pacific: the Sea of Japan/East China Sea, 

the rest of the western Pacific west of 

180°N, and the remainder of the Pacific 

(Donovan 1991). For management 

purposes in Pacific U.S. waters, three 

stocks of minke whales are recognized— 

the Alaska, Hawaii, and California/

Oregon/Washington stocks (Allen and 

Angliss 2013). Minke whales that could 

potentially occur within the action area 

are members of the Alaska stock. 

Minke whales are relatively common 

in the Bering and Chukchi seas and in 

the inshore waters of the Gulf of Alaska. 

They are not considered abundant in 

any other part of the eastern Pacific, but 

they are seen occasionally around 

Glacier Bay in southeast Alaska and in 

central Icy Strait. Gabriele and Lewis 

(2000) documented a total of 29 minke 

whales during a four-year period 

conducting opportunistic marine 

mammal surveys in Glacier Bay and Icy 

Strait. Another study found Minke 

whales scattered throughout inland 

waters from Glacier Bay and Icy Strait 

to Clarence Strait with concentrations 

near the entrance of Glacier Bay. 

Although sightings of minke whales 

were infrequent over the 17-year study 

period, minke whales were encountered 

during all seasons, with a few animals 

recorded each year. (Dahlheim et al. 

2008) 

The current best abundance estimate 

for the Alaska stock of minke whales is 

unknown. (Allen and Angliss 2013). 

This stock of minke whales is not 

designated as ‘‘depleted’’ under the 

MMPA nor are they listed as 

‘‘threatened’’ or ‘‘endangered’’ under the 

ESA. The greatest uncertainty regarding 

the status of the Alaska minke whale 

stock has to do with the uncertainty 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14953 

pertaining to the stock structure of this 

species in the eastern North Pacific 

(Allen and Angliss 2013). Because 

minke whales are considered common 

in the waters off Alaska and because the 

number of human-related removals is 

currently thought to be minimal, this 

stock is currently presumed to not be a 

strategic stock (Allen and Angliss 2013). 

Reliable estimates of the minimum 

population size, population trends, PBR, 

and status of the stock relative to 

optimum sustainable population size 

are currently not available. 

Pacific White-Sided Dolphin 

The Pacific white-sided dolphin is 

found throughout the temperate North 

Pacific Ocean, north of the coasts of 

Japan and Baja California, Mexico. In 

the eastern North Pacific the species 

occurs from the southern Gulf of 

California, north to the Gulf of Alaska, 

west to Amchitka in the Aleutian 

Islands, and is rarely encountered in the 

southern Bering Sea. The species is 

common both on the high seas and 

along the continental margins, and 

animals are known to enter the inshore 

passes of Alaska, British Columbia, and 

Washington (Ferrero and Walker 1996). 

Two management stocks of Pacific 

white-sided dolphin are currently 

recognized: (1) The California/Oregon/

Washington stock, and (2) the North 

Pacific stock. Pacific white-sided 

dolphins that could potentially be 

present within the action area would be 

members of the North Pacific stock. 

Pacific white-sided dolphin were not 

documented in the waters of Icy Strait. 

It also appears that when Pacific whitesided dolphins are present in Southeast 

Alaska they tend to occur in highest 

concentrations during the spring 

(Dahlheim et al., 2008). 

The current best abundance estimate 

for the North Pacific stock of Pacific 

white-sided dolphin is 26,880 

individuals (Allen and Angliss 2013). 

However, this estimate is based on 

survey data that is greater than 8 years 

old. As a result, NMFS reports the 

minimum population estimate as 

currently unknown (Allen and Angliss 

2013). This stock of Pacific white-sided 

dolphin is not designated as ‘‘depleted’’ 

under the MMPA nor are they listed as 

‘‘threatened’’ or ‘‘endangered’’ under the 

ESA. The level of human-caused 

mortality and serious injury is not 

known to exceed the PBR, which is 

undetermined as the most recent 

abundance estimate is more than 8 years 

old. Because the PBR is undetermined, 

the level of annual U.S. commercial 

fishery-related mortality that can be 

considered insignificant and 

approaching zero mortality and serious 

injury rate is unknown. The Alaska 

stock of Pacific white-sided dolphins is 

not classified as a strategic stock, but 

reliable estimates of the minimum 

population size, population trends, PBR, 

and status of the stock relative to 

optimum sustainable population size 

are currently not available (Allen and 

Angliss 2013). 

Pinnipeds 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals range from Baja 

California, north along the western 

coasts of the U.S., B.C., and southeast 

Alaska, west through the GOA, PWS, 

and the Aleutian Islands, and north in 

the Bering Sea to Cape Newenham and 

the Pribilof Islands. 

In 2010, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service and their co-management 

partners, the Alaska Native Harbor Seal 

Commission, defined 12 separate stocks 

of seals harbor based largely on the 

genetic structure. Given the genetic 

samples were not obtained continuously 

throughout the range, a total evidence 

approach was used to consider 

additional factors such as population 

trends, observed harbor seal movements 

and traditional Alaska Native use areas 

in the final designation of stock 

boundaries. This represents a significant 

increase in the number of harbor seal 

stocks from the three stocks (Bering Sea, 

Gulf of Alaska, Southeast Alaska) 

previously recognized. Harbor seals that 

occur within the proposed project area 

are part of the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait 

Stock (Allen and Angliss 2013). 

Harbor seals are commonly present 

throughout the waters of Icy Strait and 

Port Frederick and are found in all 

water depths, but tend to congregate in 

the near- shore waters of both Glacier 

Bay and Icy Strait. Harbor seals 

typically inhabit estuarine and coastal 

waters, hauling out on rocks, reefs, 

beaches, and glacial ice flows. They are 

generally non-migratory, but move 

locally with the tides, weather, season, 

food availability, and reproduction. 

Female harbor seals give birth to a 

single pup while hauled out on shore or 

on glacial ice flows. Pups are born from 

May to mid-July. The mother and pup 

remain together until weaning occurs at 

3–6 weeks (Bishop 1967; Bigg 1969). 

Little is known about breeding behavior 

in harbor seals. When molting, which 

occurs primarily in late August, seals 

spend the majority of the time hauled 

out on shore, glacial ice, or other 

substrates. Harbor seals have also 

historically been an important 

subsistence resource for Alaska Natives 

in SE Alaska (Wolfe et al. 2012). The 

current best population estimate for the 

Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock is 5,042 

individuals (Allen and Angliss 2013). 

Harbor seals have not been observed 

hauling out, molting, or pupping at Icy 

Strait Point. However, they likely do 

haulout at least occasionally within the 

action area. 

According to the most recent stock 

assessment NMFS (Allen and Angliss 

2013), harbor seals are not designated as 

‘‘depleted’’ under the MMPA nor are 

they listed as ‘‘threatened’’ or 

‘‘endangered’’ under the ESA. Based on 

currently available data, the level of 

human-caused mortality and serious 

injury is not known to exceed the 

potential biological removal (PBR) level 

for harbor seals comprise the Glacier 

Bay/Icy Strait stock, which is calculated 

at 142 harbor seals per year (Allen and 

Angliss 2013). Therefore, the Glacier 

Bay/Icy Strait stock of harbor seals is 

not classified as a strategic stock. 

However, a noticeable decline in harbor 

seal population has been documented in 

Glacier Bay National Park (Womble et 

al., 2010). 

Steller Sea Lion 

The Steller sea lion is a pinniped and 

the largest of the eared seals. Steller sea 

lion populations that primarily occur 

east of 144° W (Cape Suckling, Alaska) 

comprise the Eastern Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS), which was 

de-listed and removed from the list of 

Endangered Species List on November 

4, 2013 (78 FR 66140). The population 

west of 144° W longitude comprise the 

Western DPS, which is listed as 

endangered, based largely on overfishing of the seal’s food supply. 

The range of the Steller sea lion 

includes the North Pacific Ocean rim 

from California to northern Japan. 

Steller sea lions forage in nearshore and 

pelagic waters where they are 

opportunistic predators. They feed 

primarily on a wide variety of fishes and 

cephalopods. Steller sea lions use 

terrestrial haulout sites to rest and take 

refuge. They also gather on welldefined, traditionally used rookeries to 

pup and breed. These habitats are 

typically gravel, rocky, or sand beaches; 

ledges; or rocky reefs (Allen and 

Angliss, 2013). 

In southeast Alaska, designated 

critical habitat for Steller sea lions 

includes major rookery and haulout 

sites (i.e., used by more than 200 

animals) and associated terrestrial, air, 

and aquatic zones within 3,000 feet, as 

well as three large offshore foraging 

areas (one in the Gulf of Alaska and two 

in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands area). 

There is no designated critical habitat in 

the proposed project area. The nearest 

designated critical habitat is located 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14954 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

over 40 miles west of the action area, at 

Graves Rocks, near the mouth of Cross 

Sound. 

The western stock of Steller sea lions 

in Alaska was listed as endangered in 

1997. Declines in Steller sea lion 

populations are probably attributable to 

declines in fish populations due to 

increasing commercial fisheries in the 

Gulf of Alaska. Drowning, entanglement 

in nets, and shooting by fishermen are 

listed as possible reasons for the Steller 

sea lion decline. 

The action area is located at 

approximately 135° W longitude, which 

is over 150 miles east of the 144° W 

longitude line. It is likely that most 

Steller sea lions travelling within the 

waters of Icy Strait and Port Frederick 

are likely to be members of the Eastern 

DPS. However, the action area is known 

to be an area that is used by both 

Western and Eastern DPS Steller sea 

lions. In fact, regular movement of 

Western DPS across the144° W 

longitude has been documented and 

they are described as commonly 

occurring north of Sumner Strait 

(NMFS, 2013). For this reason, Western 

DPS Steller sea lions could potentially 

be present within the action area. Since 

no known breeding rookeries are 

present within the action area, Steller 

sea lion are considered less likely to be 

present during the summer months 

when they return to rookeries to give 

birth. The current best population 

estimate for the Eastern DPS is 57,966, 

while the population estimate for the 

Western DPS is 52,200 (Allen and 

Angliss 2013). Additionally, it recently 

been documented that the population of 

Stellar sea lions in the Glacier Bay/Icy 

Strait/Cross Sound region has increased 

by 8.2% per year from 1970 to 2009, 

though the proportional increase 

associated with each DPS is not clear 

(Matthews et al., 2011). 

Further information on the biology 

and local distribution of these species 

can be found in HTC’s application 

available online at: http://

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

incidental/construction.htm and the 

NMFS Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessment Reports, which may be 

found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

species/. 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals and Their 

Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that stressors, 

(e.g. pile driving,) and potential 

mitigation activities, associated with the 

redevelopment of the Icy Strait Cruise 

Ship Terminal may impact marine 

mammals and their habitat. The 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section later in this 

document will include a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis’’ section will include the 

analysis of how this specific activity 

will impact marine mammals and will 

consider the content of this section, the 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section, and the ‘‘Proposed 

Mitigation’’ section to draw conclusions 

regarding the likely impacts of this 

activity on the reproductive success or 

survivorship of individuals and from 

that on the affected marine mammal 

populations or stocks. In the following 

discussion, we provide general 

background information on sound and 

marine mammal hearing before 

considering potential effects to marine 

mammals from sound produced by 

vibratory pile driving. 

Description of Sound Sources 

Sound travels in waves, the basic 

components of which are frequency, 

wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. 

Frequency is the number of pressure 

waves that pass by a reference point per 

unit of time and is measured in hertz 

(Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is 

the distance between two peaks of a 

sound wave; lower frequency sounds 

have longer wavelengths than higher 

frequency sounds and attenuate 

(decrease) more rapidly in shallower 

water. Amplitude is the height of the 

sound pressure wave or the ‘loudness’ 

of a sound and is typically measured 

using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the 

ratio between a measured pressure (with 

sound) and a reference pressure (sound 

at a constant pressure, established by 

scientific standards). It is a logarithmic 

unit that accounts for large variations in 

amplitude; therefore, relatively small 

changes in dB ratings correspond to 

large changes in sound pressure. When 

referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs; 

the sound force per unit area), sound is 

referenced in the context of underwater 

sound pressure to 1 microPascal (mPa). 

One pascal is the pressure resulting 

from a force of one newton exerted over 

an area of one square meter. The source 

level (SL) represents the sound level at 

a distance of 1 m from the source 

(referenced to 1 mPa). The received level 

is the sound level at the listener’s 

position. Note that all underwater sound 

levels in this document are referenced 

to a pressure of 1 mPa and all airborne 

sound levels in this document are 

referenced to a pressure of 20 mPa. 

Root mean square (rms) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. Rms is 

calculated by squaring all of the sound 

amplitudes, averaging the squares, and 

then taking the square root of the 

average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for 

both positive and negative values; 

squaring the pressures makes all values 

positive so that they may be accounted 

for in the summation of pressure levels 

(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This 

measurement is often used in the 

context of discussing behavioral effects, 

in part because behavioral effects, 

which often result from auditory cues, 

may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak pressures. 

When underwater objects vibrate or 

activity occurs, sound-pressure waves 

are created. These waves alternately 

compress and decompress the water as 

the sound wave travels. Underwater 

sound waves radiate in all directions 

away from the source (similar to ripples 

on the surface of a pond), except in 

cases where the source is directional. 

The compressions and decompressions 

associated with sound waves are 

detected as changes in pressure by 

aquatic life and man-made sound 

receptors such as hydrophones. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is typically loud due to 

ambient sound. Ambient sound is 

defined as environmental background 

sound levels lacking a single source or 

point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the 

sound level of a region is defined by the 

total acoustical energy being generated 

by known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric 

sound), biological (e.g., sounds 

produced by marine mammals, fish, and 

invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound 

(e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, 

construction). A number of sources 

contribute to ambient sound, including 

the following (Richardson et al., 1995): 

• Wind and waves: The complex 

interactions between wind and water 

surface, including processes such as 

breaking waves and wave-induced 

bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a 

main source of naturally occurring 

ambient noise for frequencies between 

200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In 

general, ambient sound levels tend to 

increase with increasing wind speed 

and wave height. Surf noise becomes 

important near shore, with 

measurements collected at a distance of 

8.5 km from shore showing an increase 

of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band 

during heavy surf conditions. 

• Precipitation: Sound from rain and 

hail impacting the water surface can 

become an important component of total 

noise at frequencies above 500 Hz, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14955 

possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 

times. 

• Biological: Marine mammals can 

contribute significantly to ambient noise 

levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The 

frequency band for biological 

contributions is from approximately 12 

Hz to over 100 kHz. 

• Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient 

noise related to human activity include 

transportation (surface vessels and 

aircraft), dredging and construction, oil 

and gas drilling and production, seismic 

surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean 

acoustic studies. Shipping noise 

typically dominates the total ambient 

noise for frequencies between 20 and 

300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of 

anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz 

and, if higher frequency sound levels 

are created, they attenuate rapidly 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from 

identifiable anthropogenic sources other 

than the activity of interest (e.g., a 

passing vessel) is sometimes termed 

background sound, as opposed to 

ambient sound. 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’ 

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and shipping activity) but 

also on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is 

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

TABLE 3—REPRESENTATIVE SOUND LEVELS OF ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES

Sound source 

Frequency 

range 

(Hz) 

Underwater sound level References 

Small vessels ................................................................. 250–1,000 151 dB rms at 1 m ............ Richardson et al., 1995. 

Tug docking gravel barge .............................................. 200, 1,000 149 dB rms at 100 m ........ Blackwell and Greene, 2002. 

Vibratory driving of 72-in steel pipe pile ........................ 10–1,500 180 dB rms at 10 m .......... Reyff, 2007. 

Impact driving of 36-in steel pipe pile ........................... 10–1,500 195 dB rms at 10 m .......... Laughlin, 2007. 

Impact driving of 66-in cast-in-steel-shell (CISS) pile ... 10–1,500 195 dB at rms 10 m .......... Reviewed in Hastings and Popper, 2005. 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the project would 

include vibratory pile driving, impact 

pile driving, and down the hole drilling. 

There are two general categories of 

sound types: Impulse and non-pulse 

(defined in the following). Vibratory 

pile driving and down the hole drilling 

are considered to be continuous or nonpulsed while impact pile driving is 

considered to be an impulse or pulsed 

sound type. The distinction between 

these two sound types is important 

because they have differing potential to 

cause physical effects, particularly with 

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

Southall et al., 2007). Please see 

Southall et al., (2007) for an in-depth 

discussion of these concepts. 

Pulsed sound sources (e.g., 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) produce signals 

that are brief (typically considered to be 

less than one second), broadband, atonal 

transients (ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998; 

NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003; ANSI, 2005) 

and occur either as isolated events or 

repeated in some succession. Pulsed 

sounds are all characterized by a 

relatively rapid rise from ambient 

pressure to a maximal pressure value 

followed by a rapid decay period that 

may include a period of diminishing, 

oscillating maximal and minimal 

pressures, and generally have an 

increased capacity to induce physical 

injury as compared with sounds that 

lack these features. 

Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, 

narrowband, or broadband, brief or 

prolonged, and may be either 

continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 

1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these nonpulsed sounds can be transient signals 

of short duration but without the 

essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid 

rise time). Examples of non-pulsed 

sounds include those produced by 

vessels, aircraft, machinery operations 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems 

(such as those used by the U.S. Navy). 

The duration of such sounds, as 

received at a distance, can be greatly 

extended in a highly reverberant 

environment. 

The likely or possible impacts of the 

proposed pile driving program in the Icy 

Strait area on marine mammals could 

involve both non-acoustic and acoustic 

stressors. Potential non-acoustic 

stressors could result from the physical 

presence of the equipment and 

personnel. Any impacts to marine 

mammals, however, are expected to 

primarily be acoustic in nature. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

When considering the influence of 

various kinds of sound on the marine 

environment, it is necessary to 

understand that different kinds of 

marine life are sensitive to different 

frequencies of sound. Based on available 

behavioral data, audiograms have been 

derived using auditory evoked 

potentials, anatomical modeling, and 

other data, Southall et al. (2007) 

designate ‘‘functional hearing groups’’ 

for marine mammals and estimate the 

lower and upper frequencies of 

functional hearing of the groups. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (though 

animals are less sensitive to sounds at 

the outer edge of their functional range 

and most sensitive to sounds of 

frequencies within a smaller range 

somewhere in the middle of their 

functional hearing range): 

• Low frequency cetaceans (13 

species of mysticetes): Functional 

hearing is estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 30 kHz; 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 

species of dolphins, six species of larger 

toothed whales, and 19 species of 

beaked and bottlenose whales): 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 150 Hz and 160 

kHz; 

• High frequency cetaceans (eight 

species of true porpoises, six species of 

river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, 

and four species of cephalorhynchids): 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 200 Hz and 180 

kHz; 

• Phocid pinnipeds in Water: 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14956 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

between approximately 75 Hz and 100 

kHz; and 

• Otariid pinnipeds in Water: 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 100 Hz and 40 

kHz. 

As mentioned previously in this 

document, nine marine mammal species 

(seven cetacean and two pinniped) may 

occur in the Icy Strait project area. Of 

the five cetacean species likely to occur 

in the proposed project area and for 

which take is requested, two are 

classified as low-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., minke and gray whales), one is 

classified as a mid-frequency cetacean 

(i.e., killer whale), and two are classified 

as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor 

and Dall’s porpoises) (Southall et al., 

2007). Additionally, harbor seals are 

classified as members of the phocid 

pinnipeds in water functional hearing 

group while Stellar sea lions are 

grouped under the Otariid pinnipeds in 

water functional hearing group. A 

species’ functional hearing group is a 

consideration when we analyze the 

effects of exposure to sound on marine 

mammals. 

Acoustic Impacts 

Potential Effects of Pile Driving 

Sound—The effects of sounds from pile 

driving might result in one or more of 

the following: Temporary or permanent 

hearing impairment, non-auditory 

physical or physiological effects, 

behavioral disturbance, and masking 

(Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 

2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et 

al., 2007). The effects of pile driving on 

marine mammals are dependent on 

several factors, including the size, type, 

and depth of the animal; the depth, 

intensity, and duration of the pile 

driving sound; the depth of the water 

column; the substrate of the habitat; the 

standoff distance between the pile and 

the animal; and the sound propagation 

properties of the environment. Impacts 

to marine mammals from pile driving 

activities are expected to result 

primarily from acoustic pathways. As 

such, the degree of effect is intrinsically 

related to the received level and 

duration of the sound exposure, which 

are in turn influenced by the distance 

between the animal and the source. The 

further away from the source, the less 

intense the exposure should be. The 

substrate and depth of the habitat affect 

the sound propagation properties of the 

environment. Shallow environments are 

typically more structurally complex, 

which leads to rapid sound attenuation. 

In addition, substrates that are soft (e.g., 

sand) would absorb or attenuate the 

sound more readily than hard substrates 

(e.g., rock) which may reflect the 

acoustic wave. Soft porous substrates 

would also likely require less time to 

drive the pile, and possibly less forceful 

equipment, which would ultimately 

decrease the intensity of the acoustic 

source. 

In the absence of mitigation, impacts 

to marine species would be expected to 

result from physiological and behavioral 

responses to both the type and strength 

of the acoustic signature (Viada et al., 

2008). The type and severity of 

behavioral impacts are more difficult to 

define due to limited studies addressing 

the behavioral effects of impulse sounds 

on marine mammals. Potential effects 

from impulse sound sources can range 

in severity from effects such as 

behavioral disturbance or tactile 

perception to physical discomfort, slight 

injury of the internal organs and the 

auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton 

et al., 1973). 

Hearing Impairment and Other 

Physical Effects—Marine mammals 

exposed to high intensity sound 

repeatedly or for prolonged periods can 

experience hearing threshold shift (TS), 

which is the loss of hearing sensitivity 

at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et 

al., 1999; Schlundt et al., 2000; 

Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). TS can be 

permanent (PTS), in which case the loss 

of hearing sensitivity is not recoverable, 

or temporary (TTS), in which case the 

animal’s hearing threshold would 

recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). 

Marine mammals depend on acoustic 

cues for vital biological functions, (e.g., 

orientation, communication, finding 

prey, avoiding predators); thus, TTS 

may result in reduced fitness in survival 

and reproduction. However, this 

depends on the frequency and duration 

of TTS, as well as the biological context 

in which it occurs. TTS of limited 

duration, occurring in a frequency range 

that does not coincide with that used for 

recognition of important acoustic cues, 

would have little to no effect on an 

animal’s fitness. Repeated sound 

exposure that leads to TTS could cause 

PTS. PTS constitutes injury, but TTS 

does not (Southall et al., 2007). The 

following subsections discuss in 

somewhat more detail the possibilities 

of TTS, PTS, and non-auditory physical 

effects. 

Temporary Threshold Shift—TTS is 

the mildest form of hearing impairment 

that can occur during exposure to a 

strong sound (Kryter, 1985). While 

experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold 

rises, and a sound must be stronger in 

order to be heard. In terrestrial 

mammals, TTS can last from minutes or 

hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). 

For sound exposures at or somewhat 

above the TTS threshold, hearing 

sensitivity in both terrestrial and marine 

mammals recovers rapidly after 

exposure to the sound ends. Few data 

on sound levels and durations necessary 

to elicit mild TTS have been obtained 

for marine mammals, and none of the 

published data concern TTS elicited by 

exposure to multiple pulses of sound. 

Available data on TTS in marine 

mammals are summarized in Southall et 

al. (2007). 

Given the available data, the received 

level of a single pulse (with no 

frequency weighting) might need to be 

approximately 186 dB re 1 mPa2-s (i.e., 

186 dB sound exposure level [SEL] or 

approximately 221–226 dB p-p [peak]) 

in order to produce brief, mild TTS. 

Exposure to several strong pulses that 

each have received levels near 190 dB 

rms (175–180 dB SEL) might result in 

cumulative exposure of approximately 

186 dB SEL and thus slight TTS in a 

small odontocete, assuming the TTS 

threshold is (to a first approximation) a 

function of the total received pulse 

energy. 

The above TTS information for 

odontocetes is derived from studies on 

the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus) and beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas). There is no 

published TTS information for other 

species of cetaceans. However, 

preliminary evidence from a harbor 

porpoise exposed to pulsed sound 

suggests that its TTS threshold may 

have been lower (Lucke et al., 2009). As 

summarized above, data that are now 

available imply that TTS is unlikely to 

occur unless odontocetes are exposed to 

pile driving pulses stronger than 180 dB 

re 1 mPa rms. 

Permanent Threshold Shift—When 

PTS occurs, there is physical damage to 

the sound receptors in the ear. In severe 

cases, there can be total or partial 

deafness, while in other cases the 

animal has an impaired ability to hear 

sounds in specific frequency ranges 

(Kryter, 1985). There is no specific 

evidence that exposure to pulses of 

sound can cause PTS in any marine 

mammal. However, given the possibility 

that mammals close to a sound source 

can incur TTS, it is possible that some 

individuals might incur PTS. Single or 

occasional occurrences of mild TTS are 

not indicative of permanent auditory 

damage, but repeated or (in some cases) 

single exposures to a level well above 

that causing TTS onset might elicit PTS. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals but are assumed to be 

similar to those in humans and other 

terrestrial mammals, based on 

anatomical similarities. PTS might 

occur at a received sound level at least 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14957 

several decibels above that inducing 

mild TTS if the animal were exposed to 

strong sound pulses with rapid rise 

time. Based on data from terrestrial 

mammals, a precautionary assumption 

is that the PTS threshold for impulse 

sounds (such as pile driving pulses as 

received close to the source) is at least 

6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on 

a peak-pressure basis and probably 

greater than 6 dB (Southall et al., 2007). 

On an SEL basis, Southall et al. (2007) 

estimated that received levels would 

need to exceed the TTS threshold by at 

least 15 dB for there to be risk of PTS. 

Thus, for cetaceans, Southall et al. 

(2007) estimate that the PTS threshold 

might be an M-weighted SEL (for the 

sequence of received pulses) of 

approximately 198 dB re 1 mPa2-s (15 dB 

higher than the TTS threshold for an 

impulse). Given the higher level of 

sound necessary to cause PTS as 

compared with TTS, it is considerably 

less likely that PTS could occur. 

Measured source levels from impact 

pile driving can be as high as 214 dB 

rms. Although no marine mammals 

have been shown to experience TTS or 

PTS as a result of being exposed to pile 

driving activities, captive bottlenose 

dolphins and beluga whales exhibited 

changes in behavior when exposed to 

strong pulsed sounds (Finneran et al., 

2000, 2002, 2005). The animals tolerated 

high received levels of sound before 

exhibiting aversive behaviors. 

Experiments on a beluga whale showed 

that exposure to a single watergun 

impulse at a received level of 207 kPa 

(30 psi) p-p, which is equivalent to 228 

dB p-p, resulted in a 7 and 6 dB TTS 

in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz, 

respectively. Thresholds returned to 

within 2 dB of the pre-exposure level 

within four minutes of the exposure 

(Finneran et al., 2002). Although the 

source level of pile driving from one 

hammer strike is expected to be much 

lower than the single watergun impulse 

cited here, animals being exposed for a 

prolonged period to repeated hammer 

strikes could receive more sound 

exposure in terms of SEL than from the 

single watergun impulse (estimated at 

188 dB re 1 mPa2-s) in the 

aforementioned experiment (Finneran et 

al., 2002). However, in order for marine 

mammals to experience TTS or PTS, the 

animals have to be close enough to be 

exposed to high intensity sound levels 

for a prolonged period of time. Based on 

the best scientific information available, 

these SPLs are far below the thresholds 

that could cause TTS or the onset of 

PTS. 

Non-auditory Physiological Effects— 

Non-auditory physiological effects or 

injuries that theoretically might occur in 

marine mammals exposed to strong 

underwater sound include stress, 

neurological effects, bubble formation, 

resonance effects, and other types of 

organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; 

Southall et al., 2007). Studies examining 

such effects are limited. In general, little 

is known about the potential for pile 

driving to cause auditory impairment or 

other physical effects in marine 

mammals. Available data suggest that 

such effects, if they occur at all, would 

presumably be limited to short distances 

from the sound source and to activities 

that extend over a prolonged period. 

The available data do not allow 

identification of a specific exposure 

level above which non-auditory effects 

can be expected (Southall et al., 2007) 

or any meaningful quantitative 

predictions of the numbers (if any) of 

marine mammals that might be affected 

in those ways. Marine mammals that 

show behavioral avoidance of pile 

driving, including some odontocetes 

and some pinnipeds, are especially 

unlikely to incur auditory impairment 

or non-auditory physical effects. 

Disturbance Reactions 

Disturbance includes a variety of 

effects, including subtle changes in 

behavior, more conspicuous changes in 

activities, and displacement. Behavioral 

responses to sound are highly variable 

and context-specific and reactions, if 

any, depend on species, state of 

maturity, experience, current activity, 

reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, 

time of day, and many other factors 

(Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 

2003; Southall et al., 2007). 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most 

likely to habituate to sounds that are 

predictable and unvarying. The opposite 

process is sensitization, when an 

unpleasant experience leads to 

subsequent responses, often in the form 

of avoidance, at a lower level of 

exposure. Behavioral state may affect 

the type of response as well. For 

example, animals that are resting may 

show greater behavioral change in 

response to disturbing sound levels than 

animals that are highly motivated to 

remain in an area for feeding 

(Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003; 

Wartzok et al., 2003). 

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals showed pronounced 

behavioral reactions, including 

avoidance of loud sound sources 

(Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 

2003). Observed responses of wild 

marine mammals to loud pulsed sound 

sources (typically seismic guns or 

acoustic harassment devices, but also 

including pile driving) have been varied 

but often consist of avoidance behavior 

or other behavioral changes suggesting 

discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; 

Thorson and Reyff, 2006; see also 

Gordon et al., 2004; Wartzok et al., 

2003; Nowacek et al., 2007). Responses 

to continuous sound, such as vibratory 

pile installation, have not been 

documented as well as responses to 

pulsed sounds. 

With both types of pile driving, it is 

likely that the onset of pile driving 

could result in temporary, short term 

changes in an animal’s typical behavior 

and/or avoidance of the affected area. 

These behavioral changes may include 

(Richardson et al., 1995): Changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where sound sources are located; 

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

flushing into water from haul-outs or 

rookeries). Pinnipeds may increase their 

haul-out time, possibly to avoid inwater disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 

2006). 

The biological significance of many of 

these behavioral disturbances is difficult 

to predict, especially if the detected 

disturbances appear minor. However, 

the consequences of behavioral 

modification could be expected to be 

biologically significant if the change 

affects growth, survival, or 

reproduction. Significant behavioral 

modifications that could potentially 

lead to effects on growth, survival, or 

reproduction include: 

• Drastic changes in diving/surfacing 

patterns (such as those thought to cause 

beaked whale stranding due to exposure 

to military mid-frequency tactical 

sonar); 

• Habitat abandonment due to loss of 

desirable acoustic environment; and 

• Cessation of feeding or social 

interaction. 

The onset of behavioral disturbance 

from anthropogenic sound depends on 

both external factors (characteristics of 

sound sources and their paths) and the 

specific characteristics of the receiving 

animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography) and is difficult 

to predict (Southall et al., 2007). 

Auditory Masking—Natural and 

artificial sounds can disrupt behavior by 

masking, or interfering with, a marine 

mammal’s ability to hear other sounds. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14958 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

Masking occurs when the receipt of a 

sound is interfered with by another 

coincident sound at similar frequencies 

and at similar or higher levels. Chronic 

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

particular frequencies for marine 

mammals that utilize sound for vital 

biological functions. Masking can 

interfere with detection of acoustic 

signals such as communication calls, 

echolocation sounds, and 

environmental sounds important to 

marine mammals. Therefore, under 

certain circumstances, marine mammals 

whose acoustical sensors or 

environment are being severely masked 

could also be impaired from maximizing 

their performance fitness in survival 

and reproduction. If the coincident 

(masking) sound were anthropogenic, it 

could be potentially harassing if it 

disrupted hearing-related behavior. It is 

important to distinguish TTS and PTS, 

which persist after the sound exposure, 

from masking, which occurs only during 

the sound exposure. Because masking 

(without resulting in TS) is not 

associated with abnormal physiological 

function, it is not considered a 

physiological effect, but rather a 

potential behavioral effect. 

Masking occurs at the frequency band 

which the animals utilize so the 

frequency range of the potentially 

masking sound is important in 

determining any potential behavioral 

impacts. Because sound generated from 

in-water vibratory pile driving is mostly 

concentrated at low frequency ranges, it 

may have less effect on high frequency 

echolocation sounds made by porpoises. 

However, lower frequency man-made 

sounds are more likely to affect 

detection of communication calls and 

other potentially important natural 

sounds such as surf and prey sound. It 

may also affect communication signals 

when they occur near the sound band 

and thus reduce the communication 

space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) 

and cause increased stress levels (e.g., 

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

Masking has the potential to impact 

species at the population or community 

levels as well as at individual levels. 

Masking affects both senders and 

receivers of the signals and can 

potentially have long-term chronic 

effects on marine mammal species and 

populations. Recent research suggests 

that low frequency ambient sound levels 

have increased by as much as 20 dB 

(more than three times in terms of SPL) 

in the world’s ocean from pre-industrial 

periods, and that most of these increases 

are from distant shipping (Hildebrand, 

2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, 

such as those from vessel traffic, pile 

driving, and dredging activities, 

contribute to the elevated ambient 

sound levels, thus intensifying masking. 

Vibratory pile driving is relatively 

short-term, with rapid oscillations 

occurring for 10 to 30 minutes per 

installed pile. It is possible that 

vibratory pile driving resulting from this 

proposed action may mask acoustic 

signals important to the behavior and 

survival of marine mammal species, but 

the short-term duration and limited 

affected area would result in 

insignificant impacts from masking. 

Any masking event that could possibly 

rise to Level B harassment under the 

MMPA would occur concurrently 

within the zones of behavioral 

harassment already estimated for 

vibratory pile driving, and which have 

already been taken into account in the 

exposure analysis. 

Acoustic Effects, Airborne—Marine 

mammals that occur in the project area 

could be exposed to airborne sounds 

associated with pile driving that have 

the potential to cause harassment, 

depending on their distance from pile 

driving activities. Airborne pile driving 

sound would have less impact on 

cetaceans than pinnipeds because sound 

from atmospheric sources does not 

transmit well underwater (Richardson et 

al., 1995); thus, airborne sound would 

only be an issue for pinnipeds either 

hauled-out or looking with heads above 

water in the project area. Most likely, 

airborne sound would cause behavioral 

responses similar to those discussed 

above in relation to underwater sound. 

For instance, anthropogenic sound 

could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to 

exhibit changes in their normal 

behavior, such as reduction in 

vocalizations, or cause them to 

temporarily abandon their habitat and 

move further from the source. Studies 

by Blackwell et al. (2004) and Moulton 

et al. (2005) indicate a tolerance or lack 

of response to unweighted airborne 

sounds as high as 112 dB peak and 96 

dB rms. 

Vessel Interaction 

Besides being susceptible to vessel 

strikes, cetacean and pinniped 

responses to vessels may result in 

behavioral changes, including greater 

variability in the dive, surfacing, and 

respiration patterns; changes in 

vocalizations; and changes in swimming 

speed or direction (NRC 2003). There 

will be a temporary and localized 

increase in vessel traffic during 

construction. A maximum of three work 

barges will be present at any time 

during the in-water and over water 

work. The barges will be located near 

each other where construction is 

occurring. Additionally, the floating 

pier will be tugged into position prior to 

installation. 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

The primary potential impacts to 

marine mammal habitat are associated 

with elevated sound levels produced by 

vibratory pile removal, down the hole 

drilling and pile driving in the area. 

However, other potential impacts to the 

surrounding habitat from physical 

disturbance are also possible. 

Potential Pile Driving Effects on 

Prey—Construction activities would 

produce continuous (i.e., vibratory pile 

driving, drilling) sounds and, 

potentially, pulsed (e.g. if impact 

driving is required) sounds. Fish react to 

sounds that are especially strong and/or 

intermittent low-frequency sounds. 

Short duration, sharp sounds can cause 

overt or subtle changes in fish behavior 

and local distribution. Hastings and 

Popper (2005) identified several studies 

that suggest fish may relocate to avoid 

certain areas of sound energy. 

Additional studies have documented 

effects of pile driving on fish, although 

several are based on studies in support 

of large, multiyear bridge construction 

projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 

2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). 

Sound pulses at received levels of 160 

dB may cause subtle changes in fish 

behavior. SPLs of 180 dB may cause 

noticeable changes in behavior (Pearson 

et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992). SPLs 

of sufficient strength have been known 

to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality. The most likely impact to fish 

from pile driving activities at the project 

area would be temporary behavioral 

avoidance of the area. The duration of 

fish avoidance of this area after pile 

driving stops is unknown, but a rapid 

return to normal recruitment, 

distribution and behavior is anticipated. 

In general, impacts to marine mammal 

prey species are expected to be minor 

and temporary due to the short 

timeframe for the project. 

Effects to Foraging Habitat—Pile 

installation may temporarily increase 

turbidity resulting from suspended 

sediments. Any increases would be 

temporary, localized, and minimal. HTC 

must comply with state water quality 

standards during these operations by 

limiting the extent of turbidity to the 

immediate project area. In general, 

turbidity associated with pile 

installation is localized to about a 25- 

foot radius around the pile (Everitt et al. 

1980). Cetaceans are not expected to be 

close enough to the HTC project pile 

driving areas to experience effects of 

turbidity, and any pinnipeds will be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14959 

transiting the terminal area and could 

avoid localized areas of turbidity. 

Therefore, the impact from increased 

turbidity levels is expected to be 

discountable to marine mammals. 

Furthermore, pile driving and removal 

at the project site will not obstruct 

movements or migration of marine 

mammals. 

Natural tidal currents and flow 

patterns in the waters of Icy Strait and 

Port Frederick routinely disturbing 

sediments. High volume tidal events can 

result in hydraulic forces that resuspend benthic sediments, temporarily 

elevating turbidity locally. Any 

temporary increase in turbidity as a 

result of the proposed action is not 

anticipated to measurably exceed levels 

caused by these normal, natural periods. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

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].’’ 

All anticipated takes would be by 

Level B harassment resulting from 

vibratory pile driving/removal and 

impact pile driving and are likely to 

involve temporary changes in behavior. 

Injurious or lethal takes are not 

expected due to the expected source 

levels and sound source characteristics 

associated with the activity, and the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures are expected to further 

minimize the possibility of such take. 

If a marine mammal responds to a 

stimulus by changing its behavior (e.g., 

through relatively minor changes in 

locomotion direction/speed or 

vocalization behavior), the response 

may or may not constitute taking at the 

individual level, and is unlikely to 

affect the stock or the species as a 

whole. However, if a sound source 

displaces marine mammals from an 

important feeding or breeding area for a 

prolonged period, impacts on animals or 

on the stock or species could potentially 

be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 

2007; Weilgart, 2007). Given the many 

uncertainties in predicting the quantity 

and types of impacts of sound on 

marine mammals, it is common practice 

to estimate how many animals are likely 

to be present within a particular 

distance of a given activity, or exposed 

to a particular level of sound. 

Upland work can generate airborne 

sound and create visual disturbance that 

could potentially result in disturbance 

to marine mammals (specifically, 

pinnipeds) that are hauled out or at the 

water’s surface with heads above the 

water. However, because there are no 

regular haul-outs in the vicinity of the 

site of the proposed project area, we 

believe that incidents of incidental take 

resulting from airborne sound or visual 

disturbance are unlikely. 

A down the hole drill will be used for 

rock excavation and reaming. This is a 

low energy system powered by air. The 

down hole drill is contained inside the 

pile annulus so the energy form the drill 

is captured inside the pile. The tip of 

the pile will be between 5 and 20 feet 

below the mud line. Energy transmitted 

from the drill has to travel through the 

pile and through the marine sediment 

which dampens the energy before it can 

enter the water column. The interior of 

the pile is filled with air and air bubbles 

from the drilling process so the pile 

annulus and exhaust air works similar 

to a bubble curtain inside the pile to 

mitigate noise transmission. For these 

reasons drilling is unlikely to result in 

the harassment of marine mammals. 

HTC has requested authorization for 

the incidental taking of small numbers 

of humpback whale, Steller sea lion, 

harbor seal, Dall’s porpoise, gray whale, 

harbor porpoise, killer whale (Orcinus 

orca), minke whale, and Pacific whitesided dolphin near Icy Strait Point that 

may result from vibratory and impact 

pile driving during construction 

activities associated with the redevelopment of the cruise ship terminal 

described previously in this document. 

In order to estimate the potential 

incidents of take that may occur 

incidental to the specified activity, we 

must first estimate the extent of the 

sound field that may be produced by the 

activity and then consider in 

combination with information about 

marine mammal density or abundance 

in the project area. We first provide 

information on applicable sound 

thresholds for determining effects to 

marine mammals before describing the 

information used in estimating the 

sound fields, the available marine 

mammal density or abundance 

information, and the method of 

estimating potential incidences of take. 

Sound Thresholds 

We use generic sound exposure 

thresholds to determine when an 

activity that produces sound might 

result in impacts to a marine mammal 

such that a take by harassment might 

occur. To date, no studies have been 

conducted that explicitly examine 

impacts to marine mammals from pile 

driving sounds or from which empirical 

sound thresholds have been established. 

These thresholds (Table 4) are used to 

estimate when harassment may occur 

(i.e., when an animal is exposed to 

levels equal to or exceeding the relevant 

criterion) in specific contexts; however, 

useful contextual information that may 

inform our assessment of effects is 

typically lacking and we consider these 

thresholds as step functions. NMFS is 

working to revise these acoustic 

guidelines; for more information on that 

process, please visit 

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

guidelines.htm. 

TABLE 4—UNDERWATER INJURY AND DISTURBANCE THRESHOLD DECIBEL LEVELS FOR MARINE MAMMALS

Criterion Criterion Definition Threshold * 

Level A harassment ........................... PTS (injury) conservatively based on TTS ** ................................................ 190 dB RMS for pinnipeds. 

180 dB RMS for cetaceans. 

Level B harassment ........................... Behavioral disruption for impulse noise (e.g., impact pile driving) ............... 160 dB RMS. 

Level B harassment ........................... Behavioral disruption for non-pulse noise (e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling).120 dB RMS. 

* All decibel levels referenced to 1 micropascal (re: 1 μPa). Note all thresholds are based off root mean square (RMS) levels 

** PTS=Permanent Threshold Shift; TTS=Temporary Threshold Shift 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14960 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

Distance to Sound Thresholds 

Underwater Sound Propagation 

Formula—Pile driving generates 

underwater noise that can potentially 

result in disturbance to marine 

mammals in the project area. 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * log 10 (R1/R2), 

Where: 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement. 

This formula neglects loss due to 

scattering and absorption, which is 

assumed to be zero here. The degree to 

which underwater sound propagates 

away from a sound source is dependent 

on a variety of factors, most notably the 

water bathymetry and presence or 

absence of reflective or absorptive 

conditions including in-water structures 

and sediments. Spherical spreading 

occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (freefield) environment not limited by depth 

or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB 

reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance from the source 

(20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading 

occurs in an environment in which 

sound propagation is bounded by the 

water surface and sea bottom, resulting 

in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for 

each doubling of distance from the 

source (10*log[range]). A practical 

spreading value of fifteen is often used 

under conditions where water increases 

with depth as the receiver moves away 

from the shoreline, resulting in an 

expected propagation environment that 

would lie between spherical and 

cylindrical spreading loss conditions. 

Practical spreading loss (4.5 dB 

reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance) is assumed here. 

According to the Caltrans (2012) 

compendium there is an average sound 

pressure level of 195 dB rms for impact 

driving of 60-in pile and 170 dB rms 

reported for 72-in steel pipe pile 

vibratory driving. Based on the formula 

listed above, it has been determined that 

the 190 dB rms Level A harassment 

(injury) threshold for underwater noise 

for pinniped species could be exceeded 

at a distance of up to approximately 22 

meters during impact pile driving 

activities, and the 180 dB rms Level A 

harassment (injury) threshold for 

cetacean species could be exceeded at a 

distance of up to approximately 100 

meters during impact pile driving 

activities. Additionally, the 160 dB rms 

Level B harassment (behavioral 

disruption) for impulsive source 

underwater noise for pinniped and 

cetacean species could be exceeded at a 

distance of up to approximately 2,150 

meters, during impact pile driving and 

the 120 dB 21,544 meters during 

vibratory driving as is shown in Table 

5. 

Note that the actual area ensonified by 

pile driving activities is significantly 

constrained by local topography relative 

to the threshold radius depicted in 

Table 5. This is represented in in the 

monitoring plan submitted by HTC in 

Appendix B, Figure B–1 

TABLE 5—DISTANCES TO RELEVANT SOUND THRESHOLDS * 

Distance to threshold 190 dB 

m 

180 dB 

m 

160 dB 

m 

120 dB 

km 

Vibratory Driving .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ n/a 21.5 

Impact Driving .................................................................................................. 21.5 100 2,154 ........................

* SPLs used for calculations were: 195 dB for impact driving, 170 dB for vibratory diving. 

Incidental take is estimated for each 

species by estimating the likelihood of 

a marine mammal being present within 

a ZOI, described earlier in the 

mitigation section, during active pile 

driving. Expected marine mammal 

presence is determined by past 

observations and general abundance 

near the project area during the 

construction window. Typically, 

potential take is estimated by 

multiplying the area of the ZOI by the 

local animal density. This provides an 

estimate of the number of animals that 

might occupy the ZOI at any given 

moment, or a daily density, which can 

then be multiplied by the anticipated 

number of pile driving days to give a 

total exposure estimate. However, this 

type of calculation is not applicable in 

this case, because there are no specific 

local animal densities for the marine 

mammal species under examination. As 

a result, the take requests were 

estimated using local marine mammal 

data sets, (e.g. Federal agencies), 

opinions from Federal agencies, and 

opportunistic marine mammal surveys. 

Humpback Whale 

The National Park Service has 

monitored humpback whales in the bay 

every year since 1985 to document the 

number of individuals, residence times, 

spatial and temporal distribution, 

feeding behavior and interactions with 

vessels (Neilson et. al 2013). This 

monitoring program covers most of 

Glacier Bay and Icy Strait. Results of 

2012 monitoring documented a total of 

208 individual humpback whales 

(including 16 mother-calf pairs) in 

Glacier Bay and adjacent waters of Icy 

Strait in the 3-month peak survey period 

between June and August. Of these 208 

whales, 152 were documented as 

remaining in the vicinity for a period 

greater than 20 days (Neilson et. al 

2013). This averages out to be 

approximately 70 whale sightings per 

month. Given that the period of active 

pile driving is likely to be four months 

(June through September), a worst-case 

estimate would predict that up to 280 

Level B takes of humpback whale could 

occur as a result of the proposed action. 

This represents a very conservative 

estimate of the maximum number of 

humpback whales that could potentially 

be exposed to elevated underwater noise 

Steller Sea Lion 

The Western DPS of Steller sea lion 

includes all animals at, and west of, 

Cape Suckling, Alaska (144°W). The 

Eastern DPS of Steller sea lions are 

those animals east of this longitudinal 

boundary. While it was once thought 

that most of the Steller sea lions present 

in the waters of Icy Strait were members 

of the eastern DPS, western DPS Steller 

sea lions are also commonly observed in 

waters of Icy Strait (Allen and Angliss, 

2013). There is little recent data 

available regarding the population 

density or abundance of Steller sea lions 

in Icy Strait or the vicinity other than 

populations at a number of haulout sites 

in the area have increased by 8.2% per 

year between 1970 and 2009. (Matthews 

et al., 2011). The National Park Service 

has, however, published data from 

opportunistic marine mammal surveys 

conducted in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait 

between 1994 and 1999 (Gabriele and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14961 

Lewis 2000). These data provide 

information regarding opportunistic 

sightings of marine mammals of several 

species that were recorded during 

humpback whale surveys conducted 

between June and August of each 

monitoring year. The results of the 

National Park Service opportunistic 

surveys documented that the number of 

Steller sea lions sightings remained 

consistent at roughly 40 sightings 

during a three-month period between 

June and August each year. This 

averages out to be approximately 14 

sightings per month. Since the 

authorization period is four months, a 

worst-case estimate would mean that up 

to 56 individual Level B takes of Stellar 

sea lions could occur as a result of pile 

driving activities. Assuming that all 56 

were from the Eastern DPS (60,131– 

74,448)), this would represent less than 

0.01% of that population. Under a 

scenario in which all takes were 

Western DPS sea lions, 56 takes would 

also account for less than 0.01% of that 

population segment (55,422). 

Individuals taken would be expected to 

be a mix of solitary adult males and 

females. Juvenile Steller sea lions would 

not be expected to be exposed, as there 

are no breeding rookeries within the 

vicinity. (Allen and Angliss, 2014). 

Harbor Seal 

The results of the National Park 

Service opportunistic surveys 

conducted in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait 

from 1994 and 1999 during a threemonth period between June and August 

each year revealed that the maximum 

number of sightings in any 3 month 

period was recorded in 1997, when 359 

sightings were documented. This 

averages out to be approximately 120 

seal sightings per month. Given that the 

period of active pile driving is likely to 

be four months (June through 

September), a worst-case estimate 

would predict that up to 480 individual 

Level B takes of harbor seals could 

occur as a result of the proposed action. 

This represents 9.5% of the current best 

population estimate (5,042) for the 

Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock (Allen and 

Angliss 2013). Juvenile harbor seals 

would not be expected to be exposed, as 

there are no documented breeding 

rookeries within the area that could 

potentially be exposed to noise levels 

above the Level B harassment threshold. 

Dall’s Porpoise 

Dahlheim et al. (2008) encountered 

Dall’s porpoise throughout Southeast 

Alaska and consistently found 

concentrations of animals in Icy Strait 

(Dahlheim et al., 2008). However, there 

is little comprehensive population 

density data regarding Dall’s porpoise 

presence in Icy Strait and Port 

Frederick. Another study conducted in 

Glacier Bay and Icy Strait between 1994 

and 1999 (Gabriele and Lewis 2000) 

indicated that Dall’s porpoise are 

documented occasionally within waters 

of Icy Strait. Gabriele and Lewis (2000) 

documented a total of 6 Dall’s porpoises 

during a four-year period conducting 

opportunistic marine mammal surveys 

in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait. All of 

these sightings were from waters of Icy 

Strait. In 2 of 4 years, no Dall’s 

porpoises were sighted, while in 1999, 

a total of 12 Dall’s porpoise sightings 

were recorded (on a total of 2 

occasions). Using this number as a worst 

case estimate, the project could result in 

up to a maximum of 12 Level B takes 

of Dall’s porpoise. This represents less 

than 0.01% of the current best 

population estimate (83,400) for this 

species (Allen and Angliss 2013). Since 

Dall’s porpoises in the eastern North 

Pacific typically reside year-round, 

there is a potential that individuals 

exposed to be Level B take could be 

equally likely to be adult or juvenile, 

male or female. 

Gray Whale 

Gray whales are common along the 

Gulf of Alaska coast, but rare in the 

inside waters of southeastern Alaska 

(Braham 1984). Gabriele and Lewis 

(2000) documented only a single gray 

whale during a four-year period 

conducting opportunistic marine 

mammal surveys in Glacier Bay and Icy 

Strait. Using this number as a worst case 

estimate, the project could result in up 

to 1 Level B take of gray whale, 

representing less than 0.01% of the 

Eastern North Pacific stock (19,126) of 

gray whale (Carretta et al. 2013). 

Because whales of this stock migrate to 

the southern end of their range for 

breeding and calving, it is assumed that 

any individual gray whale that were to 

be exposed to a Level B harassment, 

would be a solitary adult male or 

female. 

Harbor Porpoise 

The waters of Glacier Bay and the 

adjacent waters of Icy Strait are 

considered to be an area of relatively 

high harbor porpoise density (Allen and 

Angliss 2013, Dahlheim et al., 2008). 

Between 2010 and 2012, Dahlheim 

documented an estimated 332 harbor 

porpoise that reside in the Icy Strait area 

(Dahlheim 2015). Harbor porpoise was 

one of the most frequently documented 

marine mammal species during 

opportunistic marine mammal surveys 

conducted in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait 

between 1994 and 1999 (Gabriele and 

Lewis 2000). The number of sightings of 

harbor porpoise during the monitoring 

period ranged between 378 and 137 for 

the three-month period. Using a 

maximum of 378 sightings over a three 

month period results in a monthly 

average of 126. The period of active pile 

driving is likely to be four months (June 

through September) which would result 

in a worst case estimate of up to 504 

individual Level B takes of harbor 

porpoise could occur as a result of the 

proposed action, representing 0.05% of 

the estimated population of the 

Southeast Alaska stock of harbor 

porpoise (Allen and Angliss 2013). 

Killer Whale 

Killer whales occur commonly in the 

waters of the action area, and could 

include members of several designated 

stocks that may occur in the vicinity of 

the proposed project area. These include 

(1) Alaska Residents, from southeast 

Alaska to the Aleutians and Bering Sea, 

(2) Gulf of Alaska, Aleutians, and Bering 

Sea Transients, from Prince William 

Sound through to the Aleutians and 

Bering Sea, and (3) West Coast 

Transients, from California through 

southeast Alaska (Allen and Angliss 

2013). 

One study conducted in Glacier Bay 

and Icy Strait between 1994 and 1999 

determined that killer whales are 

documented occasionally within waters 

of Icy Strait (Gabriele and Lewis 2000). 

The number of sightings of killer whales 

during the monitoring period ranged 

between 36 and 88 for the three-month 

period. Sightings of 88 killer whales 

over a three-month period equates to a 

monthly average of 30 individuals. 

Applying that average to the four-month 

permit authorization period would 

provide a worst-case estimate of up to 

120 Level B takes of killer whales 

occurring as a result of the proposed 

action. 

Minke Whale 

Minke whales are relatively common 

in the Bering and Chukchi seas and in 

the inshore waters of the Gulf of Alaska. 

They are not considered abundant in 

any other part of the eastern Pacific, but 

they are seen occasionally around 

Glacier Bay in southeast Alaska and in 

central Icy Strait. Gabriele and Lewis 

(2000) documented a total of 29 minke 

whales during a four-year period 

conducting opportunistic marine 

mammal surveys in Glacier Bay and Icy 

Strait. The maximum number of 

individual sightings in any given year 

was 8 minke whales. At this time, it is 

not possible to produce a reliable 

estimate of minimum abundance for this 

stock, as current data is not available. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14962 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

However, line-transect surveys were 

conducted in shelf and near shore 

waters (within 30–45nm of land) in 

2001–2003 from the Kenai Fjords in the 

Gulf of Alaska to the central Aleutian 

Islands. Minke whale abundance in this 

limited area was estimated to be 1,233 

(Allen and Angliss 2013). Using this 

number as a worst case estimate, it is 

estimated that the project could result in 

up to a maximum of 8 Level B takes of 

minke whale, equivalent to less than 

0.01% of the population. Minke whales 

are most commonly found in coastal 

waters during spring migrations, 

tending to move to offshore waters in 

the winter. Breeding typically occurs in 

the winter, though in some regions, 

breeding may occur year-round. For this 

reason, there is a potential that 

individuals exposed to be Level B take 

could be equally likely to be adult or 

juvenile, male or female. 

Pacific White-Sided Dolphin 

Gabriele and Lewis (2000) does not 

document any Pacific white-sided 

dolphin during a four-year period 

conducting opportunistic marine 

mammal surveys in Glacier Bay and Icy 

Strait while Dahlheim et al. (2008) 

reported similar findings for the Icy 

Strait region over a 17-year study 

period. 

However, since there is a possibility 

that Pacific white-sided dolphin could 

potentially occur, it is estimated that the 

project could result in up to 1 Level B 

take of Pacific white-sided dolphin, 

representing less than 0.01% of the 

estimated population (26,880) (Allen 

and Angliss 2013). Dolphins are not 

known to breed in waters of Southeast 

Alaska, and it is assumed therefore that 

any individual Pacific white-sided 

dolphin that were to be exposed to a 

Level B harassment, would be a solitary 

adult male or female. 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY BE EXPOSED TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT

Species 

Total proposed 

authorized 

takes 

Abundance Percentage of 

total stock 

Humpback whale (CNP Stock) ................................................................................................ 280 10,103 2.7 

Steller sea lion (Eastern DPS) ................................................................................................ 56 60,131–74,448 * <0.01 

Steller sea lion (Western DPS) ............................................................................................... 55,422 * <0.01 

Harbor seal .............................................................................................................................. 480 5,042 9.5 

Dall’s porpoise ......................................................................................................................... 12 83,400 <0.01 

Gray whale ............................................................................................................................... 1 19,126 <0.01 

Harbor porpoise ....................................................................................................................... 504 11,146 0.05 

Killer whale, AK Resident Stock .............................................................................................. 120 2,347 ** 0.05 

Killer whale, GOA, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea Transient Stock .......................................... 587 ** 20.4 

Killer whale, West Coast Transient Stock ............................................................................... 354 **∂ 33.9 

Minke whale ............................................................................................................................. 8 1,233 <0.01 

Pacific white-sided dolphin ...................................................................................................... 1 26,880 <0.01 

* These percentages assume a worst-case, unlikely scenario in which all 56 estimated takes accrue to a single Steller sea lion DPSs. 

** These percentages assume a worst-case, unlikely scenario in which all 120 estimated takes accrue to a single killer whale stock. ∂ See Small Numbers section for further explanation. 

Analysis and Preliminary 

Determinations 

Negligible Impact 

Negligible impact is ‘‘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 Level B harassment 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 behavioral 

harassment, NMFS must consider other 

factors, such as the likely nature of any 

responses (their intensity, duration, 

etc.), the context of any responses 

(critical reproductive time or location, 

migration, etc.), as well as the number 

and nature of estimated Level A 

harassment takes, the number of 

estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, 

and the status of the species. 

Pile driving activities associated with 

the cruise ship terminal redevelopment, as outlined previously, 

have the potential to disturb or displace 

marine mammals. Specifically, the 

specified activities may result in take, in 

the form of Level B harassment 

(behavioral disturbance) only, from 

underwater sounds generated from pile 

driving. Potential takes could occur if 

individuals of these species are present 

in the ensonified zone when pile 

driving is happening. 

No injury, serious injury, or mortality 

is anticipated given the nature of the 

activity and measures designed to 

minimize the possibility of injury to 

marine mammals. The potential for 

these outcomes is minimized through 

the construction method and the 

implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures. Specifically, 

vibratory hammers will be the primary 

method of installation, though impact 

driving may be used for brief, irregular 

periods. Vibratory driving does not have 

significant potential to cause injury to 

marine mammals due to the relatively 

low source levels produced (sitespecific acoustic monitoring data show 

no source level measurements above 

180 dB rms) and the lack of potentially 

injurious source characteristics. Impact 

pile driving produces short, sharp 

pulses with higher peak levels and 

much sharper rise time to reach those 

peaks. When impact driving is 

necessary, required measures 

(implementation of shutdown zones) 

significantly reduce any possibility of 

injury. Given sufficient ‘‘notice’’ 

through use of soft start (for impact 

driving), marine mammals are expected 

to move away from a sound source that 

is annoying prior to its becoming 

potentially injurious. The likelihood 

that marine mammal detection ability 

by trained observers is high under the 

environmental conditions described for 

Icy Strait Point further enables the 

implementation of shutdowns to avoid 

injury, serious injury, or mortality. 

HTC’s proposed activities are 

localized and of short duration. The 

entire project area is limited to the Icy 

Strait cruise ship terminal area and its 

immediate surroundings. The project 

will require the installation of a total of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14963 

approximately 104 steel pipe piles of 

varying diameters below the MHHW. 

Piles that will be used include 24-inch, 

30-inch, 42-inch, and 60-inch steel pipe 

piles. Total impact hammer time would 

not exceed 5 minutes per pile for 104 

piles resulting in less than 10 hours of 

driving time. Total vibratory hammer 

time would not exceed 5 hours per day 

for a maximum of 20 days resulting in 

a total of 100 hours over a four-month 

period. These localized and short-term 

noise exposures may cause brief startle 

reactions or short-term behavioral 

modification by the animals. These 

reactions and behavioral changes are 

expected to subside quickly when the 

exposures cease. Moreover, the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures are expected to reduce 

potential exposures and behavioral 

modifications even further. 

Additionally, no important feeding and/ 

or reproductive areas for marine 

mammals are known to be near the 

proposed action area. Therefore, the 

take resulting from the proposed HTC 

re-development of the Icy Strait Point 

Cruise Ship Terminal is not reasonably 

expected to and is not reasonably likely 

to adversely affect the marine mammal 

species or stocks through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The project also is not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitat, as 

analyzed in detail in the ‘‘Anticipated 

Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat’’ 

section. The project activities would not 

modify existing marine mammal habitat. 

The activities may cause some fish to 

leave the area of disturbance, thus 

temporarily 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. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment, on the basis of 

reports in the literature as well as 

monitoring from other similar activities, 

will likely be limited to reactions such 

as increased swimming speeds, 

increased surfacing time, or decreased 

foraging (if such activity were occurring) 

(e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006; HDR, 

2012; Lerma, 2014). Most likely, 

individuals will simply move away 

from the sound source and be 

temporarily displaced from the areas of 

pile driving, although even this reaction 

has been observed primarily only in 

association with impact pile driving. In 

response to vibratory driving, pinnipeds 

(which may become somewhat 

habituated to human activity in 

industrial or urban waterways) have 

been observed to orient towards and 

sometimes move towards the sound. 

The pile driving activities analyzed here 

are similar to, or less impactful than, 

numerous construction activities 

conducted in other similar locations, 

which have taken place with no 

reported injuries or mortality to marine 

mammals, and no known long-term 

adverse consequences from behavioral 

harassment. Repeated exposures of 

individuals to levels of sound that may 

cause Level B harassment are unlikely 

to result in hearing impairment or to 

significantly disrupt foraging behavior. 

Thus, even repeated Level B harassment 

of some small subset of the overall stock 

is unlikely to result in any significant 

realized decrease in fitness for the 

affected individuals, and thus would 

not result in any adverse impact to the 

stock as a whole. Level B harassment 

will be reduced to the level of least 

practicable impact through use of 

mitigation measures described herein 

and, if sound produced by project 

activities is sufficiently disturbing, 

animals are likely to simply avoid the 

project area while the activity is 

occurring. 

In summary, this negligible impact 

analysis is founded on the following 

factors: (1) The possibility of injury, 

serious injury, or mortality may 

reasonably be considered discountable; 

(2) the anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment consist of, at worst, 

temporary modifications in behavior; (3) 

the absence of any significant habitat 

within the project area, including 

rookeries, significant haul-outs, or 

known areas or features of special 

significance for foraging or 

reproduction; (4) the presumed efficacy 

of the proposed mitigation measures in 

reducing the effects of the specified 

activity to the level of least practicable 

impact. In combination, we believe that 

these factors, as well as the available 

body of evidence from other similar 

activities, demonstrate that the potential 

effects of the specified activity will have 

only short-term effects on individuals. 

The specified activity is not expected to 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

and will therefore not result in 

population-level impacts. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

HTC’s re-development of the Icy Strait 

Point Cruise Ship Terminal will have a 

negligible impact on the affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

Table 6 demonstrates the number of 

animals that could be exposed to 

received noise levels that could cause 

Level B behavioral harassment for the 

proposed work associated with the redevelopment of the Icy Strait Point 

Cruise Ship Terminal in Hoonah, 

Alaska. With the exception of the West 

Coast transient stock of killer whales, 

the analyses provided above represents 

between <0.01% to 20.4% of the 

populations of these stocks that could 

be affected by Level B behavioral 

harassment. These are small percentages 

relative to the total populations of the 

affected species or stocks. 

As explained previously, we are 

proposing to authorize the taking, by 

Level B harassment only, of 120 killer 

whales. Three stocks of killer whales are 

known to occur in the Icy Strait area: (1) 

Alaska resident stock; (2) Gulf of Alaska, 

Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea 

transient stock; and (3) West Coast 

transient stock. Under a scenario in 

which all of the proposed 120 killer 

whale takes came from only one of the 

three identified stocks, the number of 

takes would represent 0.05% of the 

Alaska resident stock; 20.4% of the Gulf 

of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering 

Sea transient stock; and 33.9% of the 

West Coast transient stock. 

The West Coast transient stock is of 

potential concern with 120 proposed 

takes accounting for 33.9% of their 

population. However, 120 represents the 

maximum number of takes proposed to 

be authorized for all three stocks of 

killer whales; given that all three stocks 

occur in the Icy Strait Area, the 120 

proposed takes will most likely be 

apportioned among the three stocks, 

resulting in a smaller percentage of the 

West Coast transient stock that are likely 

to be taken. NMFS also believes that 

small numbers of the West Coast 

transient stock would be taken based on 

the limited region of exposure in 

comparison with the known distribution 

of the transient stock. The West Coast 

transient stock ranges from Southeast 

Alaska to California while the proposed 

project activity would be stationary. As 

described above in the Description of 

Marine Mammals in the Area of the 

Specified Activity section, a notable 

percentage of West Coast transient 

whales have never been observed in 

Southeast Alaska. A notable percentage 

of West Coast transient whales have 

never been observed in Southeast 

Alaska. Only 155 West Coast transient 

killer whales have been identified as 

occurring in Southeast Alaska according 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14964 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

to Dahlheim and White (2010). The 

same study identified three pods of 

transients, equivalent to 19 animals, that 

remained almost exclusively in the 

southern part of Southeast Alaska (i.e. 

Clarence Strait and Sumner Strait). This 

information indicates that only a subset 

of the entire West Coast Transient stock 

would be at risk for take in the Icy Strait 

area because a sizable portion of the 

stock has either not been observed in 

Southeast Alaska or consistently 

remains far south of Icy Strait. Finally, 

the number of takes proposed to be 

authorized represents the estimated 

incidents of take, not the number of 

individuals taken. That is, we believe 

the estimated numbers of takes, were 

they to occur, likely represent repeated 

exposures of a much smaller number of 

transient killer whales. 

In summary, NMFS preliminarily 

finds that small numbers of the West 

Coast transient stock of killer whales 

would be affected by the proposed 

action. This conclusion is based on the 

small likelihood that all of the incidents 

of take would come from only one stock; 

the reduced percentage of the stock 

likely to be found in the Icy Strait area; 

the limited region of exposure in 

comparison with the known distribution 

of the transient stock; and the likelihood 

of repeated exposure of a subset of this 

stock. Therefore, the estimated incidents 

of take represent small numbers of West 

Coast transient killer whales. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

which are expected to reduce the 

number of marine mammals potentially 

affected by the proposed action, NMFS 

preliminarily finds that small numbers 

of marine mammals will be taken 

relative to the populations of the 

affected species or stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses 

There are no subsistence uses of 

marine mammals in the proposed 

project area; and, thus, no subsistence 

uses impacted by this action. The 

nearest locations where subsistence 

hunting may occur are at Eagle Point, 

located approximately 10 miles distant 

from the Icy Strait Cruise Terminal 

project site and at Flynn Cove, located 

approximately 7.5 miles from the 

project site. Peak subsistence hunting 

months are March, May, and October 

and the pile driving is slated to occur in 

the June to September timeframe. 

Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily 

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. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an ITA 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 ITAs must 

include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present in the proposed 

action area. HTC submitted a marine 

mammal monitoring plan as part of the 

IHA application. It can be found in 

[Appendix B of the HTC Application]. 

The plan may be modified or 

supplemented based on comments or 

new information received from the 

public during the public comment 

period. 

Monitoring measures prescribed by 

NMFS should accomplish one or more 

of the following general goals: 

1. An increase in the probability of 

detecting marine mammals, both within 

the mitigation zone (thus allowing for 

more effective implementation of the 

mitigation) and in general to generate 

more data to contribute to the analyses 

mentioned below; 

2. An increase in our understanding 

of how many marine mammals are 

likely to be exposed to levels of pile 

driving that we associate with specific 

adverse effects, such as behavioral 

harassment, TTS, or PTS; 

3. An increase in our understanding 

of how marine mammals respond to 

stimuli expected to result in take and 

how anticipated adverse effects on 

individuals (in different ways and to 

varying degrees) may impact the 

population, species, or stock 

(specifically through effects on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival) through 

any of the following methods: 

D Behavioral observations in the 

presence of stimuli compared to 

observations in the absence of stimuli 

(need to be able to accurately predict 

received level, distance from source, 

and other pertinent information); 

D Physiological measurements in the 

presence of stimuli compared to 

observations in the absence of stimuli 

(need to be able to accurately predict 

received level, distance from source, 

and other pertinent information); 

D Distribution and/or abundance 

comparisons in times or areas with 

concentrated stimuli versus times or 

areas without stimuli; 

4. An increased knowledge of the 

affected species; and 

5. An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of certain mitigation 

and monitoring measures. 

HTC submitted a marine mammal 

monitoring plan as part of the IHA 

application for this project, which can 

be found on the Internet at 

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

incidental/construction.htm. The plan 

may be modified or supplemented based 

on comments or new information 

received from the public during the 

public comment period. 

Visual Marine Mammal Observation 

HTC will collect sighting data and 

behavioral responses to construction for 

marine mammal species observed in the 

region of activity during the period of 

activity. All observers will be trained in 

marine mammal identification and 

behaviors and are required to have no 

other construction-related tasks while 

conducting monitoring. HTC will 

monitor the shutdown zone and 

disturbance zone before, during, and 

after pile driving, with observers located 

at the best practicable vantage points. 

Based on our requirements, the Marine 

Mammal Monitoring Plan would 

implement the following procedures for 

pile driving: 

• Three individuals meeting the 

minimum qualifications identified in 

Appendix B of the monitoring plan 

submitted by HTC will monitor the 

Level A and B harassment zones during 

impact pile driving, and the Level B 

harassment zone during vibratory pile 

driving. 

• During impact pile driving, the area 

within 100 meters of pile driving 

activity will be monitored and 

maintained as marine mammal buffer 

area in which pile installation will not 

commence or will be suspended 

temporarily if any marine mammals are 

observed within or approaching the area 

of potential disturbance. This area will 

be monitored by one qualified field 

monitor stationed either on the pile 

driving rig or in the immediate vicinity. 

• The area within the Level B 

harassment threshold for impact driving 

(shown in Figure B–2 of Appendix B of 

the revised marine mammal monitoring 

plan) will be monitored by the field 

monitor stationed either on the pile 

driving rig or in the vicinity, and by a 

second qualified field monitor stationed 

on or in the vicinity of Halibut Island 

near the 2,150 meter limit of the Level 

B harassment zone. A third qualified 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14965 

observer will also monitor from a boat 

that is conducting a transect along the 

2,150 meter limit of the Level B 

harassment zone. Marine mammal 

presence within this Level B harassment 

zone, if any, will be monitored, but 

impact pile driving activity will not be 

stopped if marine mammals are found to 

be present. Any marine mammal 

documented within the Level B 

harassment zone during impact driving 

would constitute a Level B take 

(harassment), and will be recorded and 

reported as such. 

• During vibratory pile driving, the 

area within 10 meters of pile driving 

activity will be monitored and 

maintained as marine mammal buffer 

area in which pile installation will not 

commence or will be suspended 

temporarily if any marine mammals are 

observed within or approaching the area 

of potential disturbance. The Level B 

harassment area will be monitored by 

three qualified observers (Figure B–2). 

One individual will be stationed either 

on the pile driving rig or in the 

immediate vicinity, a second individual 

will be stationed on either Halibut 

Island or a location in the vicinity, and 

a third observer will be located on a 

vessel that is conducting meander 

transects throughout the Level B 

harassment zone. The monitoring staff 

will record any presence of marine 

mammals by species, will document any 

behavioral responses noted, and record 

Level B takes when sightings overlap 

with pile installation activities. 

• The individuals will scan the 

waters within each monitoring zone 

activity using binoculars (Vector 10X42 

or equivalent), spotting scopes 

(Swarovski 20–60 zoom or equivalent), 

and visual observation. 

• The area within which the Level A 

harassment thresholds could be 

exceeded (the 100 meter radius) will be 

maintained as a marine mammal 

exclusion zone, in which impact pile 

driving will be shut down immediately 

if any marine mammal is observed with 

the area. 

• The area within which the Level B 

harassment thresholds could be 

exceeded during impact pile driving 

(Figure B–2) and vibratory pile driving 

(Figure B–3) will also be monitored for 

the presence of marine mammals during 

all impact and vibratory pile driving. 

Marine mammal presence within these 

zones, if any, will be monitored but pile 

driving activity will not be stopped if 

marine mammals were found to be 

present. Any marine mammal 

documented within the Level B 

harassment zone will constitute a Level 

B take, and will be recorded and used 

to document the number of take 

incidents. 

• If waters exceed a sea-state which 

restricts the observers’ ability to make 

observations within the marine mammal 

buffer zone (the 100 meter radius) (e.g. 

excessive wind or fog), impact pile 

installation will cease until conditions 

allow the resumption of monitoring. 

• The waters will be scanned 20 

minutes prior to commencing pile 

driving at the beginning of each day, 

and prior to commencing pile driving 

after any stoppage of 20 minutes or 

greater. If marine mammals enter or are 

observed within the designated marine 

mammal buffer zone (the 100m radius) 

during or 20 minutes prior to impact 

pile driving, the monitors will notify the 

on-site construction manager to not 

begin until the animal has moved 

outside the designated radius. 

• The waters will continue to be 

scanned for at least 20 minutes after pile 

driving has completed each day, and 

after each stoppage of 20 minutes or 

greater. 

Data Collection 

We require that observers use 

approved data forms. Among other 

pieces of information, HTC will record 

detailed information about any 

implementation of shutdowns, 

including the distance of animals to the 

pile and description of specific actions 

that ensued and resulting behavior of 

the animal, if any. In addition, HTC will 

attempt to distinguish between the 

number of individual animals taken and 

the number of incidents of take. We 

require that, at a minimum, the 

following information be collected on 

the sighting forms: 

• Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period; 

• Weather parameters (e.g., percent 

cover, visibility); 

• Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tide state); 

• Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

sex and age class of marine mammals; 

• Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 

including bearing and direction of travel 

and distance from pile driving activity; 

• Distance from pile driving activities 

to marine mammals and distance from 

the marine mammals to the observation 

point; 

• Locations of all marine mammal 

observations; and 

• Other human activity in the area. 

Reporting Measures 

HTC would provide NMFS with a 

draft monitoring report within 90 days 

of the conclusion of the proposed 

construction work. This report will 

detail the monitoring protocol, 

summarize the data recorded during 

monitoring, and estimate the number of 

marine mammals that may have been 

harassed. If no comments are received 

from NMFS within 30 days, the draft 

final report will constitute the final 

report. If comments are received, a final 

report must be submitted within 30 days 

after receipt of comments. 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such 

as an injury (Level A harassment), 

serious injury or mortality (e.g., shipstrike, gear interaction, and/or 

entanglement), HTC would immediately 

cease the specified activities and 

immediately report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, and the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinators. The report 

would 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 hours preceding the incident; 

• Water depth; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities would not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS would work with HTC to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. HTC would not be able to 

resume their activities until notified by 

NMFS via letter, email, or telephone. 

In the event that HTC discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead MMO 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), 

HTC would immediately report the 

incident to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14966 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or 

by email to the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinators. The report 

would include the same information 

identified in the paragraph above. 

Activities would be able to continue 

while NMFS reviews the circumstances 

of the incident. NMFS would work with 

HTC to determine whether 

modifications in the activities are 

appropriate. 

In the event that HTC discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead MMO 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), 

HTC would report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding 

Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska 

Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 

24 hours of the discovery. HTC would 

provide photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS and 

the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

There are two marine mammal 

species that are listed as endangered 

under the ESA with confirmed or 

possible occurrence in the study area: 

humpback whale and Steller sea lion 

(Western DPS). NMFS’ Permits and 

Conservation Division has initiated 

consultation with NMFS’ Protected 

Resources Division under section 7 of 

the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to 

HTC under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA for this activity. Consultation 

will be concluded prior to a 

determination on the issuance of an 

IHA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

NMFS is also preparing an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

will consider comments submitted in 

response to this notice as part of that 

process. The EA will be posted at 

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

incidental/construction.htm once it is 

finalized. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to HTC for conducting the redevelopment of the Icy Strait Point 

Cruise Ship Terminal in Hoonah, 

Alaska, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

The proposed IHA language is provided 

next. 

1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization 

(IHA) is valid from June 1, 2015, through 

October 31, 2015. All active pile driving 

is expected to be completed by the end 

of September. October has only been 

included as part of this Authorization to 

cover any contingencies that may occur. 

2. This Authorization is valid only for inwater construction work associated with 

the Re-development of the Icy Strait 

Point Cruise Ship Terminal Project in 

Hoonah, Alaska. 

3. General Conditions 

(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the 

possession of HTC, its designees, and 

work crew personnel operating under the 

authority of this IHA. 

(b) The species authorized for taking are 

humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae), Steller sea lion 

(Eumatopius jubatus), harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina), Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides 

dalli), gray whale (Eschrichtius 

robustus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena), killer whale (Orcinus orca), 

minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata), and Pacific white-sided 

dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) 

(c) The taking, by Level B harassment only, 

is limited to the species listed in 

condition 3(b). 

(d) The taking by injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, or death of 

any of the species listed in condition 3(b) 

of the Authorization or any taking of any 

other species of marine mammal is 

prohibited and may result in the 

modification, suspension, or revocation 

of this IHA. 

(e) HTC shall conduct briefings between 

construction supervisors and crews, 

marine mammal monitoring team, and 

staff prior to the start of all in-water pile 

driving, and when new personnel join 

the work, in order to explain 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocol, and operational procedures. 

4. Mitigation Measures 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to implement the following 

mitigation measures: 

(a) Time Restriction: For all in-water pile 

driving activities, HTC shall operate only 

during daylight hours when visual 

monitoring of marine mammals can be 

conducted. 

(b) Establishment of Level B Harassment 

(ZOI) 

(i) Before the commencement of in-water 

pile driving activities, HTC shall 

establish Level B behavioral harassment 

ZOI where received underwater sound 

pressure levels (SPLs) are higher than 

160 dB (rms) and 120 dB (rms) re 1 mPa 

for impulse noise sources (impact pile 

driving) and non-pulse sources 

(vibratory hammer) respectively. The 

ZOIs delineate where Level B 

harassment would occur. For impact 

driving, the area within the Level B 

harassment threshold is between 

approximately 100 m and 2,150 m from 

pile driving activity. For vibratory 

driving, the level B harassment area is 

between 10 m and 21 km. These zones 

are illustrated in Figures B–1 and B–3 of 

Appendix B in the marine mammal 

monitoring plan. 

(c) Establishment of shutdown zone 

(i) Implement a minimum shutdown zone 

of 100 m radius around the pile during 

impact pile driving and 10 m during 

vibratory driving activities. If a marine 

mammal comes within or approaches the 

shutdown zone, such operations shall 

cease. 

(ii) See Appendix B Figure B–3 for 

additional information. 

(d) Use of Soft-start 

(i) The project will utilize soft start 

techniques for both impact and vibratory 

pile driving. We require HTC to initiate 

sound from vibratory hammers for fifteen 

seconds at reduced energy followed by a 

thirty-second waiting period, with the 

procedure repeated two additional times. 

For impact driving, we require an initial 

set of three strikes from the impact 

hammer at reduced energy, followed by 

a thirty-second waiting period, then two 

subsequent three strike sets. Soft start 

will be required at the beginning of each 

day’s pile driving work and at any time 

following a cessation of pile driving of 

thirty minutes or longer (specific to 

either vibratory or impact driving). 

(ii) Whenever there has been downtime of 

20 minutes or more without vibratory or 

impact driving, the contractor will 

initiate the driving with soft-start 

procedures described above. 

(e) Standard mitigation measures 

(i) Conduct briefings between construction 

supervisors and crews, marine mammal 

monitoring team, and HTC staff prior to 

the start of all pile driving activity, and 

when new personnel join the work, in 

order to explain responsibilities, 

communication procedures, marine 

mammal monitoring protocol, and 

operational procedures. 

(ii) For in-water heavy machinery work 

other than pile driving (using, e.g., 

standard barges, tug boats, bargemounted excavators, or clamshell 

equipment used to place or remove 

material), if a marine mammal comes 

within 10 m, operations shall cease and 

vessels shall reduce speed to the 

minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions. 

This type of work could include the 

following activities: (1) Movement of the 

barge to the pile location or (2) 

positioning of the pile on the substrate 

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

(f) HTC shall establish monitoring 

locations as described below. 

5. Monitoring and Reporting. 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to report all monitoring 

conducted under the IHA within 90 

calendar days of the completion of the 

marine mammal monitoring. 

(a) Visual Marine Mammal Monitoring and 

Observation. 

(i) Three individuals meeting the minimum 

qualifications identified in Appendix B 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14967 

of the monitoring plan submitted by HTC 

will monitor the Level A and B 

harassment zones during impact pile 

driving, and the Level B harassment zone 

during vibratory pile driving. 

(ii) During impact pile driving, the area 

within 100 meters of pile driving activity 

will be monitored and maintained as 

marine mammal buffer area in which 

pile installation will not commence or 

will be suspended temporarily if any 

marine mammals are observed within or 

approaching the area of potential 

disturbance. This area will be monitored 

by one qualified field monitor stationed 

either on the pile driving rig or in the 

immediate vicinity. 

(iii) The area within the Level B 

harassment threshold for impact driving 

(shown in Figure B–2 of Appendix B of 

the revised marine mammal monitoring 

plan) will be monitored by the field 

monitor stationed either on the pile 

driving rig or in the vicinity, and by a 

second qualified field monitor stationed 

on or in the vicinity of Halibut Island 

near the 2,150 meter limit of the Level 

B harassment zone. A third qualified 

observer will also monitor from a boat 

that is conducting a transect along the 

2,150 meter limit of the Level B 

harassment zone. Marine mammal 

presence within this Level B harassment 

zone, if any, will be monitored, but 

impact pile driving activity will not be 

stopped if marine mammals are found to 

be present. Any marine mammal 

documented within the Level B 

harassment zone during impact driving 

would constitute a Level B take 

(harassment), and will be recorded and 

reported as such. 

(iv) During vibratory pile driving, the area 

within 10 meters of pile driving activity 

will be monitored and maintained as 

marine mammal buffer area in which 

pile installation will not commence or 

will be suspended temporarily if any 

marine mammals are observed within or 

approaching the area of potential 

disturbance. The Level B harassment 

area will be monitored by three qualified 

observers (Figure B–2). One individual 

will be stationed either on the pile 

driving rig or in the immediate vicinity, 

a second individual will be stationed on 

either Halibut Island or a location in the 

vicinity, and a third observer will be 

located on a vessel that is conducting 

meander transects throughout the Level 

B harassment zone. The monitoring staff 

will record any presence of marine 

mammals by species, will document any 

behavioral responses noted, and record 

Level B takes when sightings overlap 

with pile installation activities. 

(v) The individuals will scan the waters 

within each monitoring zone activity 

using binoculars (Vector 10X42 or 

equivalent), spotting scopes (Swarovski 

20–60 zoom or equivalent), and visual 

observation. 

(vi) If waters exceed a sea-state which 

restricts the observers’ ability to make 

observations within the marine mammal 

buffer zone (the 100 meter radius) (e.g. 

excessive wind or fog), impact pile 

installation will cease until conditions 

allow the resumption of monitoring. 

(vii) The waters will be scanned 20 

minutes prior to commencing pile 

driving at the beginning of each day, and 

prior to commencing pile driving after 

any stoppage of 20 minutes or greater. If 

marine mammals enter or are observed 

within the designated marine mammal 

buffer zone (the 100m radius) during or 

20 minutes prior to impact pile driving, 

the monitors will notify the on-site 

construction manager to not begin until 

the animal has moved outside the 

designated radius. 

(viii) The waters will continue to be 

scanned for at least 20 minutes after pile 

driving has completed each day, and 

after each stoppage of 20 minutes or 

greater. 

(b) Data Collection. 

(i) Observers are required to use approved 

data forms. Among other pieces of 

information, HTC will record detailed 

information about any implementation of 

shutdowns, including the distance of 

animals to the pile and description of 

specific actions that ensued and 

resulting behavior of the animal, if any. 

In addition, HTC will attempt to 

distinguish between the number of 

individual animals taken and the 

number of incidents of take. At a 

minimum, the following information be 

collected on the sighting forms: 

1. Date and time that monitored activity 

begins or ends; 

2. Construction activities occurring during 

each observation period; 

3. Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, 

visibility); 

4. Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide 

state); 

5. Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex 

and age class of marine mammals; 

6. Description of any observable marine 

mammal behavior patterns, including 

bearing and direction of travel and 

distance from pile driving activity; 

7. Distance from pile driving activities to 

marine mammals and distance from the 

marine mammals to the observation 

point; 

8. Locations of all marine mammal 

observations; and 

9. Other human activity in the area. 

(c) Reporting Measures. 

(i) 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 (e.g., ship-strike, gear 

interaction, and/or entanglement), HTC 

would immediately cease the specified 

activities and immediately report the 

incident to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. 

The report would include the following 

information: 

1. Time, date, and location (latitude/

longitude) of the incident; 

2. Name and type of vessel involved; 

3. Vessel’s speed during and leading up to 

the incident; 

4. Description of the incident; 

5. Status of all sound source use in the 24 

hours preceding the incident; 

6. Water depth; 

7. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind 

speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, 

cloud cover, and visibility); 

8. Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

9. Species identification or description of 

the animal(s) involved; 

10. Fate of the animal(s); and 

11. Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

(ii) Activities would not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS would work with HTC to 

determine what is necessary to minimize 

the likelihood of further prohibited take 

and ensure MMPA compliance. HTC 

would not be able to resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS via 

letter, email, or telephone. 

(iii) In the event that HTC discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and the 

lead MMO 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), HTC 

would immediately report the incident 

to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or 

by email to the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinators. The report 

would include the same information 

identified in the paragraph above. 

Activities would be able to continue 

while NMFS reviews the circumstances 

of the incident. NMFS would work with 

HTC to determine whether modifications 

in the activities are appropriate. 

(iv) In the event that HTC discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and the 

lead MMO 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), 

HTC would report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding 

Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska 

Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 

24 hours of the discovery. HTC would 

provide photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS and 

the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. 

6. This Authorization may be modified, 

suspended or withdrawn if the holder 

fails to abide by the conditions 

prescribed herein, or if NMFS 

determines the authorized taking is 

having more than a negligible impact on 

the species or stock of affected marine 

mammals. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14968 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

Request for Public Comments 

NMFS requests comment on our 

analysis, the draft authorization, and 

any other aspect of the Notice of 

Proposed IHA for HTC’s redevelopment 

of the Icy Strait Cruise Ship Terminal in 

Hoonah, Alaska. Please include with 

your comments any supporting data or 

literature citations to help inform our 

final decision on HTC’s request for an 

MMPA authorization. 

Dated: March 16, 2015. 

Perry F. Gayaldo, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06431 Filed 3–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD748–X 

Marine Mammals; File No. 19133 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

Tim Gallagher, Alaska Area Manager, 

HDR, Inc., 2525 C Street, Suite 305, 

Anchorage, AK 99503–2632, has 

applied in due form for a permit to 

conduct research on spotted seals 

(Phoca largha), ringed seals (Pusa 

hispida), bearded seals (Erignathus 

barbatus), bowhead whales (Balaena 

mysticetus), and Beluga whales 

(Delphinapteras leucas). 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or email 

comments must be received on or before 

April 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review by 

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public 

Comment’’ from the ‘‘Features’’ box on 

the Applications and Permits for 

Protected Species (APPS) home page, 

https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then 

selecting File No. 19133 from the list of 

available applications. 

These documents are also available 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301) 427–8401; fax (301) 713–0376. 

Written comments on this application 

should be submitted to the Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, at 

the address listed above. Comments may 

also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 

713–0376, or by email to 

NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. Please 

include the File No. in the subject line 

of the email comment. 

Those individuals requesting a public 

hearing should submit a written request 

to the Chief, Permits and Conservation 

Division at the address listed above. The 

request should set forth the specific 

reasons why a hearing on this 

application would be appropriate. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brendan Hurley or Courtney Smith, 

(301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject permit is requested under the 

authority of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972, as amended 

(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the 

regulations governing the taking and 

importing of marine mammals (50 CFR 

part 216), and the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the regulations 

governing the taking, importing, and 

exporting of endangered and threatened 

species (50 CFR parts 222–226). 

The area encompassing the Colville 

River Delta (CRD) on Alaska’s North 

Slope is currently being assessed for 

potential oil and gas (O&G) exploration 

and development. HDR proposes to 

conduct semi-annual aerial surveys over 

the next 5 years to better characterize 

the occurrence and distribution of three 

ice seal species (spotted seals (Phoca 

largha), ringed seals (Pusa hispida), and 

bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus)), 

and provide a framework for 

understanding the potential impacts of 

O&G exploration and development on 

these animals in and around the CRD. 

Surveys will occur four times annually 

(from a Cessna 180 high-mounted fixedwing or a twin engine, low-mounted 

fixed-wing DA 42 Multi-Purpose 

Platform (MPP) aircraft (or similar fixedwing aircraft)) at 1,000 feet, but 

researchers will drop to an altitude of 

700 feet when seals are observed. 

Annual estimated directed takes include 

up to 780 bearded seals, 780 ringed 

seals, 612 spotted seals, and up to 60 

bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) 

and 150 Beluga whales (Delphinapteras 

leucas). 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial 

determination has been made that the 

activity proposed is categorically 

excluded from the requirement to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register, 

NMFS is forwarding copies of the 

application to the Marine Mammal 

Commission and its Committee of 

Scientific Advisors. 

Dated: March 13, 2015. 

Julia Harrison, 

Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06387 Filed 3–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office 

Proposed Revision of a Currently 

Approved Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Trademark 

Petitions 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

and respondent burden, invites the 

general public and other Federal 

agencies to comment on proposed 

and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before May 19, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Email: InformationCollection@

uspto.gov. Include ‘‘0651–0061 

Trademark Petitions’’ in the subject line 

of the message. 

• Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records 

Management Division Director, Office of 

the Chief Information Officer, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, 

P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313– 

1450. 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information 

should be directed to Catherine Cain, 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office (USPTO), P.O. Box 1450, 

Alexandria, VA 22313– 1450; by 

telephone at 571–272–8946; or by email 

at catherine.cain@uspto.gov with 

‘‘Paperwork’’ in the subject line. 

Additional information about this 

collection is also available at http://

www.reginfo.gov under ‘‘Information 

Collection Review.’’ 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The USPTO administers the 

Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES