Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 12089 

11This segment has been combined with the 

ACCESS Segment Specific Information (SSI) field 

which will display the month in which the notice 

of the order or suspended investigation was 

published in the Federal Register, also known as 

the anniversary month. For example, for an order 

under case number A–000–000 that was published 

in the Federal Register in January, the relevant 

segment and SSI combination will appear in 

ACCESS as ‘‘AISL-January Anniversary.’’ Note that 

there will be only one annual inquiry service list 

segment per case number, and the anniversary 

month will be pre-populated in ACCESS. 

12See Procedural Guidance, 86 FR at 53206. 

13See Final Rule, 86 FR at 52335. 14 Id. 

for an order submitted an entry of 

appearance to the annual inquiry 

service list segment for the order in 

ACCESS, and on November 4, 2021, 

Commerce finalized the initial annual 

inquiry service lists for each order and 

suspended investigation. Each annual 

inquiry service list has been saved as a 

public service list in ACCESS, under 

each case number, and under a specific 

segment type called ‘‘AISL-Annual 

Inquiry Service List.’’ 11

As mentioned in the Procedural 

Guidance, beginning in January 2022, 

Commerce will update these annual 

inquiry service lists on an annual basis 

when the Opportunity Notice for the 

anniversary month of the order or 

suspended investigation is published in 

the Federal Register.12 Accordingly, 

Commerce will update the annual 

inquiry service lists for the above-listed 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

proceedings. All interested parties 

wishing to appear on the updated 

annual inquiry service list must take 

one of the two following actions: (1) 

New interested parties who did not 

previously submit an entry of 

appearance must submit a new entry of 

appearance at this time; (2) Interested 

parties who were included in the 

preceding annual inquiry service list 

must submit an amended entry of 

appearance to be included in the next 

year’s annual inquiry service list. For 

these interested parties, Commerce will 

change the entry of appearance status 

from ‘‘Active’’ to ‘‘Needs Amendment’’ 

for the annual inquiry service lists 

corresponding to the above-listed 

proceedings. This will allow those 

interested parties to make any necessary 

amendments and resubmit their entries 

of appearance. If no amendments need 

to be made, the interested party should 

indicate in the area on the ACCESS form 

requesting an explanation for the 

amendment that it is resubmitting its 

entry of appearance for inclusion in the 

annual inquiry service list for the 

following year. As mentioned in the 

Final Rule,13 once the petitioners and 

foreign governments have submitted an 

entry of appearance for the first time, 

they will automatically be added to the 

updated annual inquiry service list each 

year. 

Interested parties have 30 days after 

the date of this notice to submit new or 

amended entries of appearance. 

Commerce will then finalize the annual 

inquiry service lists five business days 

thereafter. For ease of administration, 

please note that Commerce requests that 

law firms with more than one attorney 

representing interested parties in a 

proceeding designate a lead attorney to 

be included on the annual inquiry 

service list. 

Commerce may update an annual 

inquiry service list at any time as 

needed based on interested parties’ 

amendments to their entries of 

appearance to remove or otherwise 

modify their list of members and 

representatives, or to update contact 

information. Any changes or 

announcements pertaining to these 

procedures will be posted to the 

ACCESS website at https://

access.trade.gov. 

Special Instructions for Petitioners and 

Foreign Governments 

In the Final Rule, Commerce stated 

that, ‘‘after an initial request and 

placement on the annual inquiry service 

list, both petitioners and foreign 

governments will automatically be 

placed on the annual inquiry service list 

in the years that follow.’’ 14

Accordingly, as stated above and 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(n)(3), the 

petitioners and foreign governments 

will not need to resubmit their entries 

of appearance each year to continue to 

be included on the annual inquiry 

service list. However, the petitioners 

and foreign governments are responsible 

for making amendments to their entries 

of appearance during the annual update 

to the annual inquiry service list in 

accordance with the procedures 

described above. 

This notice is not required by statute 

but is published as a service to the 

international trading community. 

Dated: February 24, 2022. 

James Maeder, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04502 Filed 3–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB627] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Pier 58 

Reconstruction and Pier 63 Removal 

Projects in Seattle, Washington 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorizations; request for 

comments on proposed authorizations 

and possible renewals. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the City of Seattle (City) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to the Pier 58 Reconstruction 

Project and Pier 63 Removal Project in 

Seattle, Washington. Pursuant to the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue two incidental 

harassment authorizations (IHAs) to the 

City to incidentally take, by Level A and 

Level B harassment only, marine 

mammals during the specified activities. 

NMFS is also requesting comments on 

possible one-time, one-year renewals of 

each IHA that could be issued under 

certain circumstances and if all 

requirements are met, as described in 

Request for Public Comments at the end 

of this notice. NMFS will consider 

public comments prior to making any 

final decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorizations and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than April 4, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Written 

comments should be submitted via 

email to ITP.Fowler@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, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act without 

change. All personal identifying 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
12090 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Fowler, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case 

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

proposed or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental harassment authorization is 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable MMPA 

statutory terms cited above are included 

in the relevant sections below. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHAs qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

requests. 

Summary of Request 

On July 21, 2021, NMFS received two 

requests from the City for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to the Pier 

63 Removal Project and, separately, the 

Pier 58 Reconstruction Project on the 

waterfront in downtown Seattle, 

Washington. The City submitted revised 

applications for each project on 

September 29, 2021 and January 3, 

2022. Both applications were deemed 

adequate and complete on January 26, 

2022. The City’s request is for take of a 

small number of 12 species of marine 

mammals, by Level B harassment only 

for the Pier 63 Removal Project, and by 

Level A and Level B harassment for the 

Pier 58 Reconstruction Project. Neither 

the City nor NMFS expects serious 

injury or mortality to result from these 

activities and, therefore, IHAs are 

appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activities 

Overview 

The City is proposing to reconstruct 

Waterfront Park along the Elliott Bay 

shoreline in Seattle, Washington. When 

replaced, Waterfront Park will be 

renamed Pier 58 in reference to the 

original structure and to avoid 

confusion with the larger waterfront 

park promenade that will be 

reconstructed along Alaskan Way. The 

City intends to repair structural and 

safety deficiencies and optimize public 

access and recreational uses of the piers, 

including reconfiguring Waterfront Park 

to better accommodate programming 

while providing views of Elliott Bay 

toward the Olympic Mountain Range. 

The Pier 58 reconstruction project 

includes vibratory removal of existing 

in-water piles and vibratory and impact 

installation of new piles to support the 

expanded overwater structure. 

The City also plans to remove Pier 63 

from the downtown Seattle waterfront. 

The structural integrity of the pier has 

deteriorated and the pier has been 

closed to the public for safety. 

Removing Pier 63 will leave the 

nearshore environment open for 

improved ecosystem function and 

salmonid migration. The project 

includes vibratory removal of existing 

in-water piles; no plans have been made 

to reconstruct Pier 63, therefore no new 

piles will be installed. 

The City submitted an individual IHA 

application for each project. However, 

given the City applied for both projects 

concurrently, the projects’ close 

proximity to each other, and similarities 

in the proposed activities and potential 

impacts on marine mammals, NMFS is 

using this single Federal Register notice 

to solicit public comments on the 

issuance of the two similar, but 

separate, IHAs. 

Dates and Duration 

In-water work at both piers will occur 

during the in-water work window 

designated by NMFS, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and the Washington 

State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

which is imposed to avoid in-water 

construction when Endangered Species 

Act (ESA)-listed juvenile salmonids are 

most likely to be present. For the Seattle 

waterfront, this window is anticipated 

to be September 1 through February 15. 

The City expects Pier 58 reconstruction 

(including above-water construction 

that does not have the potential to take 

marine mammals) to take a little over a 

year to complete, from August 2022 to 

December 2023, with a total of 70 days 

of in-water work expected during the 

designated window. Funding for this 

project has been secured. Pier 63 will be 

removed during one in-water work 

season, with a total of 47 days of inwater work expected. Pier 63 may be 

removed during the September 2022 to 

February 2023 or September 2023 to 

February 2024 work window, 

depending on when funding is made 

available. Both IHAs would be valid 

from August 1, 2022 through July 31, 

2023. If funding for Pier 63 removal is 

not authorized during that period, the 

City will request the IHA be reissued for 

the following year. Due to this 

possibility, the analysis that follows for 

the Pier 63 Removal Project considers 

possible effects on marine mammals 

during either the August 2022 through 

July 2023 period or the August 2023 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 12091 

through July 2024 period, based on the 

current best available science. 

Specific Geographic Region 

Both piers are located along the 

Seattle waterfront on Elliott Bay, which 

is an 8 square mile (mi2) (21 square 

kilometer (km2)) urban embayment in 

central Puget Sound. Pier 58 is 

approximately 1⁄4 mile (0.4 km) north of 

Pier 63, with several occupied piers in 

between. The Seattle waterfront 

includes land and piers used for 

businesses, residences, transportation 

facilities (e.g., ferries, cargo ships, cruise 

ships), public services (e.g., fire station, 

utilities), city parks, and other 

recreational elements. West Point and 

Alki Point are considered the northern 

and southern entrances of Elliott Bay, 

respectively, with downtown Seattle 

serving as the eastern boundary of the 

bay. Bainbridge Island is located 

approximately 7 miles (11.3 km) to the 

west of downtown Seattle. The inner 

bay receives fresh water from the 

Duwamish River and most of the 

stormwater runoff from approximately 

26 mi2 (67 km2) of highly developed 

land in metropolitan Seattle. Elliott Bay 

is an important industrial region and 

home to the Port of Seattle, which, 

coupled with the Port of Tacoma located 

approximately 22 miles (35 km) to the 

south, ranked as the nation’s fifth 

busiest U.S. seaport in 2020 (Northwest 

Seaport Alliance, 2021). Water depths in 

the area range from less than 10 feet (ft; 

3.05 meters (m)) along the seawall to 

nearly 600 ft (183 m) at the outer extent 

of the bay. 

Detailed Description of Specific 

Activities 

Waterfront Park (hereafter referred to 

as Pier 58) was a public pier with 

substantial structural deficiencies. The 

pier pulled away from the waterfront in 

August 2020 and was closed to public 

access. Based on the known structural 

deficiencies, the City determined that 

emergency demolition was required for 

public safety. During initial demolition 

work in September 2020, a substantial 

portion of the pier collapsed into the 

water, thus necessitating an additional 

in-water activity of concrete demolition. 

The City conducted marine mammal 

monitoring during the emergency 

demolition work to avoid take of 

Southern Resident killer whales 

(Orcinus orca) and document 

occurrence and take of other marine 

mammals. The City removed the 

minimum number of piles and overwater structures necessary to protect the 

integrity of the seawall and maintain a 

safe environment. The remainder of the 

existing piles will be removed and 

replaced under the proposed IHA. 

Pier 58 will be reconstructed to 

maintain public park space and improve 

access, safety, and flexibility in use, 

while offering expansive views of Elliott 

Bay and the Olympic Mountains. The 

reconstructed pier will be 47,280 square 

feet and will include the installation of 

120 permanent 30-inch steel piles. The 

decking will consist of both pre-cast 

concrete panels and a cast-in-place 

concrete deck slab. There will also be a 

770 square foot area of grating to 

provide additional lighting to the 

existing intertidal salmon migratory 

corridor. The new park will feature a 

new public plaza, maintain the 

Fitzgerald fountain, and create a new 

children’s play area, seating areas, and 

a large lawn and trees in planters to 

provide shade. 

The reconstructed Pier 58 is also 

designed with an approximately 4,962- 

square-foot open water habitat area to 

provide natural lighting of the shallow 

water habitat near the shore (located at 

depths less than –10 feet mean lowerlow water (MLLW)) that will enhance 

nearshore habitat for a variety of 

species, such as juvenile salmon that 

use the nearshore area during migratory 

periods and comprise part of the prey 

base for many marine mammal species. 

An expanded intertidal habitat bench 

with the top surface at MLLW, sloping 

to a foundation rock sill would be 

installed in this new open water area to 

facilitate recruitment of native 

invertebrate and algal species. Due to 

the new configuration, the replacement 

pier will cover up an existing habitat 

substrate patch that was created as part 

of the Elliot Bay Seawall Project. To 

address loss of function of this habitat 

feature, the City will install an equal 

area of new habitat substrate 

enhancement to replicate the existing 

feature adjacent to Pier 58, further north 

between the Seattle Aquarium (Pier 59) 

and Pier 62. The new substrate 

enhancement will improve benthic 

habitat for juvenile crabs and other 

invertebrates and will generally improve 

productivity and support food web 

processes. The substrate enhancement 

will consist of an approximately 2,000 

square foot, 2-foot thick layer of 1.5-inch 

subtidal habitat gravel and will be 

located at elevations between 

approximately ¥10 to ¥20 feet MLLW. 

This habitat work will not result in the 

take of marine mammals. 

A total of 31 existing steel H-piles and 

timber piles will be removed in whole, 

wherever possible, by pulling the piles 

using a vibratory extraction method or 

clamshell bucket. If a timber pile breaks 

above the mudline during removal, the 

City will attempt to pull the remainder 

of the pile in a way that minimizes 

disturbance of sediment; otherwise, it 

will be cut below the mudline. All 

creosote-treated wood and steel that is 

removed will be disposed of in 

accordance with appropriate 

regulations. 

Once all existing piles have been 

removed, the City will begin the 

reconstruction by using a vibratory 

hammer to install 100 24-inch steel pipe 

template piles, which will all 

subsequently be removed using the 

same vibratory hammer. The City 

anticipates the contractor will use 

approximately 6 template piles at a 

time, for every 4 permanent piles, so 

that the template piles can be re-used. 

The City will then install a total of 120 

permanent 30-inch steel pipe piles 

using a vibratory hammer, followed by 

an impact hammer to ‘‘proof’’ the 

pilings to their maximum depth and 

load-bearing capacity. All impact pile 

driving will be conducted using a 

bubble curtain surrounding the pile (see 

Proposed Mitigation). The City does not 

plan to conduct pile driving with 

multiple hammers concurrently. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PILES TO BE INSTALLED AND REMOVED AT PIER 58 

Pile type and size Method Number of 

piles 

Maximum piles 

per day 

Duration or 

strikes per 

pile 

Maximum 

days of pile 

driving 

Steel H-pile, 14-inch timber pile .............................. Vibratory removal ........ 31 20 20 minutes ... 10 

24-inch steel pipe pile ............................................. Vibratory installation .... a 100 10 15 minutes ... 10 

24-inch steel pipe pile ............................................. Vibratory removal ........ a 100 10 5 minutes ..... 10 

30-inch steel pipe pile ............................................. Vibratory installation .... b 120 4 45 minutes ... c 40 

30-inch steel pipe pile ............................................. Impact installation ........ b 120 3 400 strikes ... c 40 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
12092 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PILES TO BE INSTALLED AND REMOVED AT PIER 58—Continued 

Pile type and size Method Number of 

piles 

Maximum piles 

per day 

Duration or 

strikes per 

pile 

Maximum 

days of pile 

driving 

Total ................................................................. Vibratory and impact ... 251 ........................ ...................... 70 

aThese same 100 piles will be installed and later removed. 

bThese same 120 piles will be installed first using a vibratory hammer, than finished with an impact hammer. 

cVibratory and impact installation of 30-inch piles will occur on the same 40 days. 

Pier 63 was previously used as a 

public open space where concerts and 

special events were hosted, but the pier 

has deteriorated and can no longer 

support heavy loads and is no longer in 

use. The City plans to demolish and 

remove the existing pier (with a total 

over-water area of 35,108 square feet), 

including removal of 900 14-inch timber 

piles and 8 30-inch steel pipe piles. 

During demolition, broken piles and 

debris from previous pier configurations 

will also be removed, as feasible, to 

comply with Washington State 

Department of Natural Resources lease 

terms. The number of broken piles to be 

removed is unknown but would be 

removed with a clamshell bucket and 

pulled or cut below the mudline. 

Broken piles and debris removed 

without the use of a vibratory hammer 

is not expected to result in take of 

marine mammals. 

During pile removal for Pier 63, 

decking and framing will be removed 

using heavy equipment or by workers 

on the deck. Timber piles will be 

removed in whole, wherever possible, 

by pulling the piles using a vibratory 

extraction method or clamshell bucket. 

If a pile breaks above the mudline 

during removal, then an attempt will be 

made to pull the remainder of the pile 

in a way that minimizes disturbance of 

sediments; otherwise, it will be cut 

below the mudline. All creosote-treated 

wood that is removed will be disposed 

of in accordance with appropriate 

regulations. Steel piles will be removed 

using vibratory extraction. The vibratory 

hammer will be positioned on a barge 

adjacent to the pier. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF PILES TO BE REMOVED AT PIER 63 

Pile type Number of 

piles 

Maximum piles 

removed 

per day 

Duration 

per pile 

(minutes) 

Maximum 

days of pile 

removal 

14-inch timber pile ........................................................................................... 900 20 20 45 

30-inch steel pipe pile ...................................................................................... 8 4 45 2 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the applications 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species, and can be found at 

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

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. All of 

this information was fully considered 

and we refer the reader to these 

descriptions, incorporated here by 

reference, instead of reprinting the 

information. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

website (https://www.fisheries.noaa 

.gov/find-species). 

Table 3 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for both proposed IHAs, 

and summarizes information related to 

the population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

ESA and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 

follow Committee on Taxonomy (2021). 

PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’s 

SARs). While no serious injury or 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are included here as gross indicators of 

the status of the species or stocks and 

other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’s stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All values 

for each managed stock presented in 

Table 3 are the most recent available at 

the time of publication and are available 

in the 2020 SARs (Carretta et al., 2021, 

Muto et al., 2021) and draft 2021 SARs 

(available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/draftmarine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 12093 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE SURVEY AREA

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

Gray whale ....................... Eschrichtius robustus ............. Eastern N Pacific ................... -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 2016) .. 801 131 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Humpback whale .............. Megaptera novaeangliae ........ California/Oregon/Washington E, D, Y 4,973 (0.05, 4,776, 2018) ...... 28.7 ≥48.6 

Minke whale ..................... Balaenoptera acutorostrata .... California/Oregon/Washington -, -, N 915 (0.792, 509, 2018) .......... 4.1 ≥0.59 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Long Beaked Common 

Dolphin.

Delphinus capensis ................ California ................................ -, -, N 83,379 (0.216, 69,636, 2018) 668 ≥29.7 

Bottlenose Dolphin ........... Tursiops truncatus .................. California Coastal ................... -, -, N 453 (0.06, 346, 2011) ............ 2.7 ≥2.0 

Killer Whale ...................... Orcinus orca ........................... Southern Resident ................. E, D, Y 72 (N/A, 72, 2020) ................. 0.13 ≥0.4 

West Coast Transient ............ -, -, N 349 4 (N/A, 349, 2018) ........... 3.5 0.4 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor Porpoise ............... Phocoena phocoena .............. Washington Inland Waters ..... -, -, N 11,233 (0.37, 8,308, 2015) .... 66 ≥7.2 

Dall’s Porpoise ................. Phocoenoides dalli ................. California/Oregon/Washington -, -, N 16,498 (0.61, 10,286, 2019) .. 99 ≥0.66 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

California Sea Lion ........... Zalophus californianus ........... U.S. ........................................ -, -, N 257,606 (N/A,233,515, 2014) 14,011 >320 

Steller Sea Lion ................ Eumetopias jubatus ................ Eastern ................................... -, -, N 43,201 5 (see SAR, 43,201, 

2017).

2,592 112 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Harbor Seal ...................... Phoca vitulina ......................... Washington Northern Inland 

Waters.

-, -, N 11,036 6 (UNK, UNK, 1999) ... UND 9.8 

Northern Elephant Seal .... Mirounga angustirostris .......... California Breeding ................. -, -, N 187,386 (N/A, 85,369, 2013) 5,122 13.7 

1ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be 

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

as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports-region. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual mortality/serious injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. 4Based on counts of individual animals identified from photo-identification catalogues. Surveys for abundance estimates of these stocks are conducted infrequently. 

5Best estimate of pup and non-pup counts, which have not been corrected to account for animals at sea during abundance surveys. 

6The abundance estimate for this stock is greater than eight years old and is therefore not considered current. PBR is considered undetermined for this stock, as 

there is no current minimum abundance estimate for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimates, as these represent the best 

available information for use in this document. 

As indicated above, all 12 species 

(with 13 managed stocks) in Table 3 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activities to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur, and we 

propose authorizing it. The Pacific 

white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus 

obliquidens) is a rare visitor to the 

inland waters of Puget Sound (Orca 

Network, 2021). However, they have not 

been observed during recent marine 

mammal monitoring for projects in 

Elliott Bay (e.g., WSDOT 2021; Anchor 

QEA 2019) and are considered unlikely 

to occur in the area during the City’s 

proposed activities. The City has not 

requested take of Pacific white-sided 

dolphins for either project and NMFS 

does not anticipate or propose to 

authorize take of this species. Therefore, 

Pacific white-sided dolphins are not 

discussed further in this document. 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales are found in 

coastal waters of Washington as they 

migrate from feeding grounds in Alaska 

to California to winter breeding grounds 

in Mexico. Humpbacks used to be 

considered only rare visitors to Puget 

Sound. In 1976 and 1978, two sightings 

were reported in Puget Sound and one 

sighting was reported in 1986 (Osborne 

et al., 1988; Calambokidis and Steiger 

1990; Calambokidis and Baird 1994). 

Humpback whale occurrence in Puget 

Sound has been steadily increasing 

since 2000, with some individuals 

remaining in the area through the winter 

(Calambokidis et al., 2018). Prior to 

2016, humpback whales were listed 

under the ESA as an endangered species 

worldwide. Following a 2015 global 

status review (Bettridge et al., 2015), 

NMFS delineated 14 distinct population 

segments (DPSs) with different listing 

statuses (81 FR 62259; September 8, 

2016) pursuant to the ESA. The DPSs 

that occur in U.S. waters do not 

necessarily equate to the existing stocks 

designated under the MMPA and shown 

in Table 1. Because MMPA stocks 

cannot be portioned, i.e., parts managed 

as ESA-listed while other parts managed 

as not ESA-listed, until such time as the 

MMPA stock delineations are reviewed 

in light of the DPS designations, NMFS 

considers the existing humpback whale 

stocks under the MMPA that overlap 

with endangered or threatened DPSs to 

be depleted for MMPA management 

purposes (e.g., selection of a recovery 

factor, stock status). All humpback 

whales in the project areas would be 

from the California/Oregon/Washington 

stock. Within Puget Sound, three DPSs 

may occur and be taken incidental to 

the City’s activities: The Hawai’i DPS 

(not listed), Mexico DPS (threatened), 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I I 

I I I I 
12094 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 

and Central America DPS (endangered). 

According to Wade et al. (2021), the 

probability that humpback whales 

encountered in Washington and 

Southern British Columbia waters are as 

follows: Hawai’i DPS, 69 percent; 

Mexico DPS, 25 percent; and Central 

America DPS, 6 percent. We therefore 

assume that the numbers of humpback 

whales taken incidental to the City’s 

proposed activities would fall under the 

same relative proportions. Critical 

habitat for Mexico and Central America 

DPS humpback whales has been 

established on the outer coast of 

Washington (86 FR 21082; April 21, 

2021) but none has been designated 

within Puget Sound. 

Entanglement in fishing gear and 

marine debris is considered a primary 

threat to humpback whales in the 

northeast Pacific. Entanglements are the 

most commonly identified cause of 

death and injury among humpback 

whales along California, Oregon, and 

Washington (Carretta et al. 2013, 2019), 

and probably cause a modest reduction 

in the size or growth rate of the Central 

America and Mexico DPSs (Bettridge et 

al., 2015). Humpbacks were the second 

most frequently entangled whale species 

(after gray whales) in this region from 

1982 to 2013, averaging 2.1 reports per 

year (Sato and Wiley, 2021). However, 

actual numbers of entanglements were 

likely much higher, as indicated by 

photographic data showing scarring 

from past incidents on half or more of 

the humpback whales occurring off 

these states (Robbins et al., 2007). Most 

humpback entanglements in 

Washington involve trap/pot gear, 

especially from commercial Dungeness 

crab fisheries (Saez et al., 2013; NMFS 

2017). 

Humpback whales are one of the most 

commonly vessel-struck whale species 

in some areas of the world (Jensen and 

Silber 2004; Neilson et al., 2012; Hill et 

al., 2017). For example, in Alaskan and 

Hawaiian waters, members of the 

Hawaii DPS experienced an average of 

at least 4.0 deaths and serious injuries 

per year because of collisions from 2012 

to 2016 (Muto et al., 2019). In 

Washington, just two humpback whales 

were reported killed by vessel strikes 

from 1980 to 2017 (Douglas et al., 2008; 

Carretta et al., 2013, 2019). The state has 

several areas where heavy vessel traffic 

poses a higher collision risk for 

humpback whales. These include the 

mouths of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and 

Columbia River, the north-south 

shipping lane that parallels the outer 

coast, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca and 

other parts of the Salish Sea (Williams 

and O’Hara 2010; Nichol et al., 2017; 

Rockwood et al., 2017). 

Gray Whale 

Gray whales generally spend the 

summer and fall in Arctic feeding 

grounds and winter to early spring in 

Mexican breeding areas. Between 

October and February, the species 

migrates south along the U.S. West 

Coast, returning north between February 

and July (Carretta et al., 2021). A 

subpopulation of the Eastern North 

Pacific stock, referred to as the Pacific 

Coast Feeding Group (PCFG), remains 

along the Washington and Oregon coast 

to feed for extended periods while the 

rest of the stock continues along their 

migratory path (Calambokidis et al., 

2018). Like humpback whales, 

occurrence of gray whales in Puget 

Sound has been steadily increasing in 

recent years. Occurrence of gray whales 

in Puget Sound is generally highest 

between February and May. Most gray 

whales remain further north in Puget 

Sound, concentrating in the waters 

around Whidbey Island, but some 

venture south, including into Elliott Bay 

near the proposed activities (Orca 

Network, 2021). 

Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) 

for feeding gray whales along the coasts 

of Washington, Oregon, and California 

have been identified, including northern 

Puget Sound, Northwestern 

Washington, and Grays Harbor in 

Washington, Depoe Bay and Cape 

Blanco and Orford Reef in Oregon, and 

Point St. George in California; most of 

these areas are of importance from late 

spring through early fall (Calambokidis 

et al., 2015). BIAs have also been 

identified for migrating gray whales 

along the entire coasts of Washington 

(including the inland waters of Puget 

Sound), Oregon, and California; 

although most whales travel within 10 

km from shore, the BIAs were extended 

out to 47 km from the coastline 

(Calambokidis et al., 2015). 

On May 30, 2019, NMFS declared an 

unusual mortality event (UME) for gray 

whales after elevated numbers of 

strandings occurred along the U.S. west 

coast. As of January 7, 2022, a total of 

502 stranded gray whales have been 

reported, including 256 in the United 

States (117 in Alaska, 56 in Washington, 

12 in Oregon, and 71 in California), 225 

in Mexico, and 21 in Canada. Full or 

partial necropsy examinations were 

conducted on a subset of the whales. 

Preliminary findings in several of the 

whales have shown evidence of 

emaciation. These findings are not 

consistent across all of the whales 

examined, so more research is needed. 

The UME is ongoing, and NMFS 

continues to investigate the cause(s). 

Additional information about the UME 

is available at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-life-distress/2019-2020-graywhale-unusual-mortality-event-alongwest-coast. 

Minke Whale 

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). Minke whales 

are relatively common in the Bering and 

Chukchi seas and in the Gulf of Alaska, 

but are not considered abundant in any 

other part of the eastern Pacific 

(Brueggeman et al., 1990). In the far 

north, minke whales are thought to be 

migratory, but they are believed to be 

year-round residents in coastal waters 

off the west coast of the United States 

(Dorsey et al., 1990). 

Minke whales are reported in 

Washington inland waters year-round, 

although few are reported in the winter 

(i.e., during the anticipated in-water 

work window for these projects; 

Calambokidis and Baird 1994). They are 

relatively common in the San Juan 

Islands and Strait of Juan de Fuca 

(especially around several of the banks 

in both the central and eastern Strait), 

but are relatively rare in Puget Sound 

and the Orca Network has no sighting 

records of minke whales in the project 

areas. 

Killer Whale 

There are three distinct ecotypes, or 

forms, of killer whales recognized in the 

north Pacific: Resident, transient, and 

offshore. The three ecotypes differ 

morphologically, ecologically, 

behaviorally, and genetically. Resident 

killer whales exclusively prey upon 

fish, with a clear preference for salmon 

(Ford and Ellis 2006; Hanson et al., 

2010; Ford et al., 2016), while transient 

killer whales exclusively prey upon 

marine mammals (Caretta et al., 2019). 

Less is known about offshore killer 

whales, but they are believed to 

consume primarily fish, including 

several species of shark (Dahlheim et 

al., 2008). Currently, there are eight 

killer whale stocks recognized in the 

U.S. Pacific (Carretta et al., 2021; Muto 

et al., 2021). Of those, individuals from 

the Southern Resident stock and West 

Coast Transient stock may occur in the 

Seattle area and be taken incidental to 

the City’s proposed activities. 

The Southern Resident killer whale 

(SRKW) population is comprised of 

three pods, J, K, and L pods, which 

typically travel independent of each 

other. The stock occurs for part of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 12095 

year in the inland waterways of the 

Salish Sea, including Puget Sound, the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the southern 

Strait of Georgia mostly during the 

spring, summer, and fall. Their 

movement patterns appear related to the 

seasonal availability of prey, especially 

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha). They also move to coastal 

waters, primarily off Washington and 

British Columbia, in search of suitable 

prey, and have been observed as far as 

central California and southeast Alaska 

(NMFS 2019). During the fall, SRKW, 

especially J pod, expand their 

movements into Puget Sound, likely 

taking advantage of chum 

(Oncorhynchus keta) and Chinook 

salmon runs (Hanson et al., 2021). 

The SRKW DPS was listed as 

endangered under the ESA in 2005 after 

a nearly 20 percent decline in 

abundance between 1996 and 2001 (70 

FR 69903; November 18, 2005). As 

compared to stable or growing 

populations, the DPS reflects lower 

fecundity and has demonstrated little to 

no growth in recent decades, and in fact 

has declined further since the date of 

listing (NMFS 2019). The population 

abundance listed in the draft 2021 SARs 

is 72 individuals, from the July 1, 2020 

annual census conducted by the Center 

for Whale Research (Carretta et al., 

2021); since that date, two adult SRKW 

have died or are presumed dead, and 

three calves were born, bringing the 

current abundance to 73 whales (Orca 

Network, 2021). 

Designated ESA critical habitat for 

SRKW includes the inland waters of 

Washington relative to a contiguous 

shoreline delimited by the line at a 

depth of 6.1 m relative to extreme high 

water (71 FR 69054; November 29, 

2006). The Seattle waterfront is in the 

Puget Sound segment of the designated 

critical habitat, which is defined as the 

area south of the Deception Pass Bridge, 

west of the entrance to Admiralty Inlet, 

and north of the Hood Canal Bridge. 

SRKW have been observed in this area 

in all seasons but most occurrence in 

this area typically correlates with fall 

salmon runs, which occur during the 

anticipated in-water work window for 

these projects (NMFS 2006). 

In contrast to SRKW, which 

exclusively prey on fish, the main diet 

of transient killer whales consists of 

marine mammals. Within Puget Sound, 

transient killer whales primarily hunt 

pinnipeds and porpoises, though some 

groups will occasionally target larger 

whales. The West Coast Transient stock 

of killer whales occurs from California 

through southeast Alaska (Muto et al., 

2021). The seasonal movements of 

transients are largely unpredictable, 

although there is a tendency to 

investigate harbor seal haulouts off 

Vancouver Island more frequently 

during the pupping season in August 

and September (Baird 1994; Ford 2014). 

Transient killer whales have been 

observed in central Puget Sound in all 

months (Orca Network 2021). 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

Bottlenose dolphins are distributed 

worldwide from approximately 45° N to 

45° S. Bottlenose dolphins inhabiting 

west coast U.S. waters are considered to 

be in either the California coastal stock, 

which ranges from Mexico to the San 

Francisco area within approximately 1 

kilometer of shore, or the California/ 

Oregon/Washington offshore stock, 

which is most commonly found along 

the California coast, northward to about 

the Oregon border. NMFS offshore 

surveys from 1991 to 2014 resulted in 

no sightings during study transects off 

the Oregon or Washington coasts 

(Carretta et al., 2019). In September 

2017, however, multiple sightings of a 

bottlenose dolphin throughout the Puget 

Sound and in Elliott Bay were reported 

to Cascadia Research Collective and 

Orca Network. One of the individuals 

was identified as belonging to the 

California coastal stock (Cascadia 

Research Collective, 2017). Bottlenose 

dolphins are considered rare in Puget 

Sound but occasional sightings have 

continued since the initial reports in 

2017 (Orca Network, 2021). 

Long-Beaked Common Dolphin 

Long-beaked common dolphins are 

commonly found along the U.S. West 

Coast, from Baja, California (including 

the Gulf of California), northward to 

about central California (Carretta et al., 

2020). The Salish Sea is not considered 

part of their typical range (Carretta et al., 

2020), but there have been reports of 

long-beaked common dolphins in 

inland waters. Two individual common 

dolphins were observed in August and 

September of 2011 (Whale Museum, 

2015). The first record of a pod of longbeaked common dolphins in this area 

came in the summer of 2016. Beginning 

on June 16, 2016 long-beaked common 

dolphins were observed near Victoria, 

B.C. Over the following weeks, a pod of 

15 to 20 (including a calf) was observed 

in central and southern Puget Sound. 

They were positively identified as longbeaked common dolphins (Orca 

Network 2016). Two long-beaked 

common dolphins were observed by 

Washington State Department of 

Transportation (WSDOT) marine 

mammal monitors during construction 

at Colman Dock (Pier 52) during the 

2017–18 construction window (WSDOT 

2019). 

Harbor Porpoise 

In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, 

harbor porpoise are found in coastal and 

inland waters from Point Barrow, along 

the Alaskan coast, and down the west 

coast of North America to Point 

Conception, California (Gaskin 1984). 

Harbor porpoise are known to occur 

year-round in the inland trans-boundary 

waters of Washington and British 

Columbia, Canada (Osborne et al., 

1988), and along the Oregon/ 

Washington coast (Barlow 1988, Barlow 

et al., 1988, Green et al., 1992). There 

was a significant decline in harbor 

porpoise sightings within southern 

Puget Sound between the 1940s and 

1990s but sightings have increased 

seasonally in the last 10 years (Carretta 

et al., 2019). Annual winter aerial 

surveys conducted by the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife from 

1995 to 2015 revealed an increasing 

trend in harbor porpoise in Washington 

inland waters, including the return of 

harbor porpoise to Puget Sound. The 

data suggest that harbor porpoise were 

already present in Juan de Fuca, Georgia 

Straits, and the San Juan Islands from 

the mid-1990s to mid-2000s, and then 

expanded into Puget Sound and Hood 

Canal from the mid-2000s to 2015, areas 

they had used historically but 

abandoned. Changes in fishery-related 

entanglement was suspected as the 

cause of their previous decline and 

more recent recovery, including a return 

to Puget Sound (Evenson et al., 2016). 

Seasonal surveys conducted in spring, 

summer, and fall 2013–2015 in Puget 

Sound and Hood Canal documented 

substantial numbers of harbor porpoise 

in Puget Sound. Observed porpoise 

numbers were twice as high in spring as 

in fall or summer, indicating a seasonal 

shift in distribution of harbor porpoise 

(Smultea 2015). The reasons for the 

seasonal shift and for the increase in 

sightings is unknown. Marine mammal 

monitors have reported few sightings of 

harbor porpoises in Elliott Bay during 

recent construction projects at the 

Seattle waterfront (e.g., WSDOT 2019). 

Dall’s Porpoise 

Dall’s porpoises are endemic to 

temperate waters of the North Pacific 

Ocean. Off the U.S. west coast, they are 

commonly seen in shelf, slope, and 

offshore waters (Morejohn 1979). 

Sighting patterns from aerial and 

shipboard surveys conducted in 

California, Oregon, and Washington 

(Green et al., 1992, 1993; Forney and 

Barlow 1998; Barlow 2016) suggest that 

north-south movement between these 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
12096 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 

states occurs as oceanographic 

conditions change, both on seasonal and 

inter-annual time scales. Dall’s porpoise 

are considered rare in Puget Sound; no 

observations of Dall’s porpoises have 

been reported during recent 

construction projects at the Seattle 

waterfront (e.g., WSDOT 2019). 

California Sea Lion 

The California sea lion is the most 

frequently sighted pinniped found in 

Washington waters and uses haul-out 

sites along the outer coast, Strait of Juan 

de Fuca, and in Puget Sound. Haul-out 

sites are located on jetties, offshore 

rocks and islands, log booms, marina 

docks, and navigation buoys. This 

species also may be frequently seen 

resting in the water, rafted together in 

groups in Puget Sound. Only male 

California sea lions migrate into Pacific 

Northwest waters, with females 

remaining in waters near their breeding 

rookeries off the coast of California and 

Mexico. The California sea lion was 

considered rare in Washington waters 

prior to the 1950s. More recently, peak 

numbers of 3,000 to 5,000 animals move 

into the Salish Sea during the fall and 

remain until late spring, when most 

return to breeding rookeries in 

California and Mexico (Jeffries et al., 

2000). 

California sea lions are often observed 

in the area of potential effects and are 

known to be comfortable and seemingly 

curious around human activities. There 

are four documented haul-out areas near 

Bainbridge Island, approximately 6 

miles (9.6 km) from Pier 63, and two 

documented haul-out areas between 

Bainbridge Island and Magnolia. The 

haul-outs consist of buoys and floats, 

and some are within the area of 

potential effects, but at the outer extent, 

and some are just outside the area of 

potential effects (Jefferies et al., 2000). 

California sea lions are regularly 

observed in Elliott Bay, especially 

around two navigational buoys near 

Alki Point, at the southwest edge of 

Elliott Bay. During construction at Pier 

62 in 2018 and 2019, between 0 and 31 

California sea lions were observed in the 

project area per day, with an average of 

6 per day. More than half of the reported 

takes of California sea lions during this 

project were animals near Alki Point 

(Anchor QEA 2018, 2019). 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions range along the North 

Pacific Rim from northern Japan to 

California (Loughlin et al., 1984). There 

are two separate stocks of Steller sea 

lions, the Eastern U.S. stock, which 

occurs east of Cape Suckling, Alaska 

(144° W), and the Western U.S. stock, 

which occurs west of that point. Only 

the Western stock of Steller sea lions, 

which is designated as the Western DPS 

of Steller sea lions, is listed as 

endangered under the ESA (78 FR 

66139; November 4, 2013). Unlike the 

Western U.S. stock of Steller sea lions, 

there has been a sustained and robust 

increase in abundance of the Eastern 

U.S. stock throughout its breeding 

range. The eastern stock of Steller sea 

lions has historically bred on rookeries 

located in Southeast Alaska, British 

Columbia, Oregon, and California. 

However, within the last several years a 

new rookery has become established on 

the outer Washington coast (at the 

Carroll Island and Sea Lion Rock 

complex), with more than 100 pups 

born there in 2015 (Muto et al., 2020). 

Steller sea lions use haul-out 

locations in Puget Sound, and may 

occur at the same haul-outs as California 

sea lions, but are considered rare 

visitors to Elliott Bay and the Seattle 

waterfront area. Few Steller sea lions 

have been observed during monitoring 

of recent construction projects in the 

area; typically fewer than 5 total 

observations per year (e.g., Anchor QEA 

2018, 2019). However, a total of 54 

Steller sea lions were observed over 99 

days of monitoring during the 2017– 

2018 work season at Colman Dock (Pier 

52; WSDOT 2019). 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Northern elephant seals breed and 

give birth in California (U.S.) and Baja 

California (Mexico), primarily on 

offshore islands (Stewart et al. 1994), 

from December to March (NOAA 2015). 

Males migrate to the Gulf of Alaska and 

western Aleutian Islands along the 

continental shelf to feed on benthic 

prey, while females migrate to pelagic 

areas in the Gulf of Alaska and the 

central North Pacific Ocean to feed on 

pelagic prey (Le Boeuf et al., 2000). 

Adults return to land between March 

and August to molt, with males 

returning later than females. Adults 

return to their feeding areas again 

between their spring/summer molting 

and their winter breeding seasons 

(Carretta et al., 2015). 

Individual elephant seals have been 

reported in Elliott Bay and central Puget 

Sound (e.g., WSDOT 2019) but are 

generally considered rare in Puget 

Sound. However, a female elephant seal 

has been reported hauled-out in Mutiny 

Bay on Whidbey Island periodically 

since 2010. She was observed alone for 

her first three visits to the area, but in 

March 2015, she was seen with a pup. 

Since then, she has produced two more 

pups, born in 2018 and 2020. Northern 

elephant seals generally give birth in 

January but this individual has 

repeatedly given birth in March. She 

typically returns to Mutiny Bay in April 

and May to molt. Her pups have also 

repeatedly returned to haul-out on 

nearby beaches (Orca Network 2020). 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and 

estuarine waters off Baja California, 

north along the western coasts of the 

continental U.S., British Columbia, and 

Southeast Alaska, west through the Gulf 

of Alaska and Aleutian Islands, and in 

the Bering Sea north to Cape Newenham 

and the Pribilof Islands (Carretta et al., 

2014). They haul out on rocks, reefs, 

beaches, and drifting glacial ice and 

feed in marine, estuarine, and 

occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals 

generally are non-migratory, with local 

movements associated with such factors 

as tides, weather, season, food 

availability, and reproduction (Scheffer 

and Slipp 1944; Fisher 1952; Bigg 1969, 

1981). Within U.S. west coast waters, 

five stocks of harbor seals are 

recognized: (1) Southern Puget Sound 

(south of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge); 

(2) Washington Northern Inland Waters 

(including Puget Sound north of the 

Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the San Juan 

Islands, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca); 

(3) Hood Canal; (4) Oregon/Washington 

Coast; and (5) California. Harbor seals in 

the project areas would be from the 

Washington Northern Inland Waters 

stock. 

Harbor seals are the only pinniped 

species that occurs year-round and 

breeds in Washington waters (Jeffries et 

al., 2000). Pupping seasons vary by 

geographic region, with pups born in 

coastal estuaries (Columbia River, 

Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor) from 

mid-April through June; Olympic 

Peninsula coast from May through July; 

San Juan Islands and eastern bays of 

Puget Sound from June through August; 

southern Puget Sound from mid-July 

through September; and Hood Canal 

from August through January (Jeffries et 

al., 2000). The most recent estimate for 

the Washington Northern Inland Waters 

Stock is 11,036 based on surveys 

conducted in 1999. There are no current 

estimates of abundance for this stock 

but the population is thought to be 

stable (Carretta et al., 2014). 

There is one documented harbor seal 

haulout area near Bainbridge Island, 

approximately 6 miles west of Piers 58 

and 63. The haulout, which is estimated 

at less than 100 animals, consists of 

intertidal rocks and reef areas around 

Blakely Rocks and is within the area of 

potential effects but at the outer extent 

near Bainbridge Island (Jefferies et al., 

2000). Harbor seals are a commonly 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 12097 

observed marine mammal in the area of 

potential effects and are known to be 

comfortable and seemingly curious 

around human activities. Observations 

of harbor seals were reported during 

many recent construction projects along 

the Seattle waterfront. During two 

seasons of construction at Pier 62, up to 

54 harbor seals were observed per day, 

with an average of 5 individuals per day 

(Anchor QEA 2019). 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ..................................................................................................................... 7 Hz to 35 kHz. 

Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) ........................................... 150 Hz to 160 kHz. 

High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchids, Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L. 

australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) ................................................................................................................... 50 Hz to 86 kHz. 

Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) .............................................................................................. 60 Hz to 39 kHz. 

* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’ 

hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, 

with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinnipeds (approximation). 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Twelve marine 

mammal species (8 cetacean and 4 

pinniped (2 otariid and 2 phocid) 

species) have the reasonable potential to 

co-occur with the proposed survey 

activities. Please refer to Table 3. Of the 

cetacean species that may be present, 3 

are classified as low-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 3 

are classified as mid-frequency 

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

and 2 are classified as high-frequency 

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

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a discussion of 

the ways that components of the 

specified activities may impact marine 

mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take section later in this 

document includes a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by these 

activities. The Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination section 

considers the content of this section, the 

Estimated Take section, and the 

Proposed Mitigation section, to draw 

conclusions regarding the likely impacts 

of these activities on the reproductive 

success or survivorship of individuals 

and how those impacts on individuals 

are likely to impact marine mammal 

species or stocks. 

Acoustic effects on marine mammals 

during the specified activities can occur 

from impact pile driving and vibratory 

driving and removal. The effects of 

underwater noise from the City’s 

proposed activities have the potential to 

result in Level A or Level B harassment 

of marine mammals in the action areas. 

Description of Sound Sources 

The marine soundscape is comprised 

of both ambient and anthropogenic 

sounds. Ambient sound is defined as 

the all-encompassing sound in a given 

place and is usually a composite of 

sound from many sources both near and 

far (ANSI 1995). The sound level of an 

area is defined by the total acoustical 

energy being generated by known and 

unknown sources. These sources may 

include physical (e.g., waves, wind, 

precipitation, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, 

dredging, aircraft, construction). 

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 decibels (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 

activities may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
12098 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the project would 

include impact and vibratory pile 

driving and removal. The sounds 

produced by these activities fall into 

one of two general sound types: 

Impulsive and non-impulsive. 

Impulsive sounds (e.g., explosions, 

sonic booms, impact pile driving) are 

typically transient, brief (less than 1 

second), broadband, and consist of high 

peak sound pressure with rapid rise 

time and rapid decay (ANSI, 1986; 

NIOSH, 1998; NMFS, 2018). Nonimpulsive sounds (e.g., machinery 

operations such as drilling or dredging, 

vibratory pile driving, underwater 

chainsaws, and active sonar systems) 

can be broadband, narrowband or tonal, 

brief or prolonged (continuous or 

intermittent), and typically do not have 

the high peak sound pressure with raid 

rise/decay time that impulsive sounds 

do (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS 

2018). 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). 

Two types of hammers would be used 

on this project, impact and vibratory. 

Impact hammers operate by repeatedly 

dropping and/or pushing a heavy piston 

onto a pile to drive the pile into the 

substrate. Sound generated by impact 

hammers is considered impulsive. 

Vibratory hammers install piles by 

vibrating them and allowing the weight 

of the hammer to push them into the 

sediment. Vibratory hammers produce 

non-impulsive, continuous sounds. 

Vibratory hammering generally 

produces SPLs 10 to 20 dB lower than 

impact pile driving of the same-sized 

pile (Oestman et al., 2009). Rise time is 

slower, reducing the probability and 

severity of injury, and sound energy is 

distributed over a greater amount of 

time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; 

Carlson et al., 2005). 

The likely or possible impacts of the 

City’s proposed activities on marine 

mammals could be generated from both 

non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. 

Potential non-acoustic stressors include 

the physical presence of the equipment, 

vessels, and personnel; however, we 

expect that any animals that approach 

the project site(s) close enough to be 

harassed due to the presence of 

equipment or personnel would be 

within the Level B harassment zones 

from pile driving and would already be 

subject to harassment from the in-water 

activities. Therefore, any impacts to 

marine mammals are expected to 

primarily be acoustic in nature. 

Acoustic stressors are generated by 

heavy equipment operation during pile 

installation and removal (i.e., impact 

and vibratory pile driving and removal). 

Acoustic Impacts 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile driving equipment is the primary 

means by which marine mammals may 

be harassed from the City’s specified 

activities. In general, animals exposed to 

natural or anthropogenic sound may 

experience physical and psychological 

effects, ranging in magnitude from none 

to severe (Southall et al., 2007). 

Generally, exposure to pile driving and 

removal and other construction noise 

has the potential to result in auditory 

threshold shifts and behavioral 

reactions (e.g., avoidance, temporary 

cessation of foraging and vocalizing, 

changes in dive behavior). Exposure to 

anthropogenic noise can also lead to 

non-observable physiological responses 

such as an increase in stress hormones. 

Additional noise in a marine mammal’s 

habitat can mask acoustic cues used by 

marine mammals to carry out daily 

functions such as communication and 

predator and prey detection. The effects 

of pile driving and demolition noise on 

marine mammals are dependent on 

several factors, including, but not 

limited to, sound type (e.g., impulsive 

vs. non-impulsive), the species, age and 

sex class (e.g., adult male vs. mother 

with calf), duration of exposure, the 

distance between the pile and the 

animal, received levels, behavior at time 

of exposure, and previous history with 

exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall 

et al., 2007). Here we discuss physical 

auditory effects (threshold shifts) 

followed by behavioral effects and 

potential impacts on habitat. No 

physiological effects other than PTS are 

anticipated or proposed to be 

authorized, and therefore are not 

discussed further. 

NMFS defines a noise-induced 

threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually 

an increase, in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS, 2018). The amount of 

threshold shift is customarily expressed 

in dB. A TS can be permanent or 

temporary. As described in NMFS 

(2018), there are numerous factors to 

consider when examining the 

consequence of TS, including, but not 

limited to, the signal temporal pattern 

(e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive), 

likelihood an individual would be 

exposed for a long enough duration or 

to a high enough level to induce a TS, 

the magnitude of the TS, time to 

recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to 

days), the frequency range of the 

exposure (i.e., spectral content), the 

hearing and vocalization frequency 

range of the exposed species relative to 

the signal’s frequency spectrum (i.e., 

how animal uses sound within the 

frequency band of the signal; e.g., 

Kastelein et al., 2014), and the overlap 

between the animal and the source (e.g., 

spatial, temporal, and spectral). 

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)— 

NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 

irreversible increase in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS 2018). Available data from 

humans and other terrestrial mammals 

indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset (see Ward et 

al., 1958, 1959; Ward, 1960; Kryter et 

al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 

1996; Henderson et al., 2008). PTS 

levels for marine mammals are 

estimates, because there are limited 

empirical data measuring PTS in marine 

mammals (e.g., Kastak et al., 2008), 

largely due to the fact that, for various 

ethical reasons, experiments involving 

anthropogenic noise exposure at levels 

inducing PTS are not typically pursued 

or authorized (NMFS, 2018). 

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)— 

TTS is a temporary, reversible increase 

in the threshold of audibility at a 

specified frequency or portion of an 

individual’s hearing range above a 

previously established reference level 

(NMFS, 2018). Based on data from 

cetacean TTS measurements (see 

Southall et al., 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is 

considered the minimum threshold shift 

clearly larger than any day-to-day or 

session-to-session variation in a 

subject’s normal hearing ability 

(Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 

2000, 2002). As described in Finneran 

(2016), marine mammal studies have 

shown the amount of TTS increases 

with cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At 

low exposures with lower SELcum, the 

amount of TTS is typically small and 

the growth curves have shallow slopes. 

At exposures with higher SELcum, the 

growth curves become steeper and 

approach linear relationships with the 

noise SEL. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 12099 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. We 

note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 

a simple function of aging has been 

observed in marine mammals, as well as 

humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 

2007), so we can infer that strategies 

exist for coping with this condition to 

some degree, though likely not without 

cost. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus 

leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze 

finless porpoise (Neophocoena 

asiaeorientalis)) and five species of 

pinnipeds exposed to a limited number 

of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and 

octave-band noise) in laboratory settings 

(Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed 

in trained spotted (Phoca largha) and 

ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to 

impulsive noise at levels matching 

previous predictions of TTS onset 

(Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, 

harbor seals and harbor porpoises have 

a lower TTS onset than other measured 

pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran, 

2015). The potential for TTS from 

impact pile driving exists. After 

exposure to playbacks of impact pile 

driving sounds (rate 2,760 strikes/hour) 

in captivity, mean TTS increased from 

0 dB after 15 minute exposure to 5 dB 

after 360 minute exposure; recovery 

occurred within 60 minutes (Kastelein 

et al., 2016). Additionally, the existing 

marine mammal TTS data come from a 

limited number of individuals within 

these species. No data are available on 

noise-induced hearing loss for 

mysticetes. Nonetheless, what we 

considered is the best available science. 

For summaries of data on TTS in marine 

mammals or for further discussion of 

TTS onset thresholds, please see 

Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and 

Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and 

Table 5 in NMFS (2018). 

Installing piles for these projects 

requires impact pile driving. There 

would likely be pauses in activities 

producing the sound during each day. 

Given these pauses and the fact that 

many marine mammals are likely 

moving through the project areas and 

not remaining for extended periods of 

time, the potential for TS declines. 

Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to 

noise from pile driving and removal also 

has the potential to behaviorally disturb 

marine mammals. Available studies 

show wide variation in response to 

underwater sound; therefore, it is 

difficult to predict specifically how any 

given sound in a particular instance 

might affect marine mammals 

perceiving the signal. If a marine 

mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 

2005). 

Disturbance may result in 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); or avoidance 

of areas where sound sources are 

located. Pinnipeds may increase their 

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

2006). Behavioral responses to sound 

are highly variable and context-specific 

and any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

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

al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary 

depending on characteristics associated 

with the sound source (e.g., whether it 

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). In 

general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant 

of, or at least habituate more quickly to, 

potentially disturbing underwater sound 

than do cetaceans, and generally seem 

to be less responsive to exposure to 

industrial sound than most cetaceans. 

Please see Appendices B and C of 

Southall et al. (2007) for a review of 

studies involving marine mammal 

behavioral responses to sound. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al., 

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

In 2016, the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities 

(ADOT&PF) documented observations 

of marine mammals during construction 

activities (i.e., pile driving) at the 

Kodiak Ferry Dock (see 80 FR 60636, 

October 7, 2015). In the marine mammal 

monitoring report for that project (ABR 

2016), 1,281 Steller sea lions were 

observed within the Level B disturbance 

zone during pile driving or drilling (i.e., 

documented as Level B harassment 

take). Of these, 19 individuals 

demonstrated an alert behavior, 7 were 

fleeing, and 19 swam away from the 

project site. All other animals (98 

percent) were engaged in activities such 

as milling, foraging, or fighting and did 

not change their behavior. In addition, 

two sea lions approached within 20 m 

of active vibratory pile driving 

activities. Three harbor seals were 

observed within the disturbance zone 

during pile driving activities; none of 

them displayed disturbance behaviors. 

Fifteen killer whales and three harbor 

porpoise were also observed within the 

Level B harassment zone during pile 

driving. The killer whales were 

travelling or milling while all harbor 

porpoises were travelling. No signs of 

disturbance were noted for either of 

these species. Given the similarities in 

species, activities, and habitat (e.g., 

cool-temperate waters, industrialized 

area), we expect similar behavioral 

responses from the same and similar 

species affected by the City’s specified 

activities. That is, disturbance, if any, is 

likely to be temporary and localized 

(e.g., small area movements). 

Stress responses—An animal’s 

perception of a threat may be sufficient 

to trigger stress responses consisting of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
12100 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 

some combination of behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; 

Moberg 2000). In many cases, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of energetic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor. Autonomic nervous 

system responses to stress typically 

involve changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 

These responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

(e.g., Moberg 1987; Blecha 2000). 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response. 

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well-studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress 

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

Becker 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) and, 

more rarely, studied in wild populations 

(e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For 

example, Rolland et al. (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. These and 

other studies lead to a reasonable 

expectation that some marine mammals 

will experience physiological stress 

responses upon exposure to acoustic 

stressors and that it is possible that 

some of these would be classified as 

‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal 

experiencing TTS would likely also 

experience stress responses (NRC, 

2003), however distress is an unlikely 

result of these projects based on 

observations of marine mammals during 

previous, similar projects in the area. 

Masking—Sound can disrupt behavior 

through masking, or interfering with, an 

animal’s ability to detect, recognize, or 

discriminate between acoustic signals of 

interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Masking occurs when the receipt of a 

sound is interfered with by another 

coincident sound at similar frequencies 

and at similar or higher intensity, and 

may occur whether the sound is natural 

(e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, 

precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 

pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic 

exploration) in origin. The ability of a 

noise source to mask biologically 

important sounds depends on the 

characteristics of both the noise source 

and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-tonoise ratio, temporal variability, 

direction), in relation to each other and 

to an animal’s hearing abilities (e.g., 

sensitivity, frequency range, critical 

ratios, frequency discrimination, 

directional discrimination, age or TTS 

hearing loss), and existing ambient 

noise and propagation conditions. 

Masking of natural sounds can result 

when human activities produce high 

levels of background sound at 

frequencies important to marine 

mammals. Conversely, if the 

background level of underwater sound 

is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind 

and high waves), an anthropogenic 

sound source would not be detectable as 

far away as would be possible under 

quieter conditions and would itself be 

masked. The Seattle area contains active 

commercial shipping, ferry operations, 

and commercial fishing as well as 

numerous recreational and other 

commercial vessels, and background 

sound levels in the area are already 

elevated. 

Airborne Acoustic Effects—Pinnipeds 

that occur near the project site could be 

exposed to airborne sounds associated 

with pile driving and removal that have 

the potential to cause behavioral 

harassment, depending on their distance 

from pile driving activities. Cetaceans 

are not expected to be exposed to 

airborne sounds that would result in 

harassment as defined under the 

MMPA. 

Airborne noise would primarily be an 

issue for pinnipeds that are swimming 

or hauled out near the project site 

within the range of noise levels elevated 

above the acoustic criteria. We 

recognize that pinnipeds in the water 

could be exposed to airborne sound that 

may result in behavioral harassment 

when looking with their heads above 

water. 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 the area 

and move further from the source. 

However, these animals would likely 

previously have been ‘taken’ because of 

exposure to underwater sound above the 

behavioral harassment thresholds, 

which are generally larger than those 

associated with airborne sound. There 

are no haulouts near the project sites. 

Thus, the behavioral harassment of 

these animals is already accounted for 

in these estimates of potential take. 

Therefore, we do not believe that 

authorization of incidental take 

resulting from airborne sound for 

pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne 

sound is not discussed further here. 

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects 

The City’s construction activities 

could have localized, temporary impacts 

on marine mammal habitat, including 

prey, by increasing in-water sound 

pressure levels and slightly decreasing 

water quality. Increased noise levels 

may affect acoustic habitat (see masking 

discussion above) and adversely affect 

marine mammal prey in the vicinity of 

the project areas (see discussion below). 

During impact and vibratory pile 

driving or removal, elevated levels of 

underwater noise would ensonify the 

project areas where both fishes and 

mammals occur and could affect 

foraging success. Additionally, marine 

mammals may avoid the area during 

construction, however, displacement 

due to noise is expected to be temporary 

and is not expected to result in longterm effects to the individuals or 

populations. Construction activities are 

of short duration and would likely have 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat through increases in underwater 

and airborne sound. 

A temporary and localized increase in 

turbidity near the seafloor would occur 

in the immediate area surrounding the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 12101 

area where piles are installed or 

removed. In general, turbidity 

associated with pile installation is 

localized to about a 25-ft (7.6-m) radius 

around the pile (Everitt et al., 1980). The 

sediments of the project site will settle 

out rapidly when disturbed. Cetaceans 

are not expected to be close enough to 

the pile driving areas to experience 

effects of turbidity, and any pinnipeds 

could avoid localized areas of turbidity. 

Local currents are anticipated to 

disburse any additional suspended 

sediments produced by project activities 

at moderate to rapid rates depending on 

tidal stage. Therefore, we expect the 

impact from increased turbidity levels 

to be discountable to marine mammals 

and do not discuss it further. 

In-Water Construction Effects on 

Potential Foraging Habitat 

The area likely impacted by the 

project is relatively small compared to 

the available habitat in Puget Sound. 

The area is highly influenced by 

anthropogenic activities. The total 

seafloor area affected by pile installation 

and removal is a small area compared to 

the vast foraging area available to 

marine mammals in the area. At best, 

the impact area provides marginal 

foraging habitat for marine mammals 

and fishes. Furthermore, pile driving 

and removal at the project site would 

not obstruct long-term movements or 

migration of marine mammals. 

Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish 

or, in the case of transient killer whales, 

other marine mammals) of the 

immediate area due to the temporary 

loss of this foraging habitat is also 

possible. The duration of fish and 

marine mammal avoidance of this area 

after pile driving stops is unknown, but 

a rapid return to normal recruitment, 

distribution, and behavior is 

anticipated. Any behavioral avoidance 

by fish or marine mammals of the 

disturbed area would still leave 

significantly large areas of fish and 

marine mammal foraging habitat in the 

nearby vicinity. 

In-Water Construction Effects on 

Potential Prey—Sound may affect 

marine mammals through impacts on 

the abundance, behavior, or distribution 

of prey species (e.g., crustaceans, 

cephalopods, fish, zooplankton, other 

marine mammals). Marine mammal 

prey varies by species, season, and 

location. Here, we describe studies 

regarding the effects of noise on known 

marine mammal prey other than other 

marine mammals (which have been 

discussed earlier). 

Fish utilize the soundscape and 

components of sound in their 

environment to perform important 

functions such as foraging, predator 

avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., 

Zelick and Mann, 1999; Fay, 2009). 

Depending on their hearing anatomy 

and peripheral sensory structures, 

which vary among species, fishes hear 

sounds using pressure and particle 

motion sensitivity capabilities and 

detect the motion of surrounding water 

(Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects 

of noise on fishes depends on the 

overlapping frequency range, distance 

from the sound source, water depth of 

exposure, and species-specific hearing 

sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. 

Key impacts to fishes may include 

behavioral responses, hearing damage, 

barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), 

and mortality. 

Fish react to sounds which are 

especially strong and/or intermittent 

low-frequency sounds, and behavioral 

responses such as flight or avoidance 

are the most likely effects. Short 

duration, sharp sounds can cause overt 

or subtle changes in fish behavior and 

local distribution. The reaction of fish to 

noise depends on the physiological state 

of the fish, past exposures, motivation 

(e.g., feeding, spawning, migration), and 

other environmental factors. 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; several are 

based on studies in support of large, 

multiyear bridge construction projects 

(e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; 

Popper and Hastings, 2009). Several 

studies have demonstrated that impulse 

sounds might affect the distribution and 

behavior of some fishes, potentially 

impacting foraging opportunities or 

increasing energetic costs (e.g., Fewtrell 

and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 

1992; Skalski et al., 1992; Santulli et al., 

1999; Paxton et al., 2017). However, 

some studies have shown no or slight 

reaction to impulse sounds (e.g., Pena et 

al., 2013; Wardle et al., 2001; Jorgenson 

and Gyselman, 2009; Popper et al., 

2015). 

SPLs of sufficient strength have been 

known to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality. However, in most fish 

species, hair cells in the ear 

continuously regenerate and loss of 

auditory function likely is restored 

when damaged cells are replaced with 

new cells. Halvorsen et al. (2012a) 

showed that a TTS of 4–6 dB was 

recoverable within 24 hours for one 

species. Impacts would be most severe 

when the individual fish is close to the 

source and when the duration of 

exposure is long. Injury caused by 

barotrauma can range from slight to 

severe and can cause death, and is most 

likely for fish with swim bladders. 

Barotrauma injuries have been 

documented during controlled exposure 

to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 

2012b; Casper et al., 2013). 

The most likely impact to fishes from 

pile driving and removal and 

construction activities at the project 

areas 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. 

Construction activities, in the form of 

increased turbidity, have the potential 

to adversely affect forage fish in the 

project areas. Forage fish form a 

significant prey base for many marine 

mammal species that occur in the 

project areas. Increased turbidity is 

expected to occur in the immediate 

vicinity (on the order of 10 ft (3 m) or 

less) of construction activities. However, 

suspended sediments and particulates 

are expected to dissipate quickly within 

a single tidal cycle. Given the limited 

area affected and high tidal dilution 

rates any effects on forage fish are 

expected to be minor or negligible. 

Finally, exposure to turbid waters from 

construction activities is not expected to 

be different from the current exposure; 

fish and marine mammals in Elliott Bay 

are routinely exposed to substantial 

levels of suspended sediment from 

natural and anthropogenic sources. 

In summary, given the short daily 

duration of sound associated with 

individual pile driving events and the 

relatively small areas being affected, 

pile driving activities associated with 

the proposed actions are not likely to 

have a permanent, adverse effect on any 

fish habitat, or populations of fish 

species. Any behavioral avoidance by 

fish of the disturbed area would still 

leave significantly large areas of fish and 

marine mammal foraging habitat in the 

nearby vicinity. Thus, we conclude that 

impacts of the specified activities are 

not likely to have more than short-term 

adverse effects on any prey habitat or 

populations of prey species. Further, 

any impacts to marine mammal habitat 

are not expected to result in significant 

or long-term consequences for 

individual marine mammals, or to 

contribute to adverse impacts on their 

populations. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through these IHAs, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

the negligible impact determinations. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
12102 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment (in the form of 

behavioral disturbance and TTS), as use 

of the acoustic sources (i.e., vibratory or 

impact pile driving and removal) have 

the potential to result in disruption of 

behavioral patterns and cause a 

temporary loss in hearing sensitivity for 

individual marine mammals. There is 

also some potential for auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to result for 

porpoises and harbor seals because 

predicted auditory injury zones are 

larger. The proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

minimize the severity of the taking to 

the extent practicable. 

As described previously, no serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

proposed to be authorized for these 

activities. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) the number of days of activities. 

We note that while these basic factors 

can contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of takes, 

additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Below, we describe the factors 

considered here in more detail and 

present the proposed take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007; Ellison et al., 2012). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 

microPascal (mPa) (root mean square 

(rms)) for continuous sources (e.g., 

vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and 

above 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., seismic 

airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. This take estimation 

includes disruption of behavioral 

patterns resulting directly in response to 

noise exposure (e.g., avoidance), as well 

as that resulting indirectly from 

associated impacts such as TTS or 

masking. 

The City’s proposed activities 

includes the use of continuous 

(vibratory hammer) and impulsive 

(impact hammer) sources, and therefore 

the 120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

thresholds are applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). The City’s activities include 

the use of impulsive (impact hammer) 

and non-impulsive (vibratory hammer) 

sources. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 5—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................ Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................ Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ....................... Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

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

also be considered. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 12103 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the 

activities that will feed into identifying 

the area ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

and transmission loss coefficient. 

The sound field in the project areas is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

proposed project. Marine mammals are 

expected to be affected by sound 

generated by the primary components of 

the project (i.e., impact and vibratory 

pile driving). 

In order to calculate distances to the 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment thresholds for the methods 

and piles being used in this project, 

NMFS used acoustic monitoring data 

from other locations to develop source 

levels for the various pile types, sizes, 

and methods for the two piers (Tables 

6 and 7). 

TABLE 6—PIER 58 PROJECT SOUND SOURCE LEVELS

Pile type and size 

(in) Method Source level (dB re 1 μPa) Reference 

14-in timber, steel H-piles .............................. Vibratory removal ................................ 152 dB rms ........................ Greenbusch Group (2018). 

24-in steel pipe pile ........................................ Vibratory removal and installation ...... 163 dB rms ........................ Greenbusch Group (2019). 

30-in steel pipe pile ........................................ Vibratory installation ............................ 163 dB rms ........................ Greenbusch Group (2019). 

30-in steel pipe pile ........................................ Impact installation ............................... 180 dB rms,1 193 dB peak Greenbusch Group (2019). 

1 Highest RMS sound level from bubble curtain attenuated impact driving of 30-in steel piles at Pier 62. 

TABLE 7—PIER 63 PROJECT SOUND SOURCE LEVELS

Pile type and size 

(in) Method Source level (dB re 1 μPa) Reference 

14-in timber .................................................... Vibratory removal ................................ 152 dB rms ........................ Greenbusch Group (2018). 

30-in steel pipe pile ........................................ Vibratory removal ................................ 163 dB rms ........................ Greenbusch Group (2019). 

Level B Harassment Zones 

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 * Log10 (R1/R2) 

Where: 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical 

spreading equals 15 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement 

The recommended TL coefficient for 

most nearshore environments is the 

practical spreading value of 15. This 

value results in an expected propagation 

environment that would lie between 

spherical and cylindrical spreading loss 

conditions, which is the most 

appropriate assumption for the City’s 

proposed activities in the absence of 

specific modelling. The Level B 

harassment zones for the City’s 

proposed activities are shown in Tables 

8 and 9. 

Level A Harassment Zones 

The NMFS Technical Guidance (2018) 

recognizes that ensonified area/volume 

can be more technically challenging to 

predict because of the duration 

component in the new thresholds, and 

therefore includes a User Spreadsheet 

that includes tools to help predict a 

simple isopleth that can be used in 

conjunction with marine mammal 

density or occurrence to help predict 

takes. We note that because of some of 

the assumptions included in the 

methods used for these tools, we 

anticipate that isopleths produced are 

typically going to be overestimates of 

some degree, which may result in some 

degree of overestimate of Level A 

harassment. However, these tools offer 

the best way to predict appropriate 

isopleths when more sophisticated 3D 

modeling methods are not available, and 

NMFS continues to develop ways to 

quantitatively refine these tools, and 

will qualitatively address the output 

where appropriate. For stationary 

sources such as pile installation and 

removal, the NMFS User Spreadsheet 

predicts the distance at which, if a 

marine mammal remained at that 

distance for the whole duration of the 

activity, it would incur PTS. The 

isopleths generated by the User 

Spreadsheet used the same TL 

coefficient as the Level B harassment 

zone calculations (i.e., the practical 

spreading value of 15). Inputs used in 

the User Spreadsheet (e.g., number of 

piles per day, duration and/or strikes 

per pile) are presented in Tables 1 and 

2, and the resulting isopleths are 

reported below in Tables 8 and 9. The 

areas expected to be ensonified above 

the Level B harassment threshold(s) are 

also presented in Tables 8 and 9. Due to 

the bathymetry and geography of the 

project areas, sound will not reach the 

full distance of the harassment isopleths 

in all directions. 

TABLE 8—PIER 58 LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES

Pile type 

Level A harassment zone (m) Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(m) 

Level B 

ensonified 

area 

(km2) LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocids Otariids 

Timber and steel H-pile removal 6.1 0.5 9.0 3.7 0.3 b 1,359 2.35 

24-in steel vibratory install and 

removal, 30-in steel vibratory 

install a ...................................... 19.3 1.7 28.6 11.7 0.8 b 7,357 34.34 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
12104 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 8—PIER 58 LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES—Continued 

Pile type 

Level A harassment zone (m) Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(m) 

Level B 

ensonified 

area 

(km2) LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocids Otariids 

30-in steel impact install .............. 153.3 5.5 182.6 82.0 6.0 c 215 0.07 

a Level A harassment zones for vibratory installation and removal of steel piles calculated using the highest total duration of driving (installation 

of 30-inch piles) and conservatively applied to all vibratory pile driving. b Distance to 120 dB rms threshold. 

c Distance to 160 dB rms threshold. 

TABLE 9—PIER 63 LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES

Pile type 

Level A harassment zone (m) Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(m) a

Level B 

ensonified 

area 

(km2) LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocids Otariids 

Timber .......................................... 6.1 0.5 9.0 3.7 0.3 1,359 2.35 

Steel ............................................. 19.3 1.7 28.6 11.7 0.8 7,357 34.34 

a Distance to 120 dB rms threshold. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Calculation and Estimation 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the proposed take 

incidental to the City’s pile driving 

activities. Unless otherwise specified, 

the term ‘‘pile driving’’ in this section, 

and all following sections, may refer to 

either pile installation or removal. The 

City considered estimating take using 

the ensonified area and density 

estimates from the U.S. Navy’s Marine 

Species Density Database for the 

Northwest Training and Testing Study 

Area (U.S. Navy, 2019) but did not 

consider the resulting take estimates to 

be realistic (i.e., either over- or 

underestimated take). Instead, the City 

compiled monitoring results from recent 

construction projects in Elliott Bay (e.g., 

WSDOT, 2019; Anchor QEA, 2021) to 

estimate the likely daily or monthly 

occurrence of each species in the project 

areas. Unless otherwise specified, the 

occurrence information described below 

is used to estimate take for both the Pier 

58 and Pier 63 projects. NMFS has 

carefully reviewed the City’s analysis 

and concludes that it represents an 

appropriate and accurate method for 

estimating incidental take caused by the 

City’s activities. 

Humpback Whale 

During previous work for the Pier 62 

Project and the Elliott Bay Seawall 

Project, up to two humpback whales 

were observed during the approximately 

one month of work each year for both 

projects (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, 

2017, 2018 and 2019). Therefore, the 

City assumes that two humpback whales 

may be present in the project areas and 

taken by Level B harassment per month. 

The City anticipates up to 6 months of 

activities at Pier 58 and 3 months at Pier 

63, for a total of 12 takes of humpback 

whales by Level B harassment from Pier 

58 reconstruction and 6 takes by Level 

B harassment from Pier 63 removal. 

Since the City would be required to 

comply with all mitigation and 

monitoring measures, including marine 

mammal monitoring and coordination 

with Orca Network (see Proposed 

Mitigation), these measures would 

likely be successful in detecting 

humpback whales given their size and 

visibility, the City would stop work 

before humpback whales could enter the 

small Level A harassment zones (up to 

153.3 m), and humpback whales are 

infrequent visitors to the project areas, 

it is unlikely that any humpback whales 

would be taken by Level A harassment. 

No take of humpback whales by Level 

A harassment is requested or proposed 

to be authorized. 

Gray Whale 

Gray whales are infrequent visitors to 

the project areas but are most commonly 

seen during the winter months. 

Although no observations of gray 

whales have been reported during 

recent pile driving projects along the 

Seattle waterfront (e.g., WSDOT 2021; 

Anchor QEA 2019), individual gray 

whales have been reported in Elliott Bay 

by WSDOT ferry operators in December 

2018, January 2019, and November 

2019. Therefore, the City estimates that 

one gray whale may be taken by Level 

B harassment in each winter month 

(November, December, January, and 

February) of the work window. 

Therefore, the City has requested 4 takes 

of gray whales by Level B harassment 

from Pier 58 reconstruction. Since Pier 

63 removal is expected to take only 3 

months total, the City has requested 3 

takes of gray whales by Level B 

harassment from Pier 63 removal. 

Since the City would be required to 

comply with all mitigation and 

monitoring measures, including marine 

mammal monitoring and coordination 

with Orca Network, these measures 

would likely be successful in detecting 

gray whales given their size and 

visibility, the City would stop work 

before gray whales could enter the small 

Level A harassment zones (up to 153.3 

m), and gray whales are infrequent 

visitors to the project areas, it is 

unlikely that any gray whales would be 

taken by Level A harassment. No take of 

gray whales by Level A harassment is 

requested or proposed to be authorized. 

Minke Whale 

Minke whales are rarely observed in 

the project areas and none have been 

reported during monitoring for recent 

pile driving activities in the area (e.g., 

WSDOT 2021; Anchor QEA 2019). The 

City estimates that no more than one 

minke whale per month may be taken 

by Level B harassment. Therefore, the 

City has requested 6 takes of minke 

whales by Level B harassment from Pier 

58 reconstruction and 3 takes by Level 

B harassment from Pier 63 removal. 

Like humpback and gray whales, 

minke whales are considered infrequent 

visitors to the project areas. As with 

humpback and gray whales, the City 

would be required to coordinate with 

Orca Network and would likely be 

alerted to the presence of minke whales 

in the area, allowing them to shut down 

pile driving equipment before a minke 

whale could enter the Level A 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 12105 

harassment zones. Hence, in 

consideration of the expected 

effectiveness of mitigation and 

infrequent occurrence, no take of minke 

whales by Level A harassment is 

requested or proposed to be authorized. 

Transient Killer Whale 

Transient killer whales are frequently 

seen in central Puget Sound and 

occasionally within Elliott Bay (Orca 

Network 2021). Transient killer whales 

typically travel in small groups. The 

City estimates that a group of 6 transient 

killer whales may enter the Level B 

harassment zone per month. Therefore, 

the City has requested take of 36 

transient killer whales by Level B 

harassment from Pier 58 reconstruction 

and 18 takes by Level B harassment 

from Pier 63 removal. 

The Level A harassment zones for 

mid-frequency cetaceans are all less 

than 10 m. The City would be required 

to coordinate with Orca Network and 

would likely be alerted to the presence 

of transient killer whales in the area, 

allowing them to detect the animals and 

cease pile driving well before killer 

whales could enter the Level A 

harassment zone. No take of transient 

killer whales by Level A harassment is 

requested or proposed to be authorized. 

Southern Resident Killer Whale 

Although SRKW are generally 

infrequently observed in Puget Sound, 

they are known to venture past the 

project areas during the fall and winter 

months as they hunt fall runs of salmon 

(Hanson et al., 2021). Of the three pods 

within the SRKW population, J pod 

(which is comprised of 23 individuals; 

Orca Network, 2020) is the most likely 

to occur in the area. 

The City would coordinate with the 

Orca Network to obtain sightings reports 

of SRKW near the project areas and shut 

down pile driving equipment before any 

SRKW enters the Level B harassment 

zone to avoid take of this stock. Given 

the relatively large size and visibility of 

SRKW, and the use of marine mammal 

sightings network reports (i.e., Orca 

Network) for advanced notice of SRKW 

presence in Puget Sound, these 

mitigation measures would likely be 

successful in preventing any Level B 

harassment. However, the City 

acknowledges that due to the large Level 

B harassment zone during vibratory 

installation and removal of steel piles at 

Pier 58 (approximately 7.4 km), over the 

course of 40 days of construction 

activities, it is possible that one pod of 

SRKW could enter the area undetected. 

That pod would most likely be J pod 

because it is the pod most likely to be 

near the project areas. In an abundance 

of caution, the City has requested take 

of 23 SRKW by Level B harassment from 

pile driving at Pier 58 in the event a pod 

were able to enter the Level B 

harassment zone prior to detection and 

shutdown. 

During vibratory removal of timber 

piles at Pier 63, the Level B harassment 

zone is less than 1.4 km, which is well 

within Elliott Bay. SRKW are unlikely to 

enter the Level B harassment zone 

during this activity and even if they did, 

would be readily detected and pile 

removal activities shut down. The Level 

B harassment zone for vibratory removal 

of steel piles at Pier 63 is approximately 

7.4 km, which reaches the outer extent 

of Elliott Bay and into the central core 

Puget Sound between Seattle and 

Bainbridge Island where SRKW may 

occur. However, removal of steel piles at 

Pier 63 is only expected to occur on 2 

days, and given the mitigation measures 

that would be in place and the relatively 

large size and visibility of SRKW, the 

City considers it unlikely that SRKW 

would enter the Level B harassment 

zone undetected and be exposed to 

sound above the Level B harassment 

threshold before the City could cease 

pile driving activities. We concur with 

the City’s conclusion. 

The Level A harassment zones for all 

activities for both Pier 58 reconstruction 

and Pier 63 removal are less than 10 m 

for mid-frequency cetaceans. Given the 

size and visibility of killer whales, the 

City would be able to implement the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures and shut down pile driving 

equipment well before SRKW could 

approach within 10 m. Therefore no 

take of SRKW by Level A harassment is 

expected to occur, and no Level A 

harassment is requested or proposed to 

be authorized. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

In 2017 the Orca Network (2017) 

reported sightings of a bottlenose 

dolphin in Puget Sound and in Elliott 

Bay, and WSDOT observed two 

bottlenose dolphins in one week during 

monitoring for the Colman Dock 

Multimodal Project (WSDOT 2018). In 

addition, a group of 7 bottlenose 

dolphins were observed in 2017 and 

were positively identified as part of the 

California coastal stock (Cascadia 

Research Collective, 2017). Bottlenose 

dolphins typically travel in groups of 2 

to 15 in coastal waters (Carretta et al., 

2020). The City estimates that 7 

bottlenose dolphins may be taken by 

Level B harassment per month. 

Therefore, the City has requested take of 

42 bottlenose dolphins by Level B 

harassment from Pier 58 reconstruction 

and 21 takes by Level B harassment 

from Pier 63 removal. 

The Level A harassment zones for 

mid-frequency cetaceans are all less 

than 10 m. Given the visibility of 

bottlenose dolphins, the City would be 

able to cease pile driving before 

bottlenose dolphins could enter the 

Level A harassment zone. No take of 

bottlenose dolphins by Level A 

harassment is requested or proposed to 

be authorized. 

Long-Beaked Common Dolphin 

In June 2011, two long-beaked 

common dolphins were sighted in 

South Puget Sound. Sightings continued 

in 2012, and in 2016–17 (Carretta et al., 

2018). Sightings of 4 to 12 individuals 

were reported regularly, with confirmed 

sightings of up to 30 individuals. In 

2016, the Orca Network (2016) reported 

a pod of up to 20 long-beaked common 

dolphins. During monitoring for the 

Colman Dock Project in 2017–2018, 2 

long-beaked common dolphins were 

observed in smaller Level B harassment 

zones than estimated for pile driving at 

Piers 58 and 63. The average reported 

group size of long-beaked common 

dolphins in Puget Sound is 7 

individuals. Therefore, the City 

estimates 7 long-beaked common 

dolphins may be taken by Level B 

harassment per month and has 

requested take of 42 long-beaked 

common dolphins by Level B 

harassment from Pier 58 reconstruction 

and 21 takes by Level B harassment 

from Pier 63 removal. 

The Level A harassment zones for 

mid-frequency cetaceans are all less 

than 10 m. Given the visibility of longbeaked common dolphins, the City 

would be able to cease pile driving 

before long-beaked common dolphins 

could enter the Level A harassment 

zone. No take of long-beaked common 

dolphins by Level A harassment is 

requested or proposed to be authorized. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Recent monitoring data from the 

Colman Dock Project (Pier 52) in 2017 

and 2018 (WSDOT 2019) included 

observations of 288 harbor porpoises 

over 99 days of monitoring activity. This 

equates to approximately 3 porpoises 

per day. 

To account for unobserved animals at 

the outer extent of the Level B 

harassment zones, the City estimates up 

to 6 harbor porpoises may enter the 

Level B harassment zone per day of pile 

driving at Pier 58 (70 days) for a total 

of 420 harbor porpoises. For impact 

installation of steel piles at Pier 58, the 

Level A harassment zone for highfrequency cetaceans is 183 m. Although 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
12106 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 

the City would be required to 

implement a shutdown zone of 185 m 

during this activity (see Proposed 

Mitigation), due to the cryptic nature 

and lower detectability of harbor 

porpoises at large distances, the City 

anticipates that up to 12 of the harbor 

porpoises (2 per month) that enter the 

Level B zone could approach the project 

site closer and potentially enter the 

Level A harassment zone undetected 

during impact installation at Pier 58, 

which could occur as one group in one 

day or single animals over two days. 

The Level A harassment zones for all 

vibratory pile driving at Pier 58 are all 

under 30 m. At that distance, the City 

would be able to detect harbor porpoises 

and cease pile driving activities before 

harbor porpoises could enter the Level 

A harassment zone. Therefore, no take 

of harbor porpoises by Level A 

harassment is anticipated from vibratory 

pile driving. In total, the City has 

requested take of 420 harbor porpoises, 

408 takes by Level B harassment and 12 

takes by Level A harassment from Pier 

58 reconstruction. 

On all but two days of work at Pier 

63, the Level B harassment zone will be 

well within Elliott Bay. Since the extent 

of the Level B harassment zone for this 

project on most days is less than for Pier 

58, the City estimates that up to 5 harbor 

porpoises may be taken by Level B 

harassment per day during 47 days of 

pile removal at Pier 63, for a total of 235 

takes by Level B harassment. The largest 

Level A harassment zone from pile 

removal at Pier 63 is 29 m. At that close 

range, the City would be able to detect 

harbor porpoises and would be required 

to shut down pile driving activities 

before they approach within 29 m. 

Therefore, no take of harbor porpoises 

by Level A harassment from pile driving 

at Pier 63 is requested or proposed to be 

authorized. 

Dall’s Porpoise 

Dall’s porpoises are rarely sighted in 

the project areas. The City 

conservatively estimates that up to 12 

Dall’s porpoises may enter the Level B 

harassment zone per month, for a total 

of 72 Dall’s porpoises from Pier 58 

reconstruction and 36 from Pier 63 

removal. 

For impact installation of steel piles at 

Pier 58, the Level A harassment zone for 

high-frequency cetaceans is 183 m. 

Although the City would be required to 

comply with all mitigation and 

monitoring measures and would 

implement a shutdown zone of 185 m 

during this activity, the City anticipates 

that up to 12 of the Dall’s porpoises (2 

per month) that enter the Level B 

harassment zone could approach the 

project site closer and potentially enter 

the Level A harassment zone undetected 

during impact installation at Pier 58, 

which could occur as one group in one 

day or a single animal over two days. 

The Level A harassment zones for all 

vibratory pile driving at Pier 58 are all 

under 30 m. At that distance, the City 

would be able to detect Dall’s porpoises 

and cease pile driving activities before 

Dall’s porpoises could enter the Level A 

harassment zone. Therefore, no take of 

Dall’s porpoises by Level A harassment 

is anticipated from vibratory pile 

driving. In total, the City has requested 

take of 72 Dall’s porpoise, 60 takes by 

Level B harassment and 12 takes by 

Level A harassment from Pier 58 

reconstruction. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

from pile removal at Pier 63 is 29 m. At 

that close range, the City would be able 

to detect Dall’s porpoises and would be 

required to shut down pile driving 

activities before they approach within 

29 m. Therefore, no take of Dall’s 

porpoises by Level A harassment from 

pile driving at Pier 63 is requested or 

proposed to be authorized. The City has 

requested 36 takes of Dall’s porpoise by 

Level B harassment only for activities at 

Pier 63. 

California Sea Lion 

During monitoring for the Pier 62 

Project, a maximum of 31 California sea 

lions were observed in one day, with an 

average of 6 takes per day (Anchor QEA 

2019). To account for unobserved 

animals at the outer extent of the Level 

B harassment zones, the City estimates 

up to 10 California sea lions may be 

taken by Level B harassment per day for 

a total of 700 takes by Level B 

harassment from Pier 58 reconstruction 

and 470 takes by Level B harassment 

from Pier 63 removal. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for otariid pinnipeds is 6 m. The City 

would be required to implement a 

minimum shutdown zone of 10 m for all 

activities. At that close range, the City 

would be able to detect California sea 

lions and implement the required 

shutdown measures before California 

sea lions could enter the Level A 

harassment zone. Therefore, no takes of 

California sea lions by Level A 

harassment are requested or proposed to 

be authorized. 

Steller Sea Lion 

Recent monitoring data from the 

Colman Dock Project in 2017 and 2018 

(WSDOT 2019) reported observations of 

54 Steller sea lions over 99 days of 

monitoring activity, which is roughly 

equivalent to one Steller sea lion every 

other day. To account for unobserved 

animals at the outer extent of the Level 

B harassment zones, the City estimates 

two Steller sea lions may be taken by 

Level B harassment per day for a total 

of 140 takes by Level B harassment from 

Pier 58 reconstruction and 94 takes by 

Level B harassment from Pier 63 

removal. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for otariid pinnipeds is 6 m. The City 

would be required to enforce a 

minimum shutdown zone of 10 m for all 

activities. At that close range, the City 

would be able to detect Steller sea lions 

and implement the required shutdown 

measures before Steller sea lions could 

enter the Level A harassment zone. 

Therefore, no takes of Steller sea lions 

by Level A harassment are requested or 

proposed to be authorized. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Individual elephant seals have 

occasionally been reported in central 

Puget Sound (e.g., Orca Network, 2020) 

but are considered rare in the project 

areas. WSDOT (2019) reported 

observations near Alki Point (at the 

outer extent of the Level B harassment 

zones) and Maury Island (just outside 

the Level B harassment zones) in 2017 

and 2015, respectively. Based on these 

reports, the City estimates that one 

northern elephant seal may be taken by 

Level B harassment per month for a total 

of 6 takes by Level B harassment from 

Pier 58 reconstruction and 3 takes by 

Level B harassment from Pier 63 

removal. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

(82 m) occurs during impact installation 

of steel pipe piles at Pier 58. It is 

unlikely that northern elephant seals 

would be found within this zone, and 

even more unlikely that northern 

elephant seals would be found within 

the Level A harassment zones for 

vibratory pile driving at either pier (less 

than 12 m for all pile types). However, 

even if northern elephant seals were 

encountered in the project areas, at that 

close range, the City would be able to 

detect them and implement the required 

shutdown measures before any northern 

elephant seals could enter the Level A 

harassment zones. Therefore, no take of 

northern elephant seals by Level A 

harassment is requested or proposed to 

be authorized. 

Harbor Seal 

During monitoring for the Pier 62 

Project, the maximum number of harbor 

seals documented as taken by Level B 

harassment in one day was 54, but the 

average number documented per day 

was 5 (Anchor QEA 2019). To account 

for potentially unobserved animals at 

the outer extent of the Level B 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 12107 

harassment zone during the previous 

monitoring, the City estimates that 10 

harbor seals per day may enter the Level 

B harassment zone during pile driving 

work at Pier 58 for a total of 700 harbor 

seals. In addition, due to their apparent 

curious nature and previously reported 

close approaches to pile driving 

equipment (Anchor QEA 2019), the City 

estimates that of those 700 harbor seals 

that could enter the Level B harassment 

zone, one harbor seal may approach 

closer and enter the 82-m Level A 

harassment zone before the animal is 

detected and activities shut down, and 

thus be taken by Level A harassment on 

each day of impact pile installation at 

Pier 58 (40 days). The Level A 

harassment zones for phocids for all 

vibratory pile driving at Pier 58 are all 

under 12 m. At that distance, the City 

would be able to detect harbor seals and 

cease pile driving activities before 

harbor seals could enter the Level A 

harassment zone. Therefore, no take of 

harbor seals by Level A harassment is 

anticipated from vibratory pile driving 

at Pier 58. In total, the City has 

requested 700 takes of harbor seals, 660 

takes by Level B harassment and 40 

takes by Level A harassment from Pier 

58 reconstruction. 

On all but two days of work at Pier 

63, the Level B harassment zone will be 

well within Elliott Bay. Since the extent 

of the Level B harassment zone for this 

project on most days is less than for Pier 

58, the City estimates that up to 6 harbor 

seals may be taken by Level B 

harassment per day during the 47 days 

of pile removal at Pier 63 for a total of 

282 takes by Level B harassment. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for the City’s proposed activities at Pier 

63 is 12 m. The City would be required 

to implement a 15 m shutdown zone to 

prevent Level A take of phocids for this 

project (see Proposed Mitigation). At 

that close range, the City would be able 

to detect harbor seals and cease pile 

driving activities before harbor seals 

could enter the Level A harassment 

zone. Therefore, no take of harbor seals 

by Level A harassment is requested or 

proposed to be authorized for work at 

Pier 63. 

NMFS has carefully considered all 

information and analysis presented by 

the City as well as all other applicable 

information and, based on the best 

available science, concurs that the City’s 

estimates of the types and amounts of 

take for each species and stock are 

complete and accurate. 

TABLE 10—PROPOSED TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT FROM PIER 58 

RECONSTRUCTION, BY SPECIES AND STOCK AND PERCENT OF TAKE BY STOCK

Species Stock 

Proposed take 

by Level B 

harassment 

Proposed take 

by Level A 

harassment 

Stock 

abundance 

Percent of 

stock 

Humpback whale .............................. California/Oregon/Washington ......... a 12 0 4,973 0.24 

Gray whale ........................................ Eastern North Pacific ....................... 4 0 26,960 0.01 

Minke whale ...................................... California/Oregon/Washington ......... 6 0 915 0.66 

Killer whale ........................................ West Coast Transient ...................... 36 0 349 10.32 

Killer whale ........................................ Southern Resident ........................... 23 0 72 31.94 

Bottlenose dolphin ............................ California Coastal ............................. 42 0 453 9.27 

Long-beaked common dolphin ......... California .......................................... 42 0 83,379 0.05 

Harbor porpoise ................................ Washington Inland Waters ............... 408 12 11,233 3.74 

Dall’s porpoise .................................. California/Oregon/Washington ......... 60 12 16,498 0.44 

California sea lion ............................. U.S ................................................... 700 0 257,606 0.27 

Steller sea lion .................................. Eastern ............................................. 140 0 43,201 0.32 

Northern elephant seal ..................... California Breeding ........................... 6 0 187,386 0.003 

Harbor seal ....................................... Washington Northern Inland Waters 660 40 11,036 6.34 

aBased on proportional estimates of humpback DPS occurrence in the area from Wade et al. (2021), we estimate that of the 12 total takes, 25 

percent (approximately 3) would be from the threatened Mexico DPS and 6 percent (approximately 1) from the endangered Central America 

DPS. The remaining 69 percent of humpback whales (approximately 8) would be from the unlisted Hawai’i DPS. 

TABLE 11—PROPOSED TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT FROM PIER 63 REMOVAL, BY

SPECIES AND STOCK AND PERCENT OF TAKE BY STOCK

Species Stock 

Proposed take 

by Level B 

harassment 

Proposed take 

by Level A 

harassment 

Stock 

abundance 

Percent of 

stock 

Humpback whale .............................. California/Oregon/Washington ......... a 6 0 4,973 0.12 

Gray whale ........................................ Eastern North Pacific ....................... 3 0 26,960 0.01 

Minke whale ...................................... California/Oregon/Washington ......... 3 0 915 0.33 

Killer whale ........................................ West Coast Transient ...................... 18 0 349 5.16 

Killer whale ........................................ Southern Resident ........................... 0 0 72 0 

Bottlenose dolphin ............................ California Coastal ............................. 21 0 453 4.64 

Long-beaked common dolphin ......... California .......................................... 21 0 83,379 0.02 

Harbor porpoise ................................ Washington Inland Waters ............... 235 0 11,233 2.1 

Dall’s porpoise .................................. California/Oregon/Washington ......... 36 0 16,498 0.22 

California sea lion ............................. U.S ................................................... 470 0 257,606 0.18 

Steller sea lion .................................. Eastern ............................................. 94 0 43,201 0.22 

Northern elephant seal ..................... California Breeding ........................... 3 0 187,386 0.002 

Harbor seal ....................................... Washington Northern Inland Waters 282 0 11,036 2.56 

aBased on proportional estimates of humpback DPS occurrence in the area from Wade et al. (2021), we estimate that of the 6 total takes, 25 

percent (approximately 1) would be from the Mexico DPS and 6 percent (approximately 1) from the Central America DPS. The remaining 69 percent of humpback whales (approximately 4) would be from the unlisted Hawai’i DPS. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
12108 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 

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 the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for these actions). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

Time Restrictions 

The City has provided in its 

description of the projects that pile 

driving would occur only during 

daylight hours, when visual monitoring 

of marine mammals can be conducted. 

In addition, all in-water construction 

would be limited to the period between 

September 1 and February 15. 

Shutdown Zones 

Before the commencement of in-water 

construction activities, the City would 

establish shutdown zones for all 

activities. The purpose of a shutdown 

zone is generally to define an area 

within which shutdown of the activity 

would occur upon sighting of a marine 

mammal (or in anticipation of an animal 

entering the defined area). Pile driving 

would also not commence until all 

marine mammals are clear of their 

respective shutdown zones. Shutdown 

zones are meant to encompass the Level 

A harassment zones and therefore 

would vary based on the activity type 

and marine mammal hearing group 

(Tables 12 and 13). At minimum, the 

shutdown zone for all hearing groups 

and all activities is 10 m. For in-water 

heavy machinery work other than pile 

driving (e.g., standard barges, etc.), if a 

marine mammal comes within 10 m, 

operations would cease and vessels 

would reduce speed to the minimum 

level required to maintain steerage and 

safe working conditions. This type of 

work could include, for example, the 

movement of the barge to the pile 

location or positioning of the pile on the 

substrate via a crane. 

The City would also establish 

shutdown zones for all marine 

mammals for which take has not been 

authorized or for which incidental take 

has been authorized but the authorized 

number of takes has been met. These 

zones are equivalent to the Level B 

harassment zones for each activity (see 

Tables 12 and 13). 

The City would also implement 

shutdown measures for SRKW. If SRKW 

are sighted within the vicinity of the 

project areas and are approaching the 

Level B harassment zone, the City 

would shut down the pile driving 

equipment to avoid possible take of the 

stock. If a killer whale approaches the 

Level B harassment zone during pile 

driving, and it is unknown whether it is 

a SRKW or a transient killer whale, it 

would be assumed to be a SRKW and 

the City would implement the 

shutdown measure. If a SRKW or an 

unidentified killer whale enters the 

Level B harassment zone undetected, inwater pile driving would be suspended 

until the whale exits the Level B 

harassment zone, or 15 minutes have 

elapsed with no sighting of the animal, 

to avoid further Level B harassment. 

TABLE 12—SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR PIER 58 RECONSTRUCTION

Pile type and method 

Shutdown zone (m) 

LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocids Otariids 

SRKW 

(and other 

unauthorized 

species) 

Timber and steel H-pile vibratory removal .............. 10 10 10 10 10 1,359 

24-in steel vibratory installation and removal, 30-in 

steel vibratory installation ..................................... 20 10 30 15 10 7,357 

30-in steel impact installation .................................. 155 10 185 85 10 215 

TABLE 13—SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR PIER 63 REMOVAL

Pile type 

Shutdown zone (m) 

LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocids Otariids 

SRKW 

(and other 

unauthorized 

species) 

Timber pile vibratory removal .................................. 10 10 10 10 10 1,359 

Steel pile vibratory removal ..................................... 20 10 30 15 10 7,357 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 12109 

Protected Species Observers 

The placement of protected species 

observers (PSOs) during all pile driving 

activities (described in the Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting section) 

would ensure that the entire shutdown 

zone is visible. Should environmental 

conditions deteriorate such that the 

entire shutdown zone would not be 

visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile 

driving would be delayed until the PSO 

is confident marine mammals within 

the shutdown zone could be detected. 

Monitoring for Level A and Level B 

Harassment 

PSOs would monitor the Level B 

harassment zones to the extent 

practicable, and all of the Level A 

harassment zones. Monitoring zones 

provide utility for observing by 

establishing monitoring protocols for 

areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. 

Monitoring zones enable observers to be 

aware of and communicate the presence 

of marine mammals in the project areas 

outside the shutdown zones and thus 

prepare for a potential cessation of 

activity should the animal enter the 

shutdown zone. 

Pre-Activity Monitoring 

Prior to the start of daily in-water 

construction activity, or whenever a 

break in pile driving of 30 minutes or 

longer occurs, PSOs would observe the 

shutdown and monitoring zones for a 

period of 30 minutes. The shutdown 

zone would be considered cleared when 

a marine mammal has not been 

observed within the zone for that 30- 

minute period. If a marine mammal is 

observed within the shutdown zones 

listed in Tables 12 and 13, pile driving 

activity would be delayed or halted. If 

pile driving is delayed or halted due to 

the presence of a marine mammal, the 

activity would not commence or resume 

until either the animal has voluntarily 

exited and been visually confirmed 

beyond the shutdown zones or 15 

minutes have passed without redetection of the animal. When a marine 

mammal for which Level B harassment 

take is authorized is present in the Level 

B harassment zone, activities would 

begin and Level B harassment take 

would be recorded. If work ceases for 

more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity 

monitoring of the shutdown zones 

would commence. A determination that 

the shutdown zone is clear must be 

made during a period of good visibility 

(i.e., the entire shutdown zone and 

surrounding waters must be visible to 

the naked eye). 

Coordination With Local Marine 

Mammal Research Network 

Prior to the start of pile driving for the 

day, and at the approximate mid-point 

of the pile driving work to be conducted 

each day, the PSOs would contact the 

Orca Network to find out the location of 

the nearest marine mammal sightings. 

The Local Marine Mammal Research 

Network consists of a list of over 600 

(and growing) residents, scientists, and 

government agency personnel in the 

United States and Canada. Sightings are 

called or emailed into the Orca Network 

and immediately distributed to other 

sighting networks including: The NMFS 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center, the 

Center for Whale Research, Cascadia 

Research, the Whale Museum Hotline 

and the British Columbia Sightings 

Network. 

Sightings information collected by the 

Orca Network includes detection by 

hydrophone. The SeaSound Remote 

Sensing Network is a system of 

interconnected hydrophones installed 

in the marine environment of Haro 

Strait (west side of San Juan Island) to 

study orca communication, in-water 

noise, bottom fish ecology and local 

climatic conditions. A hydrophone at 

the Port Townsend Marine Science 

Center measures average in-water sound 

levels and automatically detects 

unusual sounds. These passive acoustic 

devices allow researchers to hear when 

different marine mammals come into 

the region. This acoustic network, 

combined with the volunteer 

(incidental) visual sighting network 

allows researchers to document 

presence and location of various marine 

mammal species. 

Soft Start 

Soft-start procedures are used to 

provide additional protection to marine 

mammals by providing warning and/or 

giving marine mammals a chance to 

leave the area prior to the hammer 

operating at full capacity. For impact 

pile driving, contractors would be 

required to provide an initial set of three 

strikes from the hammer at reduced 

energy, followed by a 30-second waiting 

period, then two subsequent reducedenergy strike sets. Soft start would be 

implemented at the start of each day’s 

impact pile driving and at any time 

following cessation of impact pile 

driving for a period of 30 minutes or 

longer. 

Bubble Curtain 

A bubble curtain would be employed 

during impact installation or proofing of 

steel piles. A noise attenuation device 

would not be required during vibratory 

pile driving. If a bubble curtain or 

similar measure is used, it would 

distribute air bubbles around 100 

percent of the piling perimeter for the 

full depth of the water column. Any 

other attenuation measure would be 

required to provide 100 percent 

coverage in the water column for the 

full depth of the pile. The lowest bubble 

ring would be in contact with the 

mudline for the full circumference of 

the ring. The weights attached to the 

bottom ring would ensure 100 percent 

mudline contact. No parts of the ring or 

other objects would prevent full 

mudline contact. 

Based on our evaluation of the City’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 the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance for the Pier 58 

Reconstruction Project. NMFS also 

preliminarily finds that the proposed 

mitigation measures and other measures 

considered by NMFS provide the means 

of effecting the least practicable impact 

on the affected species or stocks and 

their habitat, paying particular attention 

to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas 

of similar significance for the Pier 63 

Removal Project. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present while conducting the activities. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
12110 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

Marine mammal monitoring during 

pile driving activities would be 

conducted by PSOs meeting NMFS’ 

standards and in a manner consistent 

with the following: 

• Independent PSOs (i.e., not 

construction personnel) who have no 

other assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods would be used; 

• At least one PSO would have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; 

• Other PSOs may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience; and 

• Where a team of three or more PSOs 

is required, a lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator would be 

designated. The lead observer would be 

required to have prior experience 

working as a marine mammal observer 

during construction. 

PSOs would have the following 

additional qualifications: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior; and 

• 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. 

The City would have PSOs stationed 

around Elliott Bay to monitor during all 

pile driving activities. During removal 

of timber and/or steel H-piles at Pier 58 

and Pier 63, two PSOs would monitor 

the area, one at the construction site and 

one at Alki Point on the south side of 

Elliott Bay. During vibratory removal 

and/or installation of steel piles at Pier 

58 and Pier 63, PSOs would be stationed 

at the same locations as above, with an 

additional PSO monitoring from 

Magnolia on the north side of Elliott Bay 

and one PSO monitoring from the 

Seattle-Bainbridge ferry. Impact 

installation of 30-inch permanent steel 

piles at Pier 58 is expected to occur on 

the same day as vibratory installation of 

those piles. If all vibratory installation 

has concluded for the day, only the PSO 

stationed at the construction site would 

be required to continue monitoring 

during impact pile driving. 

Monitoring would be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after all in water construction activities. 

In addition, observers would record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and would document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from piles being driven or 

removed. Pile driving activities include 

the time to install or remove a single 

pile or series of piles, as long as the time 

elapsed between uses of the pile driving 

equipment is no more than 30 minutes. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report would be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving activities, or 60 days prior 

to a requested date of issuance of any 

future IHAs for the project, or other 

projects at the same location, whichever 

comes first. The marine mammal report 

would include an overall description of 

work completed, a narrative regarding 

marine mammal sightings, and 

associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, 

the report would include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including: (a) How many and what type 

of piles were driven or removed and the 

method (i.e., impact or vibratory); and 

(b) the total duration of time for each 

pile (vibratory driving) number of 

strikes for each pile (impact driving); 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; and 

• Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance. 

For each observation of a marine 

mammal, the following would be 

reported: 

• Name of PSO who sighted the 

animal(s) and PSO location and activity 

at time of sighting; 

• Time of sighting; 

• Identification of the animal(s) (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO 

confidence in identification, and the 

composition of the group if there is a 

mix of species; 

• Distance and location of each 

observed marine mammal relative to the 

pile being driven or hole being drilled 

for each sighting; 

• Estimated number of animals (min/ 

max/best estimate); 

• Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, 

group composition, etc.); 

• Description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses thought to have resulted from 

the activity (e.g., no response or changes 

in behavioral state such as ceasing 

feeding, changing direction, flushing, or 

breaching); 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected within the harassment zones, 

by species; and 

• Detailed information about 

implementation of any mitigation (e.g., 

shutdowns and delays), a description of 

specified actions that ensued, and 

resulting changes in behavior of the 

animal(s), if any. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft reports 

would constitute the final reports. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS’ comments would be 

required to be submitted within 30 days 

after receipt of comments. All PSO 

datasheets and/or raw sighting data 

would be submitted with the draft 

marine mammal report. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 12111 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

City would report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources (OPR) 

(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov), 

NMFS and to the West Coast Region 

(WCR) regional stranding coordinator as 

soon as feasible. If the death or injury 

was clearly caused by the specified 

activity, the City would immediately 

cease the specified activities until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the incident and 

determine what, if any, additional 

measures are appropriate to ensure 

compliance with the terms of the IHAs. 

The City would not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS. 

The report would include the 

following information: 

1. Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

2. Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

3. Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

4. Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

5. If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

6. General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

Pile driving activities from Pier 58 

reconstruction and Pier 63 removal have 

the potential to disturb or displace 

marine mammals. Specifically, the 

project activities may result in take, in 

the form of Level A and Level B 

harassment, from underwater sounds 

generated from pile driving. Potential 

takes could occur if individuals are 

present in the ensonified zone when 

these activities are underway. 

The takes from Level A and Level B 

harassment would be due to potential 

behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. 

No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated given the nature of the 

activities and measures designed to 

minimize the possibility of injury to 

marine mammals. The potential for 

harassment is minimized through the 

construction method and the 

implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures (see Proposed 

Mitigation section). 

To avoid repetition, the majority of 

our analyses apply to all the species 

listed in Table 3, and to both the Pier 

58 and Pier 63 IHAs, given that the 

anticipated effects of the City’s two 

projects on different marine mammal 

stocks are expected to be relatively 

similar in nature. Where there are 

meaningful differences between species 

or stocks—as is the case of the SRKW— 

they are included as separate 

subsections below. Similarly, where 

there are differences between the two 

IHAs, they are highlighted below. 

NMFS has identified key factors 

which may be employed to assess the 

level of analysis necessary to conclude 

whether potential impacts associated 

with a specified activity should be 

considered negligible. These include 

(but are not limited to) the type and 

magnitude of taking, the amount and 

importance of the available habitat for 

the species or stock that is affected, the 

duration of the anticipated effect to the 

species or stock, and the status of the 

species or stock. The following factors 

support negligible impact 

determinations for the affected stocks of 

humpback whales, gray whales, 

transient killer whales, bottlenose 

dolphins, long-beaked common 

dolphins, harbor porpoise, Dall’s 

porpoise, California sea lions, Steller sea 

lions, northern elephant seals, and 

harbor seals. Some of these factors may 

also apply to SRKW; however, a more 

detailed analysis for SRKW is provided 

below. 

No take by Level A harassment is 

anticipated or proposed to be authorized 

incidental to the Pier 63 Removal 

Project. For the Pier 58 Reconstruction 

Project, take by Level A harassment is 

proposed for three species (harbor seals, 

harbor porpoise, and Dall’s porpoise) to 

account for the possibility that an 

animal could enter a Level A 

harassment zone prior to detection, and 

remain within that zone for a duration 

long enough to incur PTS before being 

observed and the City shutting down 

pile driving activity. Any take by Level 

A harassment is expected to arise from, 

at most, a small degree of PTS, i.e., 

minor degradation of hearing 

capabilities within regions of hearing 

that align most completely with the 

energy produced by impact pile driving 

(i.e. the low-frequency region below 2 

kHz), not severe hearing impairment or 

impairment within the ranges of greatest 

hearing sensitivity. Animals would need 

to be exposed to higher levels and/or 

longer duration than are expected to 

occur here in order to incur any more 

than a small degree of PTS. 

Additionally, the amount of 

authorized take, by Level A harassment 

is very low for all marine mammal 

stocks and species. For the Pier 58 

Reconstruction Project, for 10 of 13 

stocks, NMFS anticipates and proposes 

to authorize no Level A harassment take 

over the duration of the City’s planned 

activities; for the other three stocks, 

NMFS authorizes no more than 40 takes 

by Level A harassment. If hearing 

impairment occurs, it is most likely that 

the affected animal would lose only a 

few decibels in its hearing sensitivity. 

These takes of individuals by Level A 

harassment (i.e., a small degree of PTS) 

are not expected to accrue in a manner 

that would affect the reproductive 

success or survival of any individuals, 

much less result in adverse impacts on 

the species or stock. 

As described above, NMFS expects 

that marine mammals would likely 

move away from an aversive stimulus, 

especially at levels that would be 

expected to result in PTS, given 

sufficient notice through use of soft 

start. The City would also shut down 

pile driving activities if marine 

mammals approach within hearing 

group-specific zones that encompass the 

Level A harassment zones (see Tables 12 

and 13) further minimizing the 

likelihood and degree of PTS that would 

be incurred. Even absent mitigation, no 

serious injury or mortality from 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
12112 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 

construction activities is anticipated or 

authorized. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment in the form of 

behavioral disruption, on the basis of 

reports in the literature as well as 

monitoring from other similar activities, 

would likely be limited to reactions 

such as avoidance, increased swimming 

speeds, increased surfacing time, or 

decreased foraging (if such activity were 

occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff 

2006). Most likely, individuals would 

simply move away from the sound 

source and temporarily avoid the area 

where pile driving is occurring. If sound 

produced by project activities is 

sufficiently disturbing, animals are 

likely to simply avoid the area while the 

activities are occurring, particularly as 

the project is located on a busy 

waterfront with high amounts of vessel 

traffic. We expect that any avoidance of 

the project areas by marine mammals 

would be temporary in nature and that 

any marine mammals that avoid the 

project areas during construction would 

not be permanently displaced. Shortterm avoidance of the project areas and 

energetic impacts of interrupted 

foraging or other important behaviors is 

unlikely to affect the reproduction or 

survival of individual marine mammals, 

and the effects of behavioral disturbance 

on individuals is not likely to accrue in 

a manner that would affect the rates of 

recruitment or survival of any affected 

stock. 

Additionally, and as noted 

previously, some subset of the 

individuals that are behaviorally 

harassed could also simultaneously 

incur some small degree of TTS for a 

short duration of time. However, since 

the hearing sensitivity of individuals 

that incur TTS is expected to recover 

completely within minutes to hours, it 

is unlikely that the brief hearing 

impairment would affect the 

individual’s long-term ability to forage 

and communicate with conspecifics, 

and would therefore not likely impact 

reproduction or survival of any 

individual marine mammal, let alone 

adversely affect rates of recruitment or 

survival of the species or stock. 

The projects are also not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitats. The 

project activities will not modify 

existing marine mammal habitat for a 

significant amount of time. 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 (with no known 

particular importance to marine 

mammals), the impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term negative 

consequences. Aside from the SRKW 

critical habitat and BIA for gray whales 

described below, there are no known 

important areas for other marine 

mammals, such as feeding or pupping 

areas. 

For all species and stocks, and both 

project areas (Pier 58 and 63), take 

would occur within a limited, relatively 

confined area (Elliott Bay within central 

Puget Sound) of the stock’s range. Given 

the availability of suitable habitat 

nearby, any displacement of marine 

mammals from the project areas is not 

expected to affect marine mammals’ 

fitness, survival, and reproduction due 

to the limited geographic area that 

would be affected in comparison to the 

much larger habitat for marine 

mammals in Puget Sound. Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

would be reduced to the level of least 

practicable adverse impact to the marine 

mammal species or stocks and their 

habitat through use of mitigation 

measures described herein. Some 

individual marine mammals in the 

project areas may be present and be 

subject to repeated exposure to sound 

from pile driving on multiple days. 

However, these individuals would 

likely return to normal behavior during 

gaps in pile driving activity. Therefore, 

any behavioral effects of repeated or 

long duration exposures are not 

expected to negatively affect survival or 

reproductive success of any individuals. 

Thus, even repeated Level B harassment 

of some small subset of an overall stock 

is unlikely to result in any effects on 

rates of reproduction and survival of the 

stock. 

Southern Resident Killer Whales 

No takes of any sort are proposed to 

be authorized or anticipated for SRKW 

at the Pier 63 project. For the Pier 58 

project, no permanent hearing 

impairment (PTS), or any other Level A 

harassment, is anticipated or proposed 

to be authorized; authorized takes of 

SRKW at Pier 58 would be limited to 

Level B harassment in the form of 

behavioral disturbance. 

SRKW may be exposed to sound 

above the Level B harassment threshold 

during the Pier 58 reconstruction 

project. Although the City would be 

required to shut down any pile driving 

equipment before SRKW approach the 

Level B harassment zone, there is some 

potential that one or more SRKW could 

enter the area undetected and be taken 

before the City is able to shut down. If 

that were to occur, it is likely that the 

whales would be detected at the outer 

edges of the Level B harassment zone, 

which would lessen the degree of sound 

than would be experienced if they were 

to approach closer to the project site. 

Therefore, if SRKW were exposed to 

sound above the Level B harassment 

threshold, it would generally be of a 

lower level and very short duration 

(only the time to detect the animals and 

shut down), which is expected to lessen 

the degree and duration of potential 

disturbance. 

SRKW could be foraging while 

traveling past the Pier 58 reconstruction 

area and cease foraging effort in 

response to sound from the project if 

they entered the Level B harassment 

zone undetected, as discussed above. 

Most studies on the effects of 

disturbance on SRKW foraging have 

focused on impacts of whale watch 

vessels operating in close proximity to 

SRKW, and commercial shipping traffic 

in the Salish Sea. Exposure to vessel 

noise and presence of whale watching 

boats can significantly affect the 

foraging behavior of SRKW (Williams et 

al., 2006; Lusseau et al., 2009; Giles and 

Cendak 2010; Senigaglia et al., 2016). 

Nutritional stress has also been 

identified as a primary cause of SRKW 

decline (Ayres et al., 2012; Wasser et al., 

2017), suggesting that reduced foraging 

effort may have a greater impact than 

behavioral disturbance alone. However, 

given the typical frequency of killer 

whale foraging echolocation clicks (18 

to 32 kHz), Lacy et al. (2017) note that 

high-frequency noise from small, 

outboard motors on many commercial 

whale watching and private vessels 

likely causes a greater reduction in 

killer whale foraging success than lowfrequency (<1 kHz) noise from 

commercial shipping or pile driving (<2 

kHz). While SRKW may experience 

elevated sound levels of lower 

frequencies from the City’s proposed 

projects if they were to enter the Level 

B harassment zone during pile driving 

activities, the relatively small amount of 

time of altered behavior and minimal 

overlap of the predominant frequencies 

of pile driving and echolocation would 

not likely affect their overall foraging 

ability. Short-term impacts to foraging 

ability are not likely to have any effect 

on reproduction or survival of the 

individual SRKW, let alone effects on 

rates of recruitment or survival for the 

population as a whole (see Ayres et al., 

2012). Given the extensive monitoring 

and mitigation measures for all marine 

mammals and SRKW in particular, it is 

unlikely that individual whales would 

be exposed on multiple occasions. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 12113 

ESA critical habitat for SRKW has 

been designated in Puget Sound, 

including the project areas (71 FR 

69054; November 29, 2006). Critical 

habitat features were identified in 

consideration of physical and biological 

features essential to conservation of 

SRKW (essential features): (1) Water 

quality to support growth and 

development; (2) Prey species of 

sufficient quantity, quality, and 

availability to support individual 

growth, reproduction, and development, 

as well as overall population growth; 

and (3) Passage conditions to allow for 

migration, resting, and foraging. NMFS 

did not identify in-water sound levels as 

a separate essential feature of critical 

habitat, though anthropogenic sound is 

recognized as one of the primary threats 

to SRKW (NMFS 2019). The exposure of 

SRKW to sound from the proposed 

activities would be minimized by the 

required proposed mitigation measures 

(e.g., shutdown zones equivalent to the 

Level B harassment zones). The effects 

of the activities on SRKW habitat 

generally, such as sedimentation and 

impacts to availability of prey species, 

are expected to be limited both spatially 

and temporally, constrained to the 

immediate area around the pile driver(s) 

at each pier and returning to baseline 

levels quickly. Additionally, the timing 

of the in-water work window for the 

projects is intended to limit impacts to 

juvenile salmonids, which would 

accordingly reduce potential impacts to 

SRKW prey. We therefore conclude that 

the proposed activities would have a 

negligible impact on SRKW. 

Gray Whales 

Puget Sound is part of a BIA for 

migrating gray whales (Calambokidis et 

al., 2015). While Elliott Bay is included 

in the BIA, gray whales typically remain 

further north in Puget Sound, primarily 

in the waters around Whidbey Island 

(Calambokidis et al., 2018). Gray whales 

are rarely observed in Elliott Bay. 

Therefore, even though the project areas 

overlap with the BIA, the infrequent 

occurrence of gray whales suggests that 

the proposed projects would have 

minimal, if any, impact on the migration 

of gray whales in the BIA, and would 

therefore not affect reproduction or 

survival. 

There is an ongoing UME for gray 

whales (see the Description of Marine 

Mammals in the Area of Specified 

Activities section of this notice). 

However, we do not expect the takes 

estimated to occur and proposed for 

authorization to exacerbate or 

compound upon these ongoing UMEs. 

As noted previously, no Level A 

harassment, serious injury, or mortality 

is expected or proposed for 

authorization, and any Level B 

harassment takes of gray whales would 

most likely be in the form of behavioral 

disturbance. The project areas have not 

been identified as important for feeding 

or mating gray whales, and therefore the 

projects are unlikely to disrupt any 

critical behaviors or have any effect on 

the reproduction or survival of gray 

whales, even in light of the ongoing 

UME. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from these activities 

are not expected to adversely affect any 

of the species or stocks through effects 

on annual rates of recruitment or 

survival: 

• No mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated or proposed to be authorized 

for either project; 

• No take of any species by Level A 

harassment is anticipated or proposed to 

be authorized for the Pier 63 Removal 

Project; 

• For the Pier 58 Reconstruction 

Project, Level A harassment is not 

anticipated or proposed to be authorized 

for 10 of the 13 species. For the other 

three species, the amount of Level A 

harassment is low and would be in the 

form of a slight degree of PTS; 

• For both projects, Level B 

harassment would be in the form of 

behavioral disturbance, primarily 

resulting in avoidance of the project 

areas around where impact or vibratory 

pile driving is occurring, and some lowlevel TTS that may limit the detection 

of acoustic cues for relatively brief 

amounts of time in relatively confined 

footprint of the activities; 

• Nearby areas of similar habitat 

value within Puget Sound are available 

for marine mammals that may 

temporarily vacate the project areas 

during construction activities for both 

projects; 

• Effects on species that serve as prey 

for marine mammals from the activities 

are expected to be short-term and, 

therefore, any associated impacts on 

marine mammal feeding are not 

expected to result in significant or longterm consequences for individuals, or to 

accrue to adverse impacts on their 

populations from either project; 

• The number of anticipated takes by 

Level B harassment is relatively low for 

all stocks for both projects; 

• The ensonifed areas from both 

projects are very small relative to the 

overall habitat ranges of all species and 

stocks, and will not adversely affect 

ESA-designated critical habitat, or cause 

more than minor impacts in any BIAS 

or any other areas of known biological 

importance; 

• The lack of anticipated significant 

or long-term negative effects to marine 

mammal habitat from either project; 

• The efficacy of the mitigation 

measures in reducing the effects of the 

specified activities on all species and 

stocks for both projects; 

• The enhanced mitigation measures 

(e.g., shutdown zones equivalent to the 

Level B harassment zones) to eliminate 

(for the Pier 63 Removal Project) and 

reduce (for the Pier 58 Reconstruction 

Project) the potential for any take of 

SRKW; and 

• Monitoring reports from similar 

work in Puget Sound that have 

documented little to no effect on 

individuals of the same species that 

could be impacted by the specified 

activities from both projects. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activities 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 

the Pier 58 Reconstruction Project will 

have a negligible impact on all affected 

marine mammal species or stocks. 

NMFS also preliminarily finds that the 

total marine mammal take from the Pier 

63 Removal project will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of 

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The estimated take proposed to be 

authorized for each project is below one 

third of the population for all marine 

mammal stocks (Table 10 and 11). 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activities 

(including the proposed mitigation and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
12114 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Notices 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals would be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks for the Pier 

58 Reconstruction Project. NMFS also 

preliminarily finds that small numbers 

of marine mammals would be taken 

relative to the population size of the 

affected species or stocks for the Pier 63 

Removal Project. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by either of these 

projects. Therefore, NMFS has 

determined that the total taking of 

affected species or stocks would not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the availability of such species or stocks 

for taking for subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with the West Coast Region 

Resources Division Office. 

NMFS is proposing to authorize take 

of Southern Resident killer whales and 

Central America and Mexico DPSs of 

humpback whales, which are listed 

under the ESA. 

The Permit and Conservation Division 

has requested initiation of Section 7 

consultation with the West Coast Region 

for the issuance of these IHAs. NMFS 

will conclude the ESA consultation 

prior to reaching a determination 

regarding the proposed issuance of the 

authorizations. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

two IHAs to the City, one each for their 

Pier 58 Reconstruction Project and their 

Pier 63 Removal Project on the Seattle 

Waterfront in Seattle, Washington, 

effective as of August 2022, provided 

the previously discussed mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. The proposed IHAs 

can be found at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorizations, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHAs for the proposed Pier 58 

Reconstruction and Pier 63 Removal 

Projects. We also request at this time 

comment on the potential Renewal of 

these proposed IHAs as described in the 

paragraph below. Please include with 

your comments any supporting data or 

literature citations to help inform 

decisions on the request for these IHAs 

or subsequent Renewal IHAs. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, one-year Renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Description of 

Proposed Activities section of this 

notice is planned or (2) the activities as 

described in the Description of 

Proposed Activities section of this 

notice would not be completed by the 

time the IHA expires and a Renewal 

would allow for completion of the 

activities beyond that described in the 

Dates and Duration section of this 

notice, provided all of the following 

conditions are met: 

(1) A request for renewal is received 

no later than 60 days prior to the needed 

Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that the Renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond one year from 

expiration of the initial IHA); 

(2) The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

• An explanation that the activities to 

be conducted under the requested 

Renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take); and 

• A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

(3) Upon review of the request for 

Renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: February 28, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04499 Filed 3–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB859] 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) is 

scheduling a public meeting of its 

Scallop Advisory Panel via webinar to 

consider actions affecting New England 

fisheries in the exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ). Recommendations from this 

group will be brought to the full Council 

for formal consideration and action, if 

appropriate. 

DATES: This webinar will be held on 

Monday, March 21, 2022, at 9 a.m. 

Webinar registration URL information: 

https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/ 

register/2118013858816000525. 

ADDRESSES: Council address: New 

England Fishery Management Council, 

50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, 

MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda 

The Advisory Panel will discuss 

Limited Access Leasing: review the 

updated draft scoping document that 

will be used to gather input on: (1) The 

need for a leasing program, and (2) and 

if needed, what should the leasing 

program consider. They will also 

discuss the Evaluation of Rotational 

Management: review final report, 

develop recommendations for next 

steps. Additionally, they plan to discuss 

the 2022–26 Council Research Priorities: 

Review current list of scallop research 

priorities and suggest updates. Other 

business will be discussed, if necessary. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained on the agenda may come 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES