Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 31985 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XC062] 

Endangered Species; File No. 19496 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for 

a permit modification. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

Mariana Fuentes, Ph.D., Florida State 

University, 3263 Foley Drive, 

Tallahassee, FL 32309, has applied in 

due form for a modification to take 

green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill 

(Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp’s ridley 

(Lepidochelys kempii), and loggerhead 

(Caretta caretta) sea turtles for purposes 

of scientific research. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or email 

comments must be received on or before 

June 27, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review by 

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public 

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

the Applications and Permits for 

Protected Species (APPS) home page, 

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

selecting File No. 19496 Mod 10 from 

the list of available applications. These 

documents are also available upon 

written request via email to 

NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. 

Written comments on this application 

should be submitted via email to 

NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. Please 

include File No. 19496 in the subject 

line of the email comment. 

Those individuals requesting a public 

hearing should submit a written request 

via email to NMFS.Pr1Comments@

noaa.gov. The request should set forth 

the specific reasons why a hearing on 

this application would be appropriate. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Markin or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427– 

8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject modification is requested under 

the authority of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 

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

governing the taking, importing, and 

exporting of endangered and threatened 

species (50 CFR parts 222–226). 

Mariana Fuentes, Ph.D., Florida State 

University, 3263 Foley Drive, 

Tallahassee, FL 32309, proposes to 

modify Permit No. 19496–04. The 

permit, originally issued on June 16, 

2016 (81 FR 43589, July 5, 2016), and 

modified on June 5, 2018 (83 FR 34116, 

July 19, 2018), authorizes researchers to 

identify important foraging and 

developmental habitats of sea turtles in 

Florida. Researchers may capture sea 

turtles by hand or dip, strike, or tangle 

nets, tag, biologically sample, 

photograph, video record, measure, and 

weigh, prior to release. The permit 

holder requests authorization to (1) 

expand the study location in the Florida 

Big Bend region from Hernando Beach 

to the southern end of Marco Island, (2) 

add animal-borne cameras as an 

instrument for studying Kemp’s ridley 

and green sea turtles, (3) increase the 

subset of green (from 10 to 50) and 

Kemp’s ridley (from 10 to 30) sea turtles 

annually that may receive a satellite tag 

or animal-borne camera, and (4) 

increase the number of loggerhead (from 

10 to 50) sea turtles that may receive a 

satellite tag or animal-borne camera. 

The total number of green and Kemp’s 

ridley sea turtles that may be captured, 

handled, and released annually would 

not change, 245 and 195, respectively. 

The total number of loggerhead sea 

turtles that may be captured, handled, 

and released annually would change 

from 55 to 95. The permit is valid 

through September 30, 2025. 

Dated: May 20, 2022. 

Amy Sloan, 

Acting Chief, Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11293 Filed 5–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB985] 

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; issuance of incidental 

harassment authorizations (IHAs). 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued two IHAs to the 

City of Seattle (City) to incidentally 

harass marine mammals during in-water 

construction activities associated with 

the Pier 58 Reconstruction Project and 

Pier 63 Removal Project in Seattle, 

Washington. 

DATES: Both IHAs are valid from August 

1, 2022 through July 31, 2023. 

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/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. 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 IHA 

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. 

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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
31986 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 

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 11 species of marine 

mammals, by Level B harassment only 

for the Pier 63 Removal Project, and by 

Level A harassment 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 Planned Activity 

Overview 

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 planned activities and potential 

impacts on marine mammals, NMFS is 

using this single Federal Register notice 

to announce the issuance of the two 

similar, but separate, IHAs. 

The City plans 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 

project includes vibratory removal of 

existing in-water piles and vibratory and 

impact installation of new piles to 

support the expanded overwater 

structure (Table 1). 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. 

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 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. The 

City does not plan to conduct pile 

driving with multiple hammers 

concurrently. Funding for this project 

has been secured and the City expects 

Pier 58 reconstruction (including abovewater 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. 

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 ........ c 120 3 400 strikes ... a 40 

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

a These same 100 piles will be installed and later removed. b These same 120 piles will be installed first using a vibratory hammer, than finished with an impact hammer. c Vibratory and impact installation of 30-inch piles will occur on the same 40 days. 

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 (Table 1). 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. Pier 63 will 

be removed during one in-water work 

season, with a total of 47 days of inwater work expected. If funding for Pier 

63 removal is not authorized to allow 

the planned work to occur during the 

effective dates of the IHA (August 1, 

2022 through July 31, 2023), the City 

will request the IHA be reissued for the 

following year, as discussed in the 

Federal Register notice of the proposed 

IHAs (87 FR 12089; March 3, 2022). 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 through July 2024 period, based on 

the current best available science. 

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 

A detailed description of the planned 

activities is provided in the Federal 

Register notice of the proposed IHAs (87 

FR 12089; March 3, 2022). Since that 

time, no changes have been made to the 

planned activities. Therefore, a detailed 

description is not provided here. Please 

refer to that Federal Register notice for 

descriptions of the specific activities. 

Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures are described in detail later in 

this document (please see Mitigation 

and Monitoring and Reporting sections). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 31987 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue 

two IHAs to the City was published in 

the Federal Register on March 3, 2022 

(87 FR 12089). That notice described, in 

detail, the City’s activities, the marine 

mammal species that may be affected by 

the activities, and the anticipated effects 

on marine mammals. In that notice, we 

requested public input on the request 

for authorization described therein, our 

analyses, the proposed authorization, 

and any other aspect of the notice of 

proposed IHA, and requested that 

interested persons submit relevant 

information, suggestions, and 

comments. This proposed notice was 

available for a 30-day public comment 

period. During the public comment 

period, NMFS received no public 

comments. 

Changes From the Proposed IHA to 

Final IHA 

On March 28, 2022, after NMFS 

published the notice of proposed IHAs, 

the City submitted a letter to NMFS, 

withdrawing their request for take of 

Southern Resident killer whales (SRKW; 

Orcinus orca) and humpback whales 

(Megaptera novaeangliae). The City 

explained that it had initially included 

the request for incidental take coverage 

of SRKW in their IHA applications as a 

conservative approach, but had since 

reconsidered the expected effectiveness 

of proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures. The City reviewed monitoring 

results from past projects along the 

Seattle Waterfront and the sightings 

reports of SRKW and humpback whales 

compiled by Orca Network. The City 

also proposed to increase its mitigation 

efforts to ensure that any SRKW or 

humpback whales in the general area of 

the projects would be immediately 

detected. In addition, the proposed 

mitigation measure to implement 

shutdown measures for SRKW has been 

expanded to apply also to humpback 

whales, such that if any humpback 

whale is sighted within the vicinity of 

the project areas and is approaching the 

Level B harassment zone, the City 

would shut down the pile driving 

equipment to avoid possible take. With 

this new information and additional 

mitigation, in conjunction with the 

previously proposed mitigation and 

monitoring, the City determined, and 

NMFS concurs, that incidental take of 

these two stocks is unlikely to occur. 

Monitoring results from recent similar 

in-water construction projects with 

similar Level B harassment zones, such 

as the City’s Pier 62 Restoration Project 

(Anchor QEA 2019) indicate that 

protected species observers (PSOs) were 

able to detect SRKW and humpback 

whales outside the Level B harassment 

zone. In the City’s Pier 62 Restoration 

IHA (83 FR 39709; August 10, 2018), 

SRKW and humpback whales were first 

observed when outside of the Level B 

harassment zone. But because incidental 

take was authorized, the pile driving 

equipment was not required to be shut 

down when these species were detected. 

If shutdown for the Level B harassment 

zone had been included in that IHA, the 

City would have been able to cease pile 

driving and avoid all take of SRKW and 

humpback whales. Similarly, IHAs 

issued to the Washington State 

Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 

for in-water pile driving activities at the 

Seattle Ferry Terminal (Pier 52) since 

2017 have authorized incidental take of 

humpback whales, but have included 

the requirement to shut down pile 

driving equipment prior to SRKW 

entering the Level B harassment zone 

(e.g., 86 FR 38686; July 22, 2021). Over 

the course of 5 in-water work seasons, 

WSDOT has recorded observations of 

SRKW in the project area but has 

successfully implemented the required 

mitigation measure and reported no take 

of SRKW (WSDOT 2022). 

PSOs for the Pier 58 Reconstruction 

and Pier 63 Removal projects will be 

stationed with views that extend beyond 

the Level B harassment zone, providing 

an opportunity for PSOs to detect SRKW 

and humpback whales outside of the 

Level B harassment zone and notify the 

contractor to cease pile driving activities 

before Level B harassment occurs. PSOs 

will also notify the contractor to delay 

the start of pile driving if these species 

are present. During emergency in-water 

demolition work at Waterfront Park 

between October 2020 and February 

2021, PSOs were stationed at the same 

locations as those designated for the 

Pier 58 Reconstruction and Pier 63 

Removal projects. The PSOs observed 

SRKW outside the Level B harassment 

zone (equivalent to the largest Level B 

harassment zone for the two Pier 58 and 

Pier 63 IHAs; see Estimated Take 

section) and were able to coordinate 

with the contractor to halt pile driving 

in advance of SRKW entering the 

harassment zone (Anchor QEA, 2021). 

Observations of that same group of 

SRKW were also reported by Orca 

Network as the pod traveled through 

Puget Sound. 

Contacting, it is most likely that any 

occurrence of SRKW or humpback 

whales in Central Puget Sound will be 

reported to and distributed by Orca 

Network, and these reports will then be 

obtained by the PSOs employed for both 

projects (see below for the required 

frequency of PSOs obtaining reports 

from Orca Network) before the animals 

are within the Level B harassment zones 

for the Pier 58 and Pier 63 projects. 

To obtain more real-time sightings 

reports of SRKW and humpback whales 

to even further increase the likelihood 

that both species will be detected before 

they enter the Level B harassment zone, 

the City proposed increasing the 

frequency that PSOs will contact Orca 

Network from what was included in the 

proposed IHAs (87 FR 12089; March 3, 

2022). The proposed IHAs included 

requirements for PSOs to contact Orca 

Network to obtain sightings reports of 

marine mammals in central Puget 

Sound twice each day, once prior to the 

start of in-water work for the day, and 

again at the approximate mid-point of 

construction each day. The City 

amended this process such that PSOs 

will now contact Orca Network hourly, 

which will increase the likelihood that 

PSOs will be aware of reported sightings 

of SRKW and humpback whales in 

central Puget Sound, and be able to 

detect these species outside the Level B 

harassment zone and initiate equipment 

shutdowns to prevent take from 

occurring. 

NMFS has reviewed the new 

information, in addition to considering 

the effect of the updated mitigation 

measures of requiring shutdown if 

humpback whales are sighted within the 

vicinity of the project areas and 

approaching the Level B harassment 

zone as well as requiring PSOs to 

contact Orca Network hourly for the 

most recent location information of 

SRKW and humpback whales. Although 

NMFS previously accepted that it was 

possible for a small number of SRKW to 

enter the Level B harassment zone 

undetected and proposed a small 

amount of Level B harassment for both 

SRKW and humpback whales, NMFS 

now concurs with the City’s assessment 

that any take of SRKW and humpback 

whales is unlikely to occur, and has 

incorporated the new mitigation 

measures into the final IHAs. 

Accordingly, the final IHAs do not 

authorize incidental take of SRKW or 

humpback whales. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the City’s 

applications summarize available 

information regarding status and trends, 

distribution and habitat preferences, 

and behavior and life history of the 

potentially affected species. NMFS fully 

considered all of this information, and 

we refer the reader to these descriptions, 

incorporated here by reference, instead 

of reprinting the information. 

Additional information regarding 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
31988 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 

population trends and threats may be 

found in NMFS’ Stock Assessment 

Reports (SARs; www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments) 

and more general information about 

these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’ website (https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). 

Table 3 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and authorized 

for the City’s activities, and summarizes 

information related to the population or 

stock, including regulatory status under 

the MMPA and Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. 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’ 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 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’ 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). 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT 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): 

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 ........................... West Coast Transient ............ -, -, N 4 349 (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 5 43,201 (see SAR, 43,201, 

2017).

2,592 112 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

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

Waters.

-, -, N 6 11,036 (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 11 species 

(with 11 managed stocks) in Table 3 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activities to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur. 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 

planned activities. The City has not 

requested take of Pacific white-sided 

dolphins for either project and NMFS 

does not anticipate or authorize take of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I I 

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 31989 

this species. Therefore, Pacific whitesided dolphins are not discussed further 

in this document. Additionally, as 

described above in the Changes from the 

Proposed IHA to Final IHA section of 

this notice, SRKW and humpback 

whales also occur in the inland waters 

of Puget Sound and take of these species 

was included in the proposed IHAs (87 

FR 12089; March 3, 2022). However, in 

consideration of the City’s amended 

request and the requirements described 

in the Mitigation and Monitoring and 

Reporting sections of this notice, NMFS 

has determined that take of these 

species is unlikely to occur and has not 

authorized take of SRKW and humpback 

whales. 

A detailed description of the species 

likely to be affected by the City’s 

activities, including information 

regarding population trends and threats, 

and information regarding local 

occurrence, were provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHAs (87 FR 12089; March 3, 2022). 

Since that time, we are not aware of any 

changes in this information or the status 

of these species and stocks; therefore, 

detailed descriptions are not provided 

here. Please refer to that Federal 

Register notice for those descriptions. 

Please also refer to NMFS’s website 

(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/findspecies) for generalized species 

accounts. 

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. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

the City’s construction activities have 

the potential to result in Level A and 

Level B harassment of marine mammals 

in the vicinity of the project area. The 

notice of proposed IHAs (87 FR 12089; 

March 3, 2022) included a discussion of 

the effects of anthropogenic noise on 

marine mammals and the potential 

effects of underwater noise from the 

City’s construction activities on marine 

mammals and their habitat. That 

information and analysis is incorporated 

by reference into the final 

determinations for the IHAs and is not 

repeated here; please refer to the notice 

of proposed IHAs (87 FR 12089; March 

3, 2022). 

The Estimated Take section includes 

a quantitative analysis of the number of 

individuals that are expected to be taken 

by this activity. The Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination section 

considers the content of this section, the 

Estimated Take section, and the 

Mitigation section, to draw conclusions 

regarding the likely impacts of these 

activities on the reproductive success or 

survivorship of individuals and whether 

those impacts are reasonably expected 

to, or reasonably likely to, adversely 

affect the species or stock through 

effects on annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which will 

inform both NMFS’ consideration of 

‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible 

impact determinations. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes are primarily by 

Level B harassment (in the form of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
31990 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 

behavioral disturbance and temporary 

threshold shift (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 than for other hearing groups. The 

required 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 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the authorized take 

numbers are estimated. 

For acoustic impacts, 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 factors can 

contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of potential 

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 authorized take estimates. 

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 permanent 

threshold shift (PTS) of some degree 

(equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—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 or exposure 

context (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle, duration of the exposure, 

signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the 

source), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry, other noises in the area, 

predators in the area), and the receiving 

animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography, life stage, 

depth) and can be difficult to predict 

(e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021, Ellison 

et al., 2012). Based on what the 

available science indicates and the 

practical need to use a threshold based 

on a metric that is both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

typically uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS generally predicts 

that marine mammals are likely to be 

behaviorally harassed in a manner 

considered to be Level B harassment 

when exposed to underwater 

anthropogenic noise above root-meansquared pressure received levels (RMS 

SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 

micropascal (re 1 mPa)) for continuous 

(e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and 

above RMS SPL of 160 dB re 1 mPa for 

non-explosive 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 planned activities include 

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—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: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance. 

TABLE 5—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ............................ Cell 1: Lp,0-pk,flat: 219 dB; LE,p, LF,24h: 1183 dB ......................... Cell 2: LE,p, LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ............................ Cell 3: Lp, 0-pk,flat: 230 dB; LE,p,MF,24h: 1185 dB ........................ Cell 4: LE,p, MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ........................... Cell 5: Lp, 0-pk,flat: 202 dB; LE,p,HF,24h: 155 dB .......................... Cell 6: LE,p, HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) .................... Cell 7: Lp, 0-pk.flat: 218 dB; LE,p,PW,24h: 1185 dB ....................... Cell 8: LE,p,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) .................... Cell 9: Lp,0-pk,flat: 232 dB; LE,p,OW,24h: 203 dB .......................... Cell 10: LE,p,OW,24h: 219 

dB. 

* Dual metric 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 are recommended 

for consideration. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 31991 

Note: Peak sound pressure level (Lp,0-pk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and weighted cumulative sound exposure level (LE,p) has a reference value of 1μPa 2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to be more reflective of International Organization for Standardization standards (ISO 2017). The subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized 

hearing range of marine mammals (i.e., 7 Hz to 160 kHz). 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 weighted 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 

thresholds will be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that are used in estimating the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, including source levels and 

transmission loss coefficient. 

The sound field in the project areas is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

planned projects. 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 

planned activities in the absence of 

specific modelling. The Level B 

harassment zones for the City’s planned 

activities are shown in Tables 8 and 9. 

Level A Harassment Zones 

The ensonified area associated with 

Level A harassment is more technically 

challenging to predict due to the need 

to account for a duration component. 

Therefore, NMFS developed an optional 

User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 

Technical Guidance that can be used to 

relatively simply predict an isopleth 

distance for use in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to help predict potential takes. We note 

that because of some of the assumptions 

included in the methods underlying this 

optional tool, we anticipate that the 

resulting isopleth estimates are typically 

going to be overestimates of some 

degree, which may result in an 

overestimate of potential take by Level 

A harassment. However, this optional 

tool offers the best way to estimate 

isopleth distances when more 

sophisticated modeling methods are not 

available or practical. 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
31992 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 

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 

(km 2) 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 

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 (km 2 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 authorized 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. 

As described in the Changes from the 

Proposed IHA to Final IHA section of 

this notice, while take of SRKW and 

humpback whales was included in the 

proposed IHAs, the City has reassessed 

the likelihood of take of these species in 

consideration of the effectiveness of the 

required mitigation and monitoring 

measures. The City determined that by 

implementing the additional mitigation 

and monitoring requirements, take of 

SRKW and humpback whales is 

unlikely to occur. NMFS has carefully 

considered the new information and 

additional mitigation measures, and 

concurs with the City’s assessment. 

Incidental take of SRKW and humpback 

whales is no longer anticipated to occur 

and has not been authorized. 

To estimate the number of marine 

mammals that may be taken incidental 

to the Pier 58 Reconstruction and Pier 

63 Removal projects, the City 

considered using the ensonified area 

(see Tables 8 and 9) 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., they either over- or 

underestimated take). Instead of using 

the U.S. Navy’s density estimates, the 

City therefore 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. 

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 requested, and 

NMFS has authorized, 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 requested, and NMFS has 

authorized, 3 takes of gray whales by 

Level B harassment from Pier 63 

removal. 

Since the City must comply with all 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

including marine mammal monitoring 

and coordination with Orca Network, 

these measures will likely be successful 

in detecting gray whales given their size 

and visibility, the City must 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 will be 

taken by Level A harassment. No take of 

gray whales by Level A harassment is 

requested or 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 requested, and NMFS has 

authorized, 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 gray whales, minke whales are 

considered infrequent visitors to the 

project areas. As with gray whales, PSOs 

must coordinate with Orca Network and 

will likely be alerted to the presence of 

minke whales in the area, allowing the 

City to shut down pile driving 

equipment before a minke whale could 

enter the Level A harassment zones. 

Hence, in consideration of the expected 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 31993 

effectiveness of mitigation and 

infrequent occurrence, no take of minke 

whales by Level A harassment is 

requested or 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, and NMFS has 

authorized, 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. PSOs must coordinate with 

Orca Network and will likely be alerted 

to the presence of transient killer whales 

in the area, allowing them to detect the 

animals and the City to 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 

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, and 

NMFS has authorized, 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 will 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 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 (WSDOT, 2018). The 

average reported group size of longbeaked 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. The City 

requested, and NMFS has authorized, 

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 will 

be able to cease pile driving before longbeaked common dolphins could enter 

the Level A harassment zone. No take of 

long-beaked common dolphins by Level 

A harassment is requested or 

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 

the City must implement a shutdown 

zone of 185 m during this activity (see 

Mitigation section), 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 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 single 

animals over two days. These harbor 

porpoises would be counted as taken by 

Level A harassment, but would not 

count toward the City’s authorized 

number of takes of harbor porpoises by 

Level B harassment because they would 

have already been counted as Level A 

harassment takes. The Level A 

harassment zones for all vibratory pile 

driving at Pier 58 are all under 30 m. At 

that distance, the PSOs will be able to 

detect harbor porpoises and alert the 

City to 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, and NMFS has authorized, 

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. Therefore, the 

City requested, and NMFS has 

authorized, a total of 235 takes of harbor 

porpoises by Level B harassment from 

Pier 63 removal. The largest Level A 

harassment zone from pile removal at 

Pier 63 is 29 m. At that close range, the 

PSOs will be able to detect harbor 

porpoises and the City must 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 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 must 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. These 

Dall’s porpoises would be counted as 

taken by Level A harassment, but would 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
31994 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 

not count toward the City’s authorized 

number of takes of Dall’s porpoises by 

Level B harassment because they would 

have already been counted as Level A 

harassment takes. The Level A 

harassment zones for all vibratory pile 

driving at Pier 58 are all under 30 m. At 

that distance, the PSOs will be able to 

detect Dall’s porpoises and alert the City 

to 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 requested, and 

NMFS has authorized, 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 PSOs will be able 

to detect Dall’s porpoises and the City 

must 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 authorized. The 

City requested, and NMFS has 

authorized, 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. 

Therefore, the City requested, and 

NMFS has authorized, 700 takes of 

California sea lions 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 

must implement a minimum shutdown 

zone of 10 m for all activities. At that 

close range, the PSOs will be able to 

detect California sea lions and the City 

will 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 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. Therefore, 

the City requested, and NMFS has 

authorized, 140 takes of Steller sea lions 

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 

must enforce a minimum shutdown 

zone of 10 m for all activities. At that 

close range, the PSOs will be able to 

detect Steller sea lions and the City will 

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 

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. 

Therefore, the City requested, and 

NMFS has authorized, 6 takes of 

northern elephant seals 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 

will be found within this zone, and even 

more unlikely that northern elephant 

seals will 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 are encountered 

in the project areas, at that close range, 

the PSOs will be able to detect them and 

the City will 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 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 

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). These harbor seals 

would be counted as taken by Level A 

harassment, but would not count toward 

the City’s authorized number of takes of 

harbor seals by Level B harassment 

because they would have already been 

counted as Level A harassment takes. 

The Level A harassment zones for 

phocids for all vibratory pile driving at 

Pier 58 are all under 12 m. At that 

distance, the PSOs will be able to detect 

harbor seals and alert the City to 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, and NMFS has authorized, 

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. Therefore, the 

City requested, and NMFS has 

authorized, 282 takes of harbor seals by 

Level B harassment from Pier 63 

removal. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for the City’s planned activities at Pier 

63 is 12 m. The City must implement a 

15 m shutdown zone to prevent Level A 

take of phocids for this project (see 

Mitigation section). At that close range, 

the PSOs will be able to detect harbor 

seals and alert the City to 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 

authorized for work at Pier 63. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 31995 

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. NMFS has 

authorized the numbers and level of 

take for each species as requested by the 

City. 

TABLE 10—AUTHORIZED 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 

Authorized 

take 

by Level B 

harassment 

Authorized 

take 

by Level A 

harassment 

Stock 

abundance 

Percent of 

stock 

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 

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 

TABLE 11—AUTHORIZED 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 

Authorized 

take 

by Level B 

harassment 

Authorized 

take 

by Level A 

harassment 

Stock 

abundance 

Percent of 

stock 

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 

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 

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 this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting 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, NMFS considers 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, and 

impact on operations. 

Time Restrictions 

The City has provided in its 

description of the projects that pile 

driving will occur only during daylight 

hours, when visual monitoring of 

marine mammals can be conducted. In 

addition, all in-water construction will 

be limited to the period between 

September 1 and February 15. 

Shutdown Zones 

Before the commencement of in-water 

construction activities, the City must 

establish shutdown zones for all 

activities. The purpose of a shutdown 

zone is generally to define an area 

within which shutdown of the activity 

will occur upon sighting of a marine 

mammal (or in anticipation of an animal 

entering the defined area). Pile driving 

must also not commence until all 

marine mammals are clear of their 

respective shutdown zones. Shutdown 

zones will encompass the Level A 

harassment zones for all species and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
31996 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 

stocks listed in Table 3 and therefore 

will 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 

must cease and vessels must 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 must also establish 

shutdown zones for all marine 

mammals for which take has not been 

authorized, including SRKW and 

humpback whales, and 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 must also implement 

shutdown measures for SRKW and 

humpback whales. If SRKW or 

humpback whales are sighted within the 

vicinity of the project areas and are 

approaching the Level B harassment 

zone, the City must shut down the pile 

driving equipment to avoid possible 

take. 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 

must be assumed to be a SRKW and the 

City must implement the shutdown 

measure. If a SRKW, an unidentified 

killer whale, or a humpback whale 

enters the Level B harassment zone 

undetected, in-water pile driving must 

be suspended until the whale exits the 

Level B harassment zone, or 15 minutes 

have elapsed with no sighting of the 

animal, although with the updated 

mitigation measures in place it is 

unlikely that this will occur. 

TABLE 12—SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR PIER 58 RECONSTRUCTION

Pile type and method 

Shutdown zone (m) 

LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocids Otariids 

All unauthorized 

species (e.g., 

SRKW, humpback 

whale) 

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 

All unauthorized 

species (e.g., 

SRKW, humpback 

whale) 

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

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

Protected Species Observers 

The placement of protected species 

observers (PSOs) during all pile driving 

activities (described in the Monitoring 

and Reporting section) must 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 must 

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 must monitor the entire Level B 

harassment zones and Level A 

harassment zones. To the extent 

practicable, PSOs must monitor the area 

beyond the Level B harassment zone to 

enable observers to be aware of and 

communicate the presence of marine 

mammals in the project areas outside 

the shutdown zones to the City 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 must observe the 

shutdown and monitoring zones for a 

period of 30 minutes. The shutdown 

zone is 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 

must be delayed or halted. If pile 

driving is delayed or halted due to the 

presence of a marine mammal, the 

activity must 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 may begin 

and Level B harassment take will be 

recorded. If work ceases for more than 

30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring 

of the shutdown zones must 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 hourly after pile driving has 

begun, the PSOs must 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 31997 

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 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 must provide 

an initial set of three strikes from the 

hammer at reduced energy, followed by 

a 30-second waiting period, then two 

subsequent reduced-energy strike sets. 

Soft start must be implemented at the 

start of each day’s impact pile driving 

and at any time following cessation of 

impact pile driving for a period of 30 

minutes or longer. 

Bubble Curtain 

A bubble curtain must be employed 

during impact installation or proofing of 

steel piles. A noise attenuation device is 

not required during vibratory pile 

driving. When a bubble curtain or 

similar measure is used, it must 

distribute air bubbles around 100 

percent of the piling perimeter for the 

full depth of the water column. Any 

other attenuation measure must provide 

100 percent coverage in the water 

column for the full depth of the pile. 

The lowest bubble ring must be in 

contact with the mudline for the full 

circumference of the ring. The weights 

attached to the bottom ring must ensure 

100 percent mudline contact. Parts of 

the ring or other objects must not 

prevent full mudline contact. 

Based on our evaluation of the City’s 

proposed mitigation measures, as well 

as other measures required by NMFS, 

NMFS has determined that the required 

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 finds 

that the City’s proposed mitigation 

measures and other measures required 

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. 

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 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and, 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

Marine mammal monitoring during 

pile driving activities must 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 must be used; 

• At least one PSO must 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 must be 

designated. The lead observer is 

required to have prior experience 

working as a marine mammal observer 

during construction. 

PSOs must 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 must 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
31998 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 

and Pier 63, two PSOs must 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 must 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 is 

required to continue monitoring during 

impact pile driving. 

Monitoring must be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after all in water construction activities. 

In addition, observers must record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and must 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 must 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. All draft and final 

monitoring reports must be submitted to 

PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov 

and ITP.Fowler@noaa.gov. The marine 

mammal report must include an overall 

description of work completed, a 

narrative regarding marine mammal 

sightings, and associated PSO data 

sheets. Specifically, the report must 

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) and 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 must 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 

will constitute the final reports. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS’ comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. All PSO datasheets and/or 

raw sighting data must be submitted 

with the draft marine mammal report. 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

City must report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources (OPR) 

(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov 

and ITP.Fowler@noaa.gov), NMFS (301– 

427–8401) and to the West Coast Region 

(WCR) regional stranding coordinator 

(866–767–6114) as soon as feasible. If 

the death or injury was clearly caused 

by the specified activity, the City must 

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 must not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS. 

The report must 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 impacts or responses (e.g., 

intensity, duration), the context of any 

impacts or responses (e.g., critical 

reproductive time or location, foraging 

impacts affecting energetics), 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’ 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 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 and cause auditory 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 31999 

injury (PTS). 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. 

Serious injury or mortality are not 

anticipated or authorized 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 required 

mitigation measures (see Mitigation 

section). 

To avoid repetition, the majority of 

our analysis applies 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 these different marine 

mammal stocks are expected to be 

relatively similar in nature. Where there 

are special circumstances for a species 

or stock (e.g., gray whales), they are 

included as a separate subsection 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 all affected stocks. 

No take by Level A harassment is 

anticipated or authorized incidental to 

the Pier 63 Removal Project. For the Pier 

58 Reconstruction Project, take by Level 

A harassment is authorized 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. Two of the 

3 species for which Level A harassment 

is authorized are high-frequency 

cetaceans (harbor porpoise and Dall’s 

porpoise), and the hearing ability of the 

third species for which Level A 

harassment is authorized (harbor seal) 

below 2 kHz is also poor (NMFS, 2018). 

Given the hearing ranges of these 3 

species, PTS incurred at the low 

frequencies of pile driving noise would 

not interfere either with conspecific 

communication or echolocation, and 

therefore would not be expected to 

impact on the survival or reproductive 

abilities of the affected individuals, let 

alone the stock or population. 

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 authorizes 

no Level A harassment take over the 

duration of the IHA period; for the other 

three stocks, NMFS authorizes no more 

than 40 takes by Level A harassment for 

any species or stock. These low 

numbers of takes of individuals by Level 

A harassment (and involving only a 

small degree of PTS) are not expected to 

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 is also required to 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 

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, 

will 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 

biologically important area (BIA) for 

gray whales described below, there are 

no known areas of importance for other 

marine mammals, such as feeding or 

pupping areas, in the project area. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
32000 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 

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 stocks’ ranges. 

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 will 

be affected in comparison to the much 

larger habitat for marine mammals in 

Puget Sound. Level A harassment and 

Level B harassment will 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. The Seattle 

Waterfront is a busy industrial area and 

monitoring reports from previous inwater pile driving activities in the area 

(e.g., WSDOT, 2022; Anchor QEA, 2019) 

indicate that marine mammals continue 

to remain in the greater project area 

throughout pile driving activities. 

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. 

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 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 in the notice of 

proposed IHAs (87 FR 12089; March 3, 

2022)). However, we do not expect the 

authorized takes to exacerbate or 

compound upon this ongoing UME. As 

noted previously, no Level A 

harassment, serious injury, or mortality 

is expected or authorized, and any Level 

B harassment takes of gray whales 

would most likely be in the form of 

behavioral disturbance. Preliminary 

findings from necropsied gray whales 

that are considered part of the ongoing 

UME have shown evidence of 

emaciation, suggesting that impacts to 

feeding would be of most concern. 

However, the project areas have not 

been identified as important for feeding 

of gray whales. Additionally, the project 

areas are not considered important for 

breeding gray whales. Therefore the 

projects are unlikely to disrupt any 

critical behaviors (e.g., feeding, mating) 

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 determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity 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 authorized for either 

project; 

• No take of any species by Level A 

harassment is anticipated or authorized 

for the Pier 63 Removal Project; 

• For the Pier 58 Reconstruction 

Project, Level A harassment is not 

anticipated or authorized for 8 of the 11 

species. For the other 3 species (2 highfrequency cetaceans and 1 phocid 

pinniped), the amount of Level A 

harassment is low and would be in the 

form of a slight degree of PTS in limited 

low frequency ranges (<2 kHz) which 

are not the most sensitive primary 

hearing ranges for these species and 

would not interfere with conspecific 

communication or echolocation; 

• 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 

footprints 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 ensonified 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 

the potential for any take of 

unauthorized species; and 

• Monitoring reports from similar 

work in Puget Sound that have 

documented little to no behavioral effect 

on individuals of the same species that 

could be impacted by the specified 

activities from both projects, suggesting 

the degree/intensity of behavioral 

harassment would be minimal. 

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 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS 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 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 32001 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The authorized take for each project is 

below one third of the population for all 

marine mammal stocks (Tables 10 and 

11). 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activities 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS 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 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 this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

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. 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is authorized or expected to 

result from these activities. Therefore, 

NMFS has determined that consultation 

under section 7 of the ESA is not 

required for this action. 

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 

two IHAs) 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 

determined that the issuance of the 

IHAs qualifies to be categorically 

excluded from further NEPA review. 

Authorizations 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued 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 (both 

effective from August 1, 2022 through 

July 31, 2023), with the previously 

discussed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements incorporated. 

Dated: May 20, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11280 Filed 5–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XC060] 

Permanent Advisory Committee To 

Advise the U.S. Commissioners to the 

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 

Commission; Meeting Announcement 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; update. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the public 

meeting of the Permanent Advisory 

Committee (PAC) to advise the U.S. 

Commissioners to the Commission for 

the Conservation and Management of 

Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the 

Western and Central Pacific Ocean 

(WCPFC) on June 8, 2022. This notice 

replaces an earlier document in the 

Federal Register on April 1, 2022 since 

the time for this meeting has changed. 

DATES: The meeting of the PAC will be 

held via web conference on June 8, 

2022, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. Hawaii 

Standard Time (HST) (or until business 

is concluded). Members of the public 

may submit written comments on 

meeting topics or materials; comments 

must be received by June 3, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

conducted via web conference. For 

details on how to call in to the web 

conference or to submit comments, 

please contact Emily Reynolds, NMFS 

Pacific Islands Regional Office; 

telephone: 808–725–5039; email: 

emily.reynolds@noaa.gov. Documents to 

be considered by the PAC will be sent 

out via email in advance of the 

conference call. Please submit contact 

information to Emily Reynolds 

(telephone: 808–725–5039; email: 

emily.reynolds@noaa.gov) at least 2 

days in advance of the call to receive 

documents via email. 

Participants and public commenters 

are urged not to provide Personally 

Identifiable Information (PII) BII or 

Business Identifiable Information (BII) 

during this meeting, as any public 

comments are made publicly available. 

The audio portion of this meeting may 

be recorded for the purposes of 

generating notes of the meeting and 

participation in the meeting constitutes 

consent to the audio recording. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emily Reynolds, NMFS Pacific Islands 

Regional Office; 1845 Wasp Blvd. Bldg. 

176, Honolulu, HI 96818; telephone: 

808–725–5039; facsimile: 808–725– 

5215; email: emily.reynolds@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice replaces a notice published in the 

Federal Register on April 1, 2022 (87 FR 

19079) announcing the June 8, 2022, 

PAC meeting because of a change in 

start time. In accordance with the 

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 

Convention Implementation Act (16 

U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), the PAC, has been 

formed to advise the U.S. 

Commissioners to the WCPFC. The PAC 

is composed of: (i) Not less than 15 nor 

more than 20 individuals appointed by 

the Secretary of Commerce in 

consultation with the U.S. 

Commissioners to the WCPFC; (ii) the 

chair of the Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s Advisory 

Committee (or the chair’s designee); and 

(iii) officials from the fisheries 

management authorities of American 

Samoa, Guam, and the Northern 

Mariana Islands (or their designees). 

The PAC supports the work of the U.S. 

National Section to the WCPFC in an 

advisory capacity. The U.S. National 

Section is made up of the U.S. 

Commissioners and the Department of 

State. NMFS Pacific Islands Regional 

Office provides administrative and 

technical support to the PAC in 

cooperation with the Department of 

State. More information on the WCPFC, 

established under the Convention on the 

Conservation and Management of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES