Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41229 

Dated: August 24, 2017. 

Donna Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18349 Filed 8–25–17; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF540 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Biorka 

Island Dock Replacement Project 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) for authorization 

to take marine mammals incidental to 

construction activities as part of its 

Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting public comment on its 

proposal to issue an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

FAA to incidentally take marine 

mammals, by Level A and Level B 

harassment, during the specified 

activity. NMFS will consider public 

comments prior to making any final 

decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorizations and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than September 29, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal 

should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, 

Chief, Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Physical comments should be sent to 

1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910, and electronic comments 

should be sent to ITP.mccue@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments received 

electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

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

incidental/construction.html without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura McCue, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the applications 

and supporting documents, as well as a 

list of the references cited in this 

document, may be obtained online at: 

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

incidental/construction.htm. In case of 

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated 

to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and either 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, a notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

An Incidental Take Authorization 

(ITA) shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to environmental 

consequences on the human 

environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in CE 

B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On March 31, 2017, NMFS received a 

request from the FAA for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to pile 

driving and removal and down the hole 

(DTH) drilling in association with the 

Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project 

(Project) in Symonds Bay, Alaska. The 

FAA’s request is for take of five species 

by Level A and Level B harassment. 

Neither the FAA nor NMFS expect 

mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

In-water work associated with the inwater construction is expected to be 

completed within 70 days. This 

proposed IHA is for the 2018 

construction window (May 1, 2018 

through September 30, 2018). This IHA 

would be valid from May 1, 2018, 

through April 30, 2019. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

The FAA is constructing a 

replacement dock on Biorka Island in 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41230 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

Symonds Bay near Sitka, Alaska. The 

purpose of the Project is to improve and 

maintain the sole point of access to 

Biorka Island and the navigational and 

weather facilities located on the Island. 

The existing dock is deteriorated and 

has reached the end of its useful life. 

Regular and repetitive heavy surging 

seas, along with constant use have 

destroyed the face of the existing 

floating marine dock, and have broken 

cleats making it difficult to tie a vessel 

to the existing dock. In its present 

condition, small vessels cannot use the 

dock to provide supplies to facilities on 

the Island. The existing barge landing 

area is reinforced seasonally by adding 

fill to the landing at the shoreline, 

which is periodically washed away by 

storms and wave action. The Project 

would reconstruct the deteriorated 

existing dock and construct an 

improved barge landing area. 

Dates and Duration 

The total Project is expected to 

require a maximum of 70 days of inwater construction activities. In-water 

activities are limited to occurring 

between May 1 and September 30 of any 

year to minimize impacts to specialstatus and commercially and 

biologically important fish species. This 

proposed authorization would be 

effective from May 1, 2018 through 

April 30, 2019. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The Project is located approximately 

15 miles (24 kilometers (km)) southwest 

of Sitka on the northern shore of Biorka 

Island on land owned by the FAA (see 

Figure 1–1 of the FAA’s application). 

Biorka Island is the most westerly and 

largest of the Necker Island group on the 

west coast of Baranof Island. 

Symonds Bay is approximately 0.4 

miles wide (east to west direction). 

Water depths are less than 66 feet (ft) 

within 1,300 ft of the dock (see Figure 

1–2 of the FAA’s application). The outer 

dolphin (see Figure 1–4 of the 

application) would be located in about 

20 ft of water at mean high water. This 

is the deepest water depth for all piles 

and, as a precautionary measure, was 

used as the water depth input for 

acoustic modeling described later in this 

document. 

On shore at the Project site, bedrock 

is exposed in many places. The 

overburden varies from zero to about 15 

ft deep and consists of highly fractured 

weathered bedrock and includes seams 

of very soft rock or soil. Due to the 

fractures and seams, it is possible to 

drive piles into this top layer ‘‘Category 

1 intensely fractured bedrock.’’ Beneath 

the top layer, the rock becomes more 

intact ‘‘Category II intensely to 

moderately fractured bedrock.’’ The 

seabed composition is important in this 

Project because it determines the piledriving methods needed to achieve the 

required pile penetration. 

Detailed Description of Activities 

The Project consists of removing the 

existing dock and associated 

infrastructure and constructing a new, 

modern structure to provide continued 

safe access to Biorka Island facilities. 

The existing dock is a T-shaped, pilesupported structure consisting of a 170- 

ft long by 16-ft wide approach trestle 

with a 51-ft wide by 35-ft long end 

section. The existing infrastructure also 

includes a 30-ft by 32-ft floating dock 

that is accessed by a 5-ft wide by 50-ft 

long steel gangway, a small 10-ft by 10- 

ft pre-fabricated building, and an 

electric hydraulic pedestal crane. 

A total of 46 existing piles would be 

removed (Table 1). The steel and timber 

piles would be pulled out of the 

substrate directly with a crane and sling, 

by using a vibratory hammer, or with a 

clamshell bucket. The three concrete 

piles that are located above the high tide 

were cast in place. The concrete piles 

are set in bedrock and will be removed 

at low tide using standard excavation 

equipment. Therefore, removal of these 

piles will not produce underwater 

noise. The construction contractor 

would determine the exact method for 

concrete pile removal. 

The existing deck and other 

associated infrastructure would also be 

disassembled and removed. The existing 

4-ton pedestal crane would be salvaged 

for relocation on the new dock. As 

necessary, portions of the existing 

rubble mound/breakwater would be 

removed to provide enough clearance 

for construction and then replaced once 

the dock has been constructed. 

TABLE 1—EXISTING PILES TO BE

REMOVED

Pile type Quantity Size 

(in) 

Concrete ................... 3 24 

Steel .......................... 14 8 

8 10 

14 12.75 

Timber ....................... 7 14 (1) 

Total ................... 46 

1 tapering to 8. 

Facilities for the new dock consist of 

three main structures: A barge landing 

platform, a dock/trestle, and two 

dolphin fenders located near the dock 

outer corners (Figure 1–4 of the FAA’s 

application). For these structures, 

temporary piles would be installed to 

form a scaffold system (i.e., a template) 

that permits the permanent piles to be 

aligned and controlled. With the 

exception of the temporary piles, which 

are driven exclusively by vibratory pile 

driving, the installation of all permanent 

piles requires a combination of pile 

driving methods. 

Construction of the new dock would 

begin with the erection of a temporary 

template. The construction contractor 

would determine the specific type and 

size of template piles based on site 

conditions and availability of materials. 

The template piles would be driven into 

the overburden by vibratory hammer 

and removed after the permanent piles 

are installed. Table 2 shows the 

anticipated number of template piles for 

the Project. 

The new trestle approach would be 

up to 25-ft wide. An 80-ft aluminum 

gangway connecting to a 15-ft wide by 

32-ft long small craft berthing float 

would also be constructed (see Figure 

1–4 of the FAA’s application). The face 

of the dock would be approximately 54- 

ft long and 35-ft wide. Similar to the 

trestle, steel pipe pilings would support 

a precast concrete deck. Two berthing 

dolphin fenders would be installed, one 

at each end section of the new dock. 

These dolphins each consist of one 30- 

in diameter plumb pile and two 18-in 

diameter batter piles. Some piles would 

require internal tension anchors for 

increased support. A wave barrier, 

consisting of Z-sheet piles in between 

steel H piles, would be installed at the 

face of the dock. Pile counts, sizes, and 

other details are shown in Table 2. 

All permanent pipe piles would be 

installed using a combination of 

vibratory and impact hammering 

methods to drive the pile into the 

overburden. Pipe piles would then be 

drilled and socketed into the underlying 

bedrock using DTH hammering/drilling 

techniques. DTH equipment breaks up 

the rock below the pile while 

simultaneously installing the pile 

through rock formation. The pile is then 

set/confirmed with a few strikes of an 

impact hammer. Sheet piles would be 

driven into the overburden and set into 

the top layer of bedrock using a 

combination of vibratory and impact 

hammering. 

Certain piles would require internal 

tension anchors. Up to eight of the dock 

piles and all six piles for the dolphins 

would require these internal tension 

anchors. Each pile with a tension 

anchor would first be drilled, socketed 

into bedrock, and proof driven with an 

impact hammer as described above for 

permanent piles. Then a separate 

smaller drill would be used to complete 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41231 

an approximately 5-in diameter hole 

extending about 30- to 40-ft into 

bedrock below the tip of the pile. A steel 

bar would be grouted into this hole. 

Once the grout sets, a jack would be 

applied to the top of the bar and the 

tensioned rod would be locked off to 

plates at the top of the pile. 

The wave barrier consisting of steel H 

piles with Z sheets in between is located 

at the face of the dock. The H piles and 

Z sheets would be initially driven 

through overlying sediment with a 

vibratory hammer, and set into the 

bedrock with an impact hammer. The 

wave barrier sheet piling would be 

driven either singly or in preassembled 

pairs. 

The current barge landing is located 

northwest of the existing dock and is 

comprised of gravel and cobbles with no 

formal structure. The uplands area on 

the west end of the trestle would be 

slightly graded into the existing 

terrestrial approach. The existing barge 

landing would be upgraded to a 30-ft by 

90-ft precast concrete plank landing 

placed over fill, with a perimeter 

constructed of concrete, sheet piles, and 

18-in steel piles (see Table 2). Similar to 

the wave barrier, the sequence for 

installing the permanent barge ramp 

pipe piles would begin with 

advancement through overlying 

sediment with a vibratory hammer, 

followed by use of an impact hammer to 

drive the piles into bedrock. 

TABLE 2—TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT PILE DETAILS

Component Stage Type Quantity Size 

Dock 1 2 ............................................. Template 3 ....................................... Steel H or pipe ................................ 60 12 in. 

Permanent ....................................... Steel pipe ........................................ 43 18 in. 

Wave Barrier .................................... Permanent ....................................... Sheet ............................................... 32 NZ 26. 

Permanent ....................................... Steel H ............................................. 16 W40 x 199. 

Dolphin Fenders 4 ............................. Template 3 ....................................... Steel H or pipe ................................ 4 12 in. 

Permanent ....................................... Steel pipe ........................................ 4 18 in. 

Permanent ....................................... Steel pipe ........................................ 2 30 in. 

Barge Landing .................................. Template 3 ....................................... Steel H or pipe ................................ 20 12 in. 

Permanent ....................................... Steel pipe ........................................ 35 18 in. 

Permanent ....................................... Sheet ............................................... 34 NZ 26. 

Total .......................................... Template 3 ....................................... .......................................................... 84 

Permanent ....................................... .......................................................... 166 

1 Includes piles for the approach, end section, platform, and floating dock. 

2 Number of piles for dock is based on 25-ft approach trestle width. 

3 Noise from installation and removal of the template piles is considered in the analysis, therefore template pile count equates to two times 84 

or 168 but the actual number of piles to be installed is 84. Template piles were assumed to be 12-in. diameter for modeling. 4For two dolphin fender systems. 

Vibratory hammers are commonly 

used in steel pile driving or removal 

where sediments allow. Generally, the 

pile is placed into position using a 

choker and crane, and then vibrated 

between 1,200 and 2,400 vibrations per 

minute. The vibrations liquefy the 

sediment surrounding the pile allowing 

it to penetrate to the required seating 

depth, or to be removed. 

Impact hammers are used to install 

plastic/steel core, wood, concrete, or 

steel piles. An impact hammer is a steel 

device that works like a piston. The pile 

is first moved into position and set in 

the proper location using a choker cable 

or vibratory hammer. The impact 

hammer is held in place by a guide 

(lead) that aligns the hammer with the 

pile. A heavy piston moves up and 

down, striking the top of the pile and 

driving it into the substrate. Once the 

pile is set in place, pile installation with 

an impact hammer can take less than 15 

minutes under good substrate 

conditions. However, under poor 

conditions, such as glacial till and 

bedrock or exceptionally loose material, 

piles can take longer to set. 

The DTH drill/hammer acts on a shoe 

at the bottom of the pile and uses a 

pulsing mechanism to break up rock 

below the pile while simultaneously 

installing the pile through the rock 

formation. Rotating bit wings extend 

below the pile and remove the broken 

rock fragments as the pile advances. The 

pulsing sounds produced by the DTH 

hydro-hammer method reduces sound 

attenuation because the noise is 

primarily contained within the steel pile 

and below ground rather than impact 

hammer driving methods which occur 

at the top of the pile (R&M 2016). 

Therefore, the pulsing sounds produced 

by this method are considered less 

harmful than those produced by impact 

hammer driving. Table 3 provides a 

summary of the six methods of 

construction (‘‘scenarios’’) used in the 

modeling of the zone of influence (ZOI)s 

for the Biorka Project. 

TABLE 3—PILE DRIVING MODELING SCENARIOS FOR THE BIORKA PROJECT

Scenario Description 

Piles 

installed 

per day 

Vibratory DTH Impact 

Shift 

(hr) Hours 

per 

pile 

Total 

hours 

per day 

Hours 

per 

pile 

Total 

ours 

per day 

Hours 

per 

pile 

Total 

strikes 

per day 

S1 .......... Removal of existing piles and installation/removal 

of temporary piles.

21 0.33 6.93 NA1 NA 6.93 

S2 .......... Installation of 18-inch pipe piles (dock and dolphin) 3 ............ 0.99 2 6 0.17 15 7.49 

S3 .......... Installation of 18-inch pipe piles (barge landing) ..... 4 ............ 1.32 NA 0.33 2720 2.65 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41232 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

TABLE 3—PILE DRIVING MODELING SCENARIOS FOR THE BIORKA PROJECT—Continued 

Scenario Description 

Piles 

installed 

per day 

Vibratory DTH Impact 

Shift 

(hr) Hours 

per 

pile 

Total 

hours 

per day 

Hours 

per 

pile 

Total 

ours 

per day 

Hours 

per 

pile 

Total 

strikes 

per day 

S4 .......... Installation of 30-inch pipe piles (dolphins) ............. 2 ............ 0.66 2 4 0.17 10 4.99 

S5 .......... Installation of H piles (dock wave barrier) ............... 8 ............ 2.64 NA 0.33 5440 5.31 

S6 .......... Installation of sheet piles (dock wave barrier and 

barge landing).

12 ............ 3.96 NA 0.25 6120 6.96 

1 NA indicates when a pile driving method was not required in a given scenario. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

There are five marine mammal 

species that may likely transit through 

the waters nearby the Project area, and 

are expected to potentially be taken by 

the specified activity. These include the 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), 

harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), killer 

whale (Orcinus orca), and humpback 

whale (Megaptera noviaeangliae). 

Multiple additional marine mammal 

species may occasionally enter Sitka 

sound but would not be expected to 

occur in shallow nearshore waters of the 

action area. 

Sections 3 and 4 of the FAA’s 

application summarize available 

information regarding status and trends, 

distribution and habitat preferences, 

and behavior and life history, of the 

potentially affected species. Additional 

information regarding population trends 

and threats may be found in NMFS’s 

Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/) and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

species/mammals/). 

Table 4 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in Symonds 

Bay and Sitka Sound and summarizes 

information related to the population or 

stock, including potential biological 

removal (PBR), where known. For 

taxonomy, we follow Committee on 

Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the 

MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’s SARs). While no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality are included here as gross 

indicators of the status of the species 

and other threats. 

Species that could potentially occur 

in the proposed survey areas, but are not 

expected to have reasonable potential to 

be harassed by in-water construction, 

are described briefly but omitted from 

further analysis. These include 

extralimital species, which are species 

that do not normally occur in a given 

area but for which there are one or more 

occurrence records that are considered 

beyond the normal range of the species. 

Gray whales are observed in and outside 

of Sitka Sound during their northward 

spring migration; however, they occur 

generally north and west of the Project 

area in outer shelf waters of Sitka Sound 

near Kruzof Island during the 

construction window. Dall’s porpoise 

are observed in mid- to outer-shelf 

coastal waters of Sitka Sound ranging to 

the Gulf of Alaska and are not expected 

to occur in the Project area during the 

construction window. Pacific whitesided dolphins occur in the outer-shelf 

slope in the Gulf of Alaska, which is 

outside of the Project area. During the 

construction window, they are 

considered rare in Sitka Sound. Sperm 

whales generally occur in deeper waters 

in the Gulf of Alaska, which is outside 

of the Project area. We do not anticipate 

gray whales, Dall’s porpoise, Pacific 

white-sided dolphins, or sperm whales 

to be affected by Project activities; 

therefore, we do not discuss these 

species further. For status of species, we 

provide information regarding U.S. 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

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 area. NMFS’s stock abundance 

estimates for most species represent the 

total estimate of individuals within the 

geographic area, if known, that 

comprises that stock. For some species, 

this geographic area may extend beyond 

U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this 

region are assessed in NMFS’s U.S. 

Pacific SARs (Muto et al., 2017). All 

values presented in Table 4 are the most 

recent available at the time of 

publication and are available in the 

2016 SARs (Muto et al., 2017). 

TABLE 4—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF BIORKA ISLAND

Species Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, 

most recent 

abundance 

survey) 2

PBR 3 Annual 

M/SI 4

Relative occurrence 

in Symonds Bay 

and Sitka Sound; 

season of occurrence 

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

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

Harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena).

Southeast Alaska .......... -; Y 11,146 (0.242; n/a; 

1997).

Undet. 34 Common. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41233 

TABLE 4—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF BIORKA ISLAND—Continued 

Species Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, 

most recent 

abundance 

survey) 2

PBR 3 Annual 

M/SI 4

Relative occurrence 

in Symonds Bay 

and Sitka Sound; 

season of occurrence 

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

Family Delphinidae (dolphins) 

Killer whale (Orcinus 

orca).

Eastern North Pacific 

Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Island, and Bering Sea Transient.

-; N 587 (n/a; 587; 2012) ..... 0 0 Infrequent. 

West Coast Transient ... -; N 243 (n/a; 243; 2009) ..... 2.4 0 

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenopteridae 

Humpback whale 5

(Megaptera 

novaeangliae).

Central North Pacific 

stock.

-; Y 10,103 (0.300; 7,890; 

2006).

83 24 Likely. 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

Steller sea lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus).

Western ......................... E; Y 49,497 (n/a; 49,497; 

2014).

297 236 Common. 

Eastern .......................... -; N 60,131 (n/a; 36,551; 

2013).

1,645 108 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina).

Sitka/Chatham .............. -; N 14,855 (n/a; 13,212; 

2011).

155 77 Common. 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Yes (Y), No (N), Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/Marine Mammal Protection Act (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 (see footnote 3) 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 CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks, 

abundance estimates are actual counts of animals and there is no associated CV. The most recent abundance survey that is reflected in the 

abundance estimate is presented; there may be more recent surveys that have not yet been incorporated into the estimate. 3Potential biological removal, 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 size (OSP). 4These 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 M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or 

range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 5The humpback whales considered under the MMPA to be part of this stock could be from any of two different DPSs. In Alaska, it would be 

expected to primarily be whales from the Hawaii DPS but could also be whales from Mexico DPS. 

Below, for those species that are likely 

to be taken by the activities described, 

we offer a brief introduction to the 

species and relevant stock. We also 

provide information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

describe any information regarding local 

occurrence. 

In Southeast Alaska, marine mammal 

distributions and seasonal increases in 

their abundance are strongly influenced 

by seasonal pre-spawning and spawning 

aggregations of forage fish, particularly 

Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), 

eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) and 

Pacific salmon (Onchorynchus spp.) 

(Marston et al., 2002, Sigler et al., 2004, 

Womble et al., 2005; USACE 2013). All 

five species of salmon are found in Sitka 

Sound and are preyed upon by Steller 

sea lions, harbor seals, and killer 

whales. However, there are no salmon 

spawning streams in the vicinity of the 

Project or presence of eulachon or 

herring during the construction time 

period that would tend to aggregate 

foraging marine mammals. 

Herring are the keystone species in 

Southeast Alaska, especially Sitka 

Sound, serving as a vital link between 

lower trophic levels, including 

crustaceans and small fish, and higher 

trophic levels (NMFS 2014a). Foraging 

studies of Steller sea lions suggest that 

during their non-breeding season, they 

forage on seasonally densely aggregated 

prey (Sinclair and Zepplin 2002). In 

southeast Alaska, Pacific herring 

typically spawn from March to May and 

attract large numbers of predators 

(Marston et al., 2002, Womble 2003). 

The relationship between humpback 

whales and Steller sea lions and these 

ephemeral fish runs is so strong in Sitka 

Sound that the seasonal abundance and 

distribution of marine mammals reflects 

the distribution of pre-spawning and 

spawning herring, and overwintering 

aggregations of adult herring in Sitka 

Sound. The largest aggregations of 

several species of marine mammals in 

the Action Area target Pacific herring 

during spring and again in late fall 

through the winter. Pacific herring are 

largely absent from Sitka Sound and the 

Action Area from May, following 

spawning season, until at least October, 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41234 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

prior to adult overwintering in Sitka 

Sound (NMFS 2014a). 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions are divided in to two 

distinct population segments (DPSs): 

The western DPS (wDPS) and the 

eastern DPS (eDPS). The wDPS is listed 

as endangered under the ESA. The 

wDPS breeds on rookeries located west 

of 144° W. in Alaska and Russia, 

whereas the eDPS breeds on rookeries in 

southeast Alaska through California. 

The majority of Steller sea lions are part 

of the non-listed eDPS. The best 

available information indicates the 

eDPS has increased at a rate of 4.18 

percent per year between 1979 and 2010 

(Allen and Angliss 2014). Steller sea 

lions range from the North Pacific Rim 

from northern Japan to California, with 

centers of abundance located in the Gulf 

of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. Large 

numbers of individuals disperse widely 

outside of the breeding season (late May 

to early July), thus potentially 

intermixing with animals from other 

areas to access seasonally important 

prey resources (Allen and Angliss 2014). 

The distinction between western and 

eastern DPS individuals cannot be 

confirmed unless an animal has been 

marked, and since guidance on how to 

otherwise distinguish between the two 

DPSs is not available, for this IHA it is 

assumed that 50 percent of the Steller 

sea lions observed in the Project area are 

from each DPS. 

Critical habitat for Steller sea lions 

includes designated haulouts within the 

range of the eDPS, and all marine waters 

within 20 nautical miles of rookeries 

and haulouts within the breeding range 

of the wDPS and within three special 

aquatic foraging areas in Alaska (NMFS 

1993). In identifying aquatic habitats as 

part of critical habitat, NMFS 

specifically highlighted several 

components of such habitats: Nearshore 

waters around rookeries and haulouts; 

traditional rafting sites; food resources; 

and foraging habitats. Adequate food 

resources are an essential feature of the 

Steller sea lion’s aquatic habitat (NMFS 

1993). The closest haulout/rookery to 

the Project area that has been designated 

as a Steller sea lion critical habitat is 

listed as ‘‘Biorka Island’’ in the critical 

habitat descriptions. However, the 

haulout is actually on Kaiuchali Island, 

a three-acre rocky islet located slightly 

less than one mile southwest of Biorka 

Island, outside of the ZOI for this 

project. 

This species occurs in coastal and 

nearshore habitats of Sitka Sound, and 

forage on herring and salmon 

throughout the Sound. Both DPSs occur 

in the Project area on a year-round basis. 

Kaiuchali Island is used as a sea lion 

rookery in spring-summer and as a 

haulout during the non-breeding 

seasons (Fritz et al. 2016). Based on 

results of recent aerial surveys, there has 

been an increase of sea lions that use 

Kaiuchali Island during both the 

breeding and non-breeding seasons. In 

June 2013, Fritz et al., (2016) 

documented 22 individuals, none of 

which were pups. In June 2015, the 

same study recorded 77 Steller sea 

lions, including one pup. This limited 

information shows an increase in the 

numbers of animals at this location and 

indicates that the site has become a 

recently-established eDPS rookery. 

The breeding season for Steller sea 

lions does not overlap with proposed 

summer construction activity at the 

Project site, and the location of the 

rookery at Kaiuchali Island is outside 

the Project area, opposite Biorka Island. 

The late fall and overwintering 

aggregation of adult herring results in 

hundreds of animals using Kaiuchali 

Island as a haulout during this period; 

however, the construction period for the 

proposed Project would not overlap 

with the overwintering aggregations of 

sea lions. Steller sea lions are present in 

Sitka Sound in very low numbers over 

the summer months when construction 

is planned, during the interval between 

herring spawning and the return of 

adult herring to Sitka Sound. Prey 

availability for Steller sea lions in Sitka 

Sound is limited during this period as 

compared to other seasons, and they are 

generally only observed by the whale 

watch industry as individuals or in 

small groups of three to five animals. 

During this period, sea lions tend to 

forage in the vicinity of recreational and 

commercial fishing vessels, or scavenge 

in very shallow waters near the Sitka 

town docks when the vessels return 

from fishing. 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and 

estuarine waters off Alaska. Harbor seals 

in Southeast Alaska are considered nonmigratory with local movements 

attributed to factors such as prey 

availability, weather, and reproduction. 

In 2010, NMFS identified 12 stocks of 

harbor seals in Alaska based on genetic 

structure (Allen and Angliss 2015). The 

Sitka/Chatham (S/C) stock is genetically 

distinct and believed to be year-round 

residents of the region. Although 

generally solitary in the water, harbor 

seals congregate at haulouts to rest, 

socialize, breed, and molt. Habitats used 

as haul-out sites include tidal rocks, 

bayflats, sandbars, and sandy beaches 

(Zeiner et al., 1990). 

Harbor seals are opportunistic feeders 

that forage on fish and invertebrates and 

often adjust their distribution to take 

advantage of locally and seasonally 

abundant prey. Aggregations of adult 

herring during spring pre-spawning and 

spawning runs, and again from October 

throughout the winter, are a very 

important seasonal prey species for 

harbor seals in Sitka Sound. The 

minimum count of harbor seals within 

Sitka Sound during the 2011 aerial 

survey was approximately 900 

individuals occupying 25 haulout 

locations (unpublished data from MML 

dataset). The largest count of seals in 

Sitka Sound (n = 745) during the 2011 

survey occurred at several adjacent 

rocky outcroppings and islands (Vitskari 

Rocks, Vitskari Island and Low Island) 

located approximately 15 miles (24 km) 

north of the Project site in northcentral 

Sitka Sound inside Kruzof Island. This 

is outside of the Project Area. Prey 

species moving into Sitka Sound from 

the Gulf of Alaska move past these 

islands so pinnipeds aggregate at these 

rocks to forage. There are six haul-out 

locations identified in the extreme 

southern portion of the Sitka Sound, 

and potentially in the Project Area, 

including rocky outcroppings near 

Biorka Island, where seals have been 

observed in low numbers. Prey 

resources inside Symonds Bay are 

limited, particularly when compared to 

the northern coastal areas of Sitka 

Sound. While individual seals may 

occur in Symonds Bay, it is unlikely 

that seals would be attracted to 

Symonds Bay to forage. While their 

occurrence in the Action Area is 

possible, it is infrequent to uncommon 

and only small numbers of 

approximately five animals per day are 

expected to potentially be in the Project 

area during the construction window. 

Harbor Porpoise 

In the Pacific, harbor porpoise are 

found in coastal and inland waters from 

Point Conception, California to Alaska 

and across to Kamchatka and Japan 

(Gaskin 1984). Harbor porpoise appear 

to have more restricted movements 

along the western coast of the 

continental U.S. than along the eastern 

coast. In the Gulf of Alaska and 

Southeast Alaska they are observed 

most frequently in waters less than 350 

ft (107 m) deep (Dahlheim et al., 2009). 

There are three harbor porpoise stocks 

in Alaska: The Bering Sea Stock; the 

Southeast Alaska Stock; and the Gulf of 

Alaska Stock (Angliss and Allen 2015). 

Only the Southeast Alaska stock occurs 

in the Project area. The mean group size 

of harbor porpoise in Southeast Alaska 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41235 

is estimated at two to three individuals 

(Dahlheim et al., 2009). 

This species can be found in Sitka 

Sound throughout the year but 

individuals are infrequently observed 

during the summer months by the whale 

watching industry. Harbor porpoise are 

infrequently observed in nearshore Sitka 

Sound areas in summer by hikers on the 

coastal trails that parallel the coastline 

near Sitka. At times throughout the year, 

they likely forage exclusively on herring 

and may be more abundant when 

herring are present. During surveys for 

seabirds, marine mammals and forage 

fish conducted in Sitka Sound during 

July 2000, relatively few marine 

mammals were observed during this 

period. However, one harbor porpoise 

was observed in coastal/shelf waters of 

northeast Sitka Sound (Piatt and Dragoo 

2005). 

Killer Whale 

Killer whales are found throughout 

the North Pacific. Along the west coast 

of North America, killer whales occur 

along the entire Alaskan coast, in British 

Columbia and Washington inland 

waterways, and along the outer coasts of 

Washington, Oregon, and California 

(Allen and Angliss 2014). Seasonal and 

year-round occurrence has been 

documented for killer whales 

throughout Alaska and in the intracoastal waterways of British Columbia 

and Washington State. 

Killer whales that are observed in 

Southeast Alaska could belong to one of 

three different stocks: Eastern North 

Pacific Northern Resident Stock 

(Northern residents); Gulf of Alaska, 

Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea 

Transient Stock (Gulf of Alaska 

transients); or West Coast Transient 

Stock. The Gulf of Alaska Transient 

Stock occupies a range that includes 

southeastern Alaska. Resident killer 

whales do not occur in Sitka Sound. 

However, transient killer whales from 

either the Gulf of Alaska transient group 

or West Coast Transient Stock have been 

observed in the sound. These whales are 

observed infrequently during summer 

months with five to six sightings noted 

throughout the summer by the whalewatching industry. Dahlheim et al. 

(2009) found that transient killer whale 

mean group size ranged from four to six 

individuals in Southeast Alaska. 

Generally, transient killer whales follow 

movements of, and prey on, Steller sea 

lions and harbor seals. Killer whales 

have been observed in the waters 

outside of Sitka Sound near the 

haulouts at Kaiuchali Island and outside 

of Kruzof Island when sea lions are 

present. This behavioral distribution is 

characteristic of killer whales and 

consistent with killer whale sightings 

around other Steller sea lion haul-out 

locations in southeast Alaska (Dahlheim 

et al., 2009). Given the low numbers of 

Steller sea lions in Sitka Sound during 

summer, it is consistent that transient 

killer whales would be considered 

infrequent to uncommon in the Project 

area during these months. 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales were listed as 

endangered under the ESA in 1970. As 

a result of the ESA listing, the central 

North Pacific Stock of humpback whale 

was also designated as depleted under 

the MMPA. The humpback whale is also 

considered a strategic stock under the 

MMPA. NMFS proposed a revised 

species-wide listing of the humpback 

whale in 2015 and a revision to the 

status of humpback whale DPSs was 

finalized by NMFS on September 8, 

2016 (NMFS 2016b), effective October 

11, 2016. In the final decision, NMFS 

recognized the existence of 14 DPSs, 

classified four of those as endangered 

and one as threatened, and determined 

that the remaining nine DPSs do not 

warrant protection under the ESA. 

Three DPSs of humpback whales occur 

in waters off the coast of Alaska: The 

endangered Western North Pacific 

(WNP) DPS, the threatened Mexico DPS, 

and the Hawaii DPS, which is not listed 

under the ESA. Humpback whales in 

Southeast Alaska are most likely to be 

from the Hawaii DPS (93.9 percent 

probability) (Wade et al., 2016). 

The humpback whales of Southeast 

Alaska and Northern British Columbia 

form a genetically discrete feeding 

aggregation and return to specific 

feeding locations in southeast Alaska 

including Sitka Sound. Humpback 

whale seasonal distribution varies from 

infrequent (very low in number during 

summer), to common (very abundant 

during late fall through spring). 

Humpback whales are most abundant in 

Sitka Sound from late fall through April 

when they forage on large densities of 

herring (Liddle et al., 2015a). The 

seasonal increase in whale abundance 

corresponds to increases in Pacific 

herring biomass during pre-spawning, 

spawning and overwintering periods 

(Liddle et al., 2015b). Whales feed on 

large schools of adult, over-wintering 

herring throughout winter, and on prespawning and spawning aggregations of 

herring in spring. Sitka Sound is 

believed to be a last feeding stop for 

humpback whales as they migrate to 

winter breeding and calving waters in 

Hawaii. During winter months, groups 

of 30 to 40 humpback whales have been 

observed by the whale watching 

industry from the coastline of Sitka 

Sound. However, humpback whales 

stagger their departure from the feeding 

grounds, suggesting they also stagger 

their return. This could create the 

impression that whales had been 

present throughout the entire winter in 

the sound when it is unlikely that any 

individual whale remains in Sitka 

Sound throughout the entire winter 

(Heintz et al., 2010). The abundance of 

humpbacks in Sitka Sound changes by 

several orders of magnitude from one 

season to another in response to dense 

schools of herring in the sound (Liddle 

et al., 2015b). They are generally present 

in large numbers from late fall-early 

winter through mid- to late-spring, but 

are infrequent to uncommon during the 

mid-summer months when herring are 

absent. During mid-summer, tour boat 

operators generally observe four to five 

whales per day near rocky islets in the 

middle of Sitka Sound. 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals and Their 

Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity (e.g., sound 

produced by pile driving and removal) 

may impact marine mammals and their 

habitat. The Estimated Take by 

Incidental Harassment section later in 

this document will include a 

quantitative analysis of the number of 

individuals that are expected to be taken 

by this activity. The Negligible Impact 

Analysis section will consider the 

content of this section, the Estimated 

Take by Incidental Harassment section 

and the Proposed Mitigation section, to 

draw conclusions regarding the likely 

impacts of these activities on the 

reproductive success or survivorship of 

individuals and how those impacts on 

individuals are likely to impact marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Description of Sound Sources 

Sound travels in waves, the basic 

components of which are frequency, 

wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. 

Frequency is the number of pressure 

waves that pass by a reference point per 

unit of time and is measured in hertz 

(Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is 

the distance between two peaks of a 

sound wave; lower frequency sounds 

have longer wavelengths than higher 

frequency sounds. Amplitude is the 

height of the sound pressure wave or the 

‘loudness’ of a sound and is typically 

measured using the decibel (dB) scale. 

A dB is the ratio between a measured 

pressure (with sound) and a reference 

pressure (sound at a constant pressure, 

established by scientific standards). It is 

a logarithmic unit that accounts for large 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41236 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

variations in amplitude; therefore, 

relatively small changes in dB ratings 

correspond to large changes in sound 

pressure. When referring to sound 

pressure levels (SPLs; the sound force 

per unit area), sound is referenced in the 

context of underwater sound pressure to 

1 microPascal (mPa). One pascal is the 

pressure resulting from a force of one 

newton exerted over an area of one 

square meter. The source level (SL) 

represents the sound level at a distance 

of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 

mPa). The received level is the sound 

level at the listener’s position. Note that 

all underwater sound levels in this 

document are referenced to a pressure of 

1 mPa and all airborne sound levels in 

this document are referenced to a 

pressure of 20 mPa. 

Root mean square (rms) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. Rms is 

calculated by squaring all of the sound 

amplitudes, averaging the squares, and 

then taking the square root of the 

average (Urick 1983). Rms accounts for 

both positive and negative values; 

squaring the pressures makes all values 

positive so that they may be accounted 

for in the summation of pressure levels 

(Hastings and Popper 2005). This 

measurement is often used in the 

context of discussing behavioral effects, 

in part because behavioral effects, 

which often result from auditory cues, 

may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak pressures. 

When underwater objects vibrate or 

activity occurs, sound-pressure waves 

are created. These waves alternately 

compress and decompress the water as 

the sound wave travels. Underwater 

sound waves radiate in all directions 

away from the source (similar to ripples 

on the surface of a pond), except in 

cases where the source is directional. 

The compressions and decompressions 

associated with sound waves are 

detected as changes in pressure by 

aquatic life and man-made sound 

receptors such as hydrophones. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is typically loud due to 

ambient sound. Ambient sound is 

defined as environmental background 

sound levels lacking a single source or 

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

sound level of a region is defined by the 

total acoustical energy being generated 

by known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric 

sound), biological (e.g., sounds 

produced by marine mammals, fish, and 

invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound 

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

construction). A number of sources 

contribute to ambient sound, including 

the following (Richardson et al., 1995): 

• Wind and waves: The complex 

interactions between wind and water 

surface, including processes such as 

breaking waves and wave-induced 

bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a 

main source of naturally occurring 

ambient noise for frequencies between 

200 Hz and 50 kilohertz (kHz) (Mitson 

1995). In general, ambient sound levels 

tend to increase with increasing wind 

speed and wave height. Surf noise 

becomes important near shore, with 

measurements collected at a distance of 

8.5 km from shore showing an increase 

of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band 

during heavy surf conditions. 

• Precipitation: Sound from rain and 

hail impacting the water surface can 

become an important component of total 

noise at frequencies above 500 Hz, and 

possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 

times. 

• Biological: Marine mammals can 

contribute significantly to ambient noise 

levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The 

frequency band for biological 

contributions is from approximately 12 

Hz to over 100 kHz. 

• Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient 

noise related to human activity include 

transportation (surface vessels and 

aircraft), dredging and construction, oil 

and gas drilling and production, seismic 

surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean 

acoustic studies. Shipping noise 

typically dominates the total ambient 

noise for frequencies between 20 and 

300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of 

anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz 

and, if higher frequency sound levels 

are created, they attenuate rapidly 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from 

identifiable anthropogenic sources other 

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

passing vessel) is sometimes termed 

background sound, as opposed to 

ambient sound. 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

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

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and shipping activity) but 

also on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

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

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the Project would 

include impact pile driving, vibratory 

pile driving and removal, and DTH 

drilling. The sounds produced by these 

activities fall into one of two general 

sound types: Pulsed and non-pulsed 

(defined in the following). The 

distinction between these two sound 

types is important because they have 

differing potential to cause physical 

effects, particularly with regard to 

hearing (e.g., Ward 1997 in Southall et 

al., 2007). Please see Southall et al., 

(2007) for an in-depth discussion of 

these concepts. 

Pulsed sound sources (e.g., 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) produce signals 

that are brief (typically considered to be 

less than one second), broadband, atonal 

transients (ANSI 1986; Harris 1998; 

NIOSH 1998; ISO 2003; ANSI 2005) and 

occur either as isolated events or 

repeated in some succession. Pulsed 

sounds are all characterized by a 

relatively rapid rise from ambient 

pressure to a maximal pressure value 

followed by a rapid decay period that 

may include a period of diminishing, 

oscillating maximal and minimal 

pressures, and generally have an 

increased capacity to induce physical 

injury as compared with sounds that 

lack these features. 

Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, 

narrowband, or broadband, brief or 

prolonged, and may be either 

continuous or non-continuous (ANSI 

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

of short duration but without the 

essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid 

rise time). Examples of non-pulsed 

sounds include those produced by 

vessels, aircraft, machinery operations 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems 

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

The duration of such sounds, as 

received at a distance, can be greatly 

extended in a highly reverberant 

environment. 

Impact hammers operate by 

repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto 

a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. 

Sound generated by impact hammers is 

characterized by rapid rise times and 

high peak levels, a potentially injurious 

combination (Hastings and Popper 

2005). Vibratory hammers install piles 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41237 

by vibrating them and allowing the 

weight of the hammer to push them into 

the sediment. Vibratory hammers 

produce significantly less sound than 

impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be 180 

dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 

dB lower than SPLs generated during 

impact pile driving of the same-sized 

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

slower, reducing the probability and 

severity of injury, and sound energy is 

distributed over a greater amount of 

time (Nedwell and Edwards 2002; 

Carlson et al., 2005). 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals, and 

exposure to sound can have deleterious 

effects. To appropriately assess these 

potential effects, 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 measured or 

estimated hearing ranges on the basis of 

available behavioral data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. The lower and/or upper 

frequencies for some of these functional 

hearing groups have been modified from 

those designated by Southall et al. 

(2007). The marine mammal hearing 

groups and the associated frequencies 

are indicated below in Table 5 (note that 

these frequency ranges do not 

necessarily correspond to the range of 

best hearing, which varies by species). 

TABLE 5—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING

GROUPS AND THEIR GENERALIZED

HEARING RANGE

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, cephalorhynchid, 

Lagenorhynchus cruciger and 

L. australis).

275 Hz to 

160 kHz. 

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

86 kHz. 

TABLE 5—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING

GROUPS AND THEIR GENERALIZED

HEARING RANGE—Continued 

Hearing group 

Generalized 

hearing 

range * 

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 pinniped (approximation). 

As mentioned previously in this 

document, five marine mammal species 

(three cetaceans and two pinnipeds) 

may occur in the Project area. Of these 

three cetaceans, one is classified as a 

low-frequency cetacean (i.e. humpback 

whale), one is classified as a midfrequency cetacean (i.e., killer whale), 

and one is classified as a high-frequency 

cetacean (i.e., harbor porpoise) (Southall 

et al., 2007). Additionally, harbor seals 

are classified as members of the phocid 

pinnipeds in water functional hearing 

group, while Steller sea lions are 

grouped under the Otariid pinnipeds in 

water functional hearing group. A 

species’ functional hearing group is a 

consideration when we analyze the 

effects of exposure to sound on marine 

mammals. 

Acoustic Impacts 

Please refer to the information given 

previously (Description of Sound 

Sources) regarding sound, 

characteristics of sound types, and 

metrics used in this document. 

Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad 

range of frequencies and sound levels 

and can have a range of highly variable 

impacts on marine life, from none or 

minor to potentially severe responses, 

depending on received levels, duration 

of exposure, behavioral context, and 

various other factors. The potential 

effects of underwater sound from active 

acoustic sources can potentially result 

in one or more of the following; 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment, non-auditory physical or 

physiological effects, behavioral 

disturbance, stress, and masking 

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

2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et 

al., 2007; Gotz et al., 2009). The degree 

of effect is intrinsically related to the 

signal characteristics, received level, 

distance from the source, and duration 

of the sound exposure. In general, 

sudden, high level sounds can cause 

hearing loss, as can longer exposures to 

lower level sounds. Temporary or 

permanent loss of hearing will occur 

almost exclusively for noise within an 

animal’s hearing range. We first describe 

specific manifestations of acoustic 

effects before providing discussion 

specific to the FAA’s construction 

activities. 

Richardson et al. (1995) described 

zones of increasing intensity of effect 

that might be expected to occur, in 

relation to distance from a source and 

assuming that the signal is within an 

animal’s hearing range. First is the area 

within which the acoustic signal would 

be audible (potentially perceived) to the 

animal, but not strong enough to elicit 

any overt behavioral or physiological 

response. The next zone corresponds 

with the area where the signal is audible 

to the animal and of sufficient intensity 

to elicit behavioral or physiological 

responsiveness. Third is a zone within 

which, for signals of high intensity, the 

received level is sufficient to potentially 

cause discomfort or tissue damage to 

auditory or other systems. Overlaying 

these zones to a certain extent is the 

area within which masking (i.e., when a 

sound interferes with or masks the 

ability of an animal to detect a signal of 

interest that is above the absolute 

hearing threshold) may occur; the 

masking zone may be highly variable in 

size. 

We describe the more severe effects 

(i.e., permanent hearing impairment, 

certain non-auditory physical or 

physiological effects) only briefly as we 

do not expect that there is a reasonable 

likelihood that the FAA’s activities may 

result in such effects (see below for 

further discussion). Marine mammals 

exposed to high-intensity sound, or to 

lower-intensity sound for prolonged 

periods, can experience hearing 

threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of 

hearing sensitivity at certain frequency 

ranges (Kastak et al., 1999; Schlundt et 

al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002, 2005b). 

TS can be permanent (PTS), in which 

case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not 

fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in 

which case the animal’s hearing 

threshold would recover over time 

(Southall et al., 2007). Repeated sound 

exposure that leads to TTS could cause 

PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can 

be total or partial deafness, while in 

most cases the animal has an impaired 

ability to hear sounds in specific 

frequency ranges (Kryter 1985). 

When PTS occurs, there is physical 

damage to the sound receptors in the ear 

(i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS 

represents primarily tissue fatigue and 

is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41238 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

addition, other investigators have 

suggested that TTS is within the normal 

bounds of physiological variability and 

tolerance and does not represent 

physical injury (e.g., Ward 1997). 

Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS 

to constitute auditory injury. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals—PTS data exists only 

for a single harbor seal (Kastak et al., 

2008)—but are assumed to be similar to 

those in humans and other terrestrial 

mammals. PTS typically occurs at 

exposure levels at least several dB above 

a 40-dB threshold shift approximates 

PTS onset; (e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; 

Miller, 1974) that inducing mild TTS (a 

6-dB threshold shift approximates TTS 

onset; e.g., Southall et al., 2007). Based 

on data from terrestrial mammals, a 

precautionary assumption is that the 

PTS thresholds for impulse sounds 

(such as impact pile driving pulses as 

received close to the source) are at least 

6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on 

a peak-pressure basis and PTS 

cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than 

TTS cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds (Southall et al., 2007). Given 

the higher level of sound or longer 

exposure duration necessary to cause 

PTS as compared with TTS, it is 

considerably less likely that PTS could 

occur. 

Non-auditory physiological effects or 

injuries that theoretically might occur in 

marine mammals exposed to high level 

underwater sound or as a secondary 

effect of extreme behavioral reactions 

(e.g., change in dive profile as a result 

of an avoidance reaction) caused by 

exposure to sound include neurological 

effects, bubble formation, resonance 

effects, and other types of organ or 

tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall 

et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack 2007). 

The FAA’s activities do not involve the 

use of devices such as explosives or 

mid-frequency active sonar that are 

associated with these types of effects. 

When a live or dead marine mammal 

swims or floats onto shore and is 

incapable of returning to sea, the event 

is termed a ‘‘stranding’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1421h(3)). Marine mammals are known 

to strand for a variety of reasons, such 

as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, 

starvation, fishery interaction, ship 

strike, unusual oceanographic or 

weather events, sound exposure, or 

combinations of these stressors 

sustained concurrently or in series (e.g., 

Geraci et al., 1999). However, the cause 

or causes of most strandings are 

unknown (e.g., Best 1982). 

Combinations of dissimilar stressors 

may combine to kill an animal or 

dramatically reduce its fitness, even 

though one exposure without the other 

would not be expected to produce the 

same outcome (e.g., Sih et al., 2004). For 

further description of stranding events 

see, e.g., Southall et al., 2006; Jepson et 

al., 2013; Wright et al., 2013. 

1. Temporary threshold shift—TTS is 

the mildest form of hearing impairment 

that can occur during exposure to sound 

(Kryter 1985). While experiencing TTS, 

the hearing threshold rises, and a sound 

must be at a higher level in order to be 

heard. In terrestrial and marine 

mammals, TTS can last from minutes or 

hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). 

In many cases, hearing sensitivity 

recovers rapidly after exposure to the 

sound ends. Few data on sound levels 

and durations necessary to elicit mild 

TTS have been obtained for marine 

mammals. 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics, and interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious. For example, a marine mammal 

may be able to readily compensate for 

a brief, relatively small amount of TTS 

in a non-critical frequency range that 

occurs during a time where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

a time when communication is critical 

for successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas), harbor 

porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise 

(Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) and 

three species of pinnipeds (northern 

elephant seal, harbor seal, and 

California sea lion) exposed to a limited 

number of sound sources (i.e., mostly 

tones and octave-band noise) in 

laboratory settings (e.g., Finneran et al., 

2002; Nachtigall et al., 2004; Kastak et 

al., 2005; Lucke et al., 2009; Popov et 

al., 2011). In general, harbor seals 

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

2012a) and harbor porpoises (Lucke et 

al., 2009; Kastelein et al., 2012b) have 

a lower TTS onset than other measured 

pinniped or cetacean species. 

Additionally, the existing marine 

mammal TTS data come from a limited 

number of individuals within these 

species. There are no data available on 

noise-induced hearing loss for 

mysticetes. For summaries of data on 

TTS in marine mammals or for further 

discussion of TTS onset thresholds, 

please see Southall et al. (2007) and 

Finneran and Jenkins (2012). 

2. Behavioral effects—Behavioral 

disturbance may include a variety of 

effects, including subtle changes in 

behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance 

of an area or changes in vocalizations), 

more conspicuous changes in similar 

behavioral activities, and more 

sustained and/or potentially severe 

reactions, such as displacement from or 

abandonment of high-quality habitat. 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific and 

any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

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

al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

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

depending on characteristics associated 

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

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). 

Please see Appendices B–C of Southall 

et al. (2007) for a review of studies 

involving marine mammal behavioral 

responses to sound. 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

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

likely to habituate to sounds that are 

predictable and unvarying. It is 

important to note that habituation is 

appropriately considered as a 

‘‘progressive reduction in response to 

stimuli that are perceived as neither 

aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as, 

more generally, moderation in response 

to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 

2009). The opposite process is 

sensitization, when an unpleasant 

experience leads to subsequent 

responses, often in the form of 

avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. 

As noted, behavioral state may affect the 

type of response. For example, animals 

that are resting may show greater 

behavioral change in response to 

disturbing sound levels than animals 

that are highly motivated to remain in 

an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 

1995; NRC 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). 

Controlled experiments with captive 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41239 

marine mammals have showed 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud sound 

sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran 

et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild 

marine mammals to loud-pulsed sound 

sources (typically seismic airguns or 

acoustic harassment devices) have been 

varied but often consist of avoidance 

behavior or other behavioral changes 

suggesting discomfort (Morton and 

Symonds 2002; see also Richardson et 

al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007). 

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 2005). 

However, there are broad categories of 

potential response, which we describe 

in greater detail here, that include 

alteration of dive behavior, alteration of 

foraging behavior, effects to breathing, 

interference with or alteration of 

vocalization, avoidance, and flight. 

Changes in dive behavior can vary 

widely, and may consist of increased or 

decreased dive times and surface 

intervals as well as changes in the rates 

of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., 

Frankel and Clark 2000; Costa et al., 

2003; Ng and Leung 2003; Nowacek et 

al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a,b). 

Variations in dive behavior may reflect 

interruptions in biologically significant 

activities (e.g., foraging) or they may be 

of little biological significance. The 

impact of an alteration to dive behavior 

resulting from an acoustic exposure 

depends on what the animal is doing at 

the time of the exposure and the type 

and magnitude of the response. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

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

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Variations in respiration naturally 

vary with different behaviors and 

alterations to breathing rate as a 

function of acoustic exposure can be 

expected to co-occur with other 

behavioral reactions, such as a flight 

response or an alteration in diving. 

However, respiration rates in and of 

themselves may be representative of 

annoyance or an acute stress response. 

Various studies have shown that 

respiration rates may either be 

unaffected or could increase, depending 

on the species and signal characteristics, 

again highlighting the importance in 

understanding species differences in the 

tolerance of underwater noise when 

determining the potential for impacts 

resulting from anthropogenic sound 

exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 

2005b, 2006; Gailey et al., 2007). 

Marine mammals vocalize for 

different purposes and across multiple 

modes, such as whistling, echolocation 

click production, calling, and singing. 

Changes in vocalization behavior in 

response to anthropogenic noise can 

occur for any of these modes and may 

result from a need to compete with an 

increase in background noise or may 

reflect increased vigilance or a startle 

response. For example, in the presence 

of potentially masking signals, 

humpback whales and killer whales 

have been observed to increase the 

length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000; 

Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), 

while right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) 

have been observed to shift the 

frequency content of their calls upward 

while reducing the rate of calling in 

areas of increased anthropogenic noise 

(Parks et al., 2007b). In some cases, 

animals may cease sound production 

during production of aversive signals 

(Bowles et al., 1994). 

Avoidance is the displacement of an 

individual from an area or migration 

path as a result of the presence of a 

sound or other stressors, and is one of 

the most obvious manifestations of 

disturbance in marine mammals 

(Richardson et al., 1995). For example, 

gray whales (Eschrictius robustus) are 

known to change direction—deflecting 

from customary migratory paths—in 

order to avoid noise from seismic 

surveys (Malme et al., 1984). Avoidance 

may be short-term, with animals 

returning to the area once the noise has 

ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 

1996; Stone et al., 2000; Morton and 

Symonds, 2002; Gailey et al., 2007). 

Longer-term displacement is possible, 

however, which may lead to changes in 

abundance or distribution patterns of 

the affected species in the affected 

region if habituation to the presence of 

the sound does not occur (e.g., 

Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 

2006; Teilmann et al., 2006). 

A flight response is a dramatic change 

in normal movement to a directed and 

rapid movement away from the 

perceived location of a sound source. 

The flight response differs from other 

avoidance responses in the intensity of 

the response (e.g., directed movement, 

rate of travel). Relatively little 

information on flight responses of 

marine mammals to anthropogenic 

signals exist, although observations of 

flight responses to the presence of 

predators have occurred (Connor and 

Heithaus 1996). The result of a flight 

response could range from brief, 

temporary exertion and displacement 

from the area where the signal provokes 

flight to, in extreme cases, marine 

mammal strandings (Evans and England 

2001). However, it should be noted that 

response to a perceived predator does 

not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and 

Reeves 2008), and whether individuals 

are solitary or in groups may influence 

the response. 

Behavioral disturbance can also 

impact marine mammals in more subtle 

ways. Increased vigilance may result in 

costs related to diversion of focus and 

attention (i.e., when a response consists 

of increased vigilance, it may come at 

the cost of decreased attention to other 

critical behaviors such as foraging or 

resting). These effects have generally not 

been demonstrated for marine 

mammals, but studies involving fish 

and terrestrial animals have shown that 

increased vigilance may substantially 

reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp 

and Livoreil 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; 

Purser and Radford 2011). In addition, 

chronic disturbance can cause 

population declines through reduction 

of fitness (e.g., decline in body 

condition) and subsequent reduction in 

reproductive success, survival, or both 

(e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan 

et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). 

However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported 

that increased vigilance in bottlenose 

dolphins exposed to sound over a fiveday period did not cause any sleep 

deprivation or stress effects. 

Many animals perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41240 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

cycle). Disruption of such functions 

resulting from reactions to stressors 

such as sound exposure are more likely 

to be significant if they last more than 

one diel cycle or recur on subsequent 

days (Southall et al., 2007). 

Consequently, a behavioral response 

lasting less than one day and not 

recurring on subsequent days is not 

considered particularly severe unless it 

could directly affect reproduction or 

survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that 

there is a difference between multi-day 

substantive behavioral reactions and 

multi-day anthropogenic activities. For 

example, just because an activity lasts 

for multiple days does not necessarily 

mean that individual animals are either 

exposed to activity-related stressors for 

multiple days or, further, exposed in a 

manner resulting in sustained multi-day 

substantive behavioral responses. 

3. Stress responses—An animal’s 

perception of a threat may be sufficient 

to trigger stress responses consisting of 

some combination of behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; 

Moberg 2000). In many cases, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of energetic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor. Autonomic nervous 

system responses to stress typically 

involve changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 

These responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

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

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

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

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well-studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

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

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

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

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

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

more rarely, studied in wild populations 

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

example, Rolland et al. (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. These and 

other studies lead to a reasonable 

expectation that some marine mammals 

will experience physiological stress 

responses upon exposure to acoustic 

stressors and that it is possible that 

some of these would be classified as 

‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal 

experiencing TTS would likely also 

experience stress responses (NRC, 

2003). 

4. Auditory masking—Sound can 

disrupt behavior through masking, or 

interfering with, an animal’s ability to 

detect, recognize, or discriminate 

between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., 

those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Masking occurs when the receipt of a 

sound is interfered with by another 

coincident sound at similar frequencies 

and at similar or higher intensity, and 

may occur whether the sound is natural 

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

precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 

shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in 

origin. The ability of a noise source to 

mask biologically important sounds 

depends on the characteristics of both 

the noise source and the signal of 

interest (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, 

temporal variability, direction), in 

relation to each other and to an animal’s 

hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, 

frequency range, critical ratios, 

frequency discrimination, directional 

discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), 

and existing ambient noise and 

propagation conditions. 

Under certain circumstances, marine 

mammals experiencing significant 

masking could also be impaired from 

maximizing their performance fitness in 

survival and reproduction. Therefore, 

when the coincident (masking) sound is 

man-made, it may be considered 

harassment when disrupting or altering 

critical behaviors. It is important to 

distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist 

after the sound exposure, from masking, 

which occurs during the sound 

exposure. Because masking (without 

resulting in TS) is not associated with 

abnormal physiological function, it is 

not considered a physiological effect, 

but rather a potential behavioral effect. 

The frequency range of the potentially 

masking sound is important in 

determining any potential behavioral 

impacts. For example, low-frequency 

signals may have less effect on highfrequency echolocation sounds 

produced by odontocetes but are more 

likely to affect detection of mysticete 

communication calls and other 

potentially important natural sounds 

such as those produced by surf and 

some prey species. The masking of 

communication signals by 

anthropogenic noise may be considered 

as a reduction in the communication 

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

and may result in energetic or other 

costs as animals change their 

vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 

2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 

2007b; Di Iorio and Clark 2009; Holt et 

al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in 

situations where the signal and noise 

come from different directions 

(Richardson et al., 1995), through 

amplitude modulation of the signal, or 

through other compensatory behaviors 

(Houser and Moore 2014). Masking can 

be tested directly in captive species 

(e.g., Erbe 2008), but in wild 

populations it must be either modeled 

or inferred from evidence of masking 

compensation. There are few studies 

addressing real-world masking sounds 

likely to be experienced by marine 

mammals in the wild (e.g., Branstetter et 

al., 2013). 

Masking affects both senders and 

receivers of acoustic signals and can 

potentially have long-term chronic 

effects on marine mammals at the 

population level as well as at the 

individual level. Low-frequency 

ambient sound levels have increased by 

as much as 20 dB (more than three times 

in terms of SPL) in the world’s ocean 

from pre-industrial periods, with most 

of the increase from distant commercial 

shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All 

anthropogenic sound sources, but 

especially chronic and lower-frequency 

signals (e.g., from vessel traffic), 

contribute to elevated ambient sound 

levels, thus intensifying masking. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41241 

Acoustic Effects, Underwater 

Potential Effects of DTH drilling and 

Pile Driving and Removal Sound—The 

effects of sounds from DTH drilling and 

pile driving and removal might include 

one or more of the following: Temporary 

or permanent hearing impairment, nonauditory physical or physiological 

effects, behavioral disturbance, and 

masking (Richardson et al., 1995; 

Gordon et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 

2007; Southall et al., 2007). The effects 

of pile driving and removal or drilling 

on marine mammals are dependent on 

several factors, including the type and 

depth of the animal; the pile size and 

type, and the intensity and duration of 

the pile driving/removal or drilling 

sound; the substrate; the standoff 

distance between the pile and the 

animal; and the sound propagation 

properties of the environment. Impacts 

to marine mammals from pile driving 

and removal and DTH drilling activities 

are expected to result primarily from 

acoustic pathways. As such, the degree 

of effect is intrinsically related to the 

frequency, received level, and duration 

of the sound exposure, which are in 

turn influenced by the distance between 

the animal and the source. The further 

away from the source, the less intense 

the exposure should be. The substrate 

and depth of the habitat affect the sound 

propagation properties of the 

environment. In addition, substrates 

that are soft (e.g., sand) would absorb or 

attenuate the sound more readily than 

hard substrates (e.g., rock), which may 

reflect the acoustic wave. Soft porous 

substrates would also likely require less 

time to drive the pile, and possibly less 

forceful equipment, which would 

ultimately decrease the intensity of the 

acoustic source. 

In the absence of mitigation, impacts 

to marine species could be expected to 

include physiological and behavioral 

responses to the acoustic signature 

(Viada et al., 2008). Potential effects 

from impulsive sound sources like pile 

driving can range in severity from 

effects such as behavioral disturbance to 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment (Yelverton et al., 1973). 

Hearing Impairment and Other 

Physical Effects—Marine mammals 

exposed to high intensity sound 

repeatedly or for prolonged periods can 

experience hearing threshold shifts. PTS 

constitutes injury, but TTS does not 

(Southall et al., 2007). Based on the best 

scientific information available, the 

SPLs for the construction activities in 

this Project are below the thresholds 

that could cause TTS or the onset of 

PTS (Table 6). 

Non-auditory Physiological Effects— 

Non-auditory physiological effects or 

injuries that theoretically might occur in 

marine mammals exposed to strong 

underwater sound include stress, 

neurological effects, bubble formation, 

resonance effects, and other types of 

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

Southall et al., 2007). Studies examining 

such effects are limited. In general, little 

is known about the potential for pile 

driving or removal to cause auditory 

impairment or other physical effects in 

marine mammals. Available data 

suggest that such effects, if they occur 

at all, would presumably be limited to 

short distances from the sound source 

and to activities that extend over a 

prolonged period. The available data do 

not allow identification of a specific 

exposure level above which nonauditory effects can be expected 

(Southall et al., 2007) or any meaningful 

quantitative predictions of the numbers 

(if any) of marine mammals that might 

be affected in those ways. Marine 

mammals that show behavioral 

avoidance of pile driving, including 

some odontocetes and some pinnipeds, 

are especially unlikely to incur auditory 

impairment or non-auditory physical 

effects. 

Disturbance Reactions 

Responses to continuous sound, such 

as vibratory pile installation, have not 

been documented as well as responses 

to pulsed sounds. With both types of 

pile driving, it is likely that the onset of 

pile driving could result in temporary, 

short term changes in an animal’s 

typical behavior and/or avoidance of the 

affected area. These behavioral changes 

may include (Richardson et al., 1995): 

Changing durations of surfacing and 

dives, number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where sound sources are located; 

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

flushing into water from haul-outs or 

rookeries). Pinnipeds may increase their 

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

2006). If a marine mammal responds to 

a stimulus by changing its behavior 

(e.g., through relatively minor changes 

in locomotion direction/speed or 

vocalization behavior), the response 

may or may not constitute taking at the 

individual level, and is unlikely to 

affect the stock or the species as a 

whole. However, if a sound source 

displaces marine mammals from an 

important feeding or breeding area for a 

prolonged period, impacts on animals, 

and if so potentially on the stock or 

species, could potentially be significant 

(e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart 

2007). 

The biological significance of many of 

these behavioral disturbances is difficult 

to predict, especially if the detected 

disturbances appear minor. However, 

the consequences of behavioral 

modification could be expected to be 

biologically significant if the change 

affects growth, survival, or 

reproduction. Significant behavioral 

modifications that could potentially 

lead to effects on growth, survival, or 

reproduction include: 

• Drastic changes in diving/surfacing 

patterns (such as those thought to cause 

beaked whale stranding due to exposure 

to military mid-frequency tactical 

sonar); 

• Longer-term habitat abandonment 

due to loss of desirable acoustic 

environment; and 

• Longer-term cessation of feeding or 

social interaction. 

The onset of behavioral disturbance 

from anthropogenic sound depends on 

both external factors (characteristics of 

sound sources and their paths) and the 

specific characteristics of the receiving 

animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography) and is difficult 

to predict (Southall et al., 2007). 

Auditory Masking 

Natural and artificial sounds can 

disrupt behavior by masking. The 

frequency range of the potentially 

masking sound is important in 

determining any potential behavioral 

impacts. Because sound generated from 

in-water pile driving and removal and 

DTH drilling is mostly concentrated at 

low frequency ranges, it may have less 

effect on high frequency echolocation 

sounds made by porpoises. The most 

intense underwater sounds in the 

proposed action are those produced by 

impact pile driving. Given that the 

energy distribution of pile driving 

covers a broad frequency spectrum, 

sound from these sources would likely 

be within the audible range of marine 

mammals present in the Project area. 

Impact pile driving activity is relatively 

short-term, with rapid pulses occurring 

for approximately fifteen minutes per 

pile. The probability for impact pile 

driving resulting from this proposed 

action masking acoustic signals 

important to the behavior and survival 

of marine mammal species is low. 

Vibratory pile driving is also relatively 

short-term, with rapid oscillations 

occurring for approximately one and a 

half hours per pile. It is possible that 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41242 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

vibratory pile driving resulting from this 

proposed action may mask acoustic 

signals important to the behavior and 

survival of marine mammal species, but 

the short-term duration and limited 

affected area would result in 

insignificant impacts from masking. 

Any masking event that could possibly 

rise to Level B harassment under the 

MMPA would occur concurrently 

within the zones of behavioral 

harassment already estimated for DTH 

drilling and vibratory and impact pile 

driving, and which have already been 

taken into account in the exposure 

analysis. 

Acoustic Effects, Airborne—Pinnipeds 

that occur near the Project site could be 

exposed to airborne sounds associated 

with pile driving and removal and DTH 

drilling that have the potential to cause 

behavioral harassment, depending on 

their distance from pile driving 

activities. Cetaceans are not expected to 

be exposed to airborne sounds that 

would result in harassment as defined 

under the MMPA. 

Airborne noise will primarily be an 

issue for pinnipeds that are swimming 

or hauled out near the Project site 

within the range of noise levels elevated 

above the acoustic criteria. We 

recognize that pinnipeds in the water 

could be exposed to airborne sound that 

may result in behavioral harassment 

when looking with their heads above 

water. Most likely, airborne sound 

would cause behavioral responses 

similar to those discussed above in 

relation to underwater sound. For 

instance, anthropogenic sound could 

cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit 

changes in their normal behavior, such 

as reduction in vocalizations, or cause 

them to temporarily abandon the area 

and move further from the source. 

However, these animals would 

previously have been ‘taken’ as a result 

of exposure to underwater sound above 

the behavioral harassment thresholds, 

which are in all cases larger than those 

associated with airborne sound. Thus, 

the behavioral harassment of these 

animals is already accounted for in 

these estimates of potential take. 

Multiple instances of exposure to sound 

above NMFS’ thresholds for behavioral 

harassment are not believed to result in 

increased behavioral disturbance, in 

either nature or intensity of disturbance 

reaction. Therefore, we do not believe 

that authorization of incidental take 

resulting from airborne sound for 

pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne 

sound is not discussed further here. 

Anticipated Effects on Habitat 

The proposed activities at the Project 

area would not result in permanent 

negative impacts to habitats used 

directly by marine mammals, but may 

have potential short-term impacts to 

food sources such as forage fish and 

may affect acoustic habitat (see masking 

discussion above). There are no known 

foraging hotspots or other ocean bottom 

structure of significant biological 

importance to marine mammals present 

in the marine waters of the Project area 

during the construction window. 

Therefore, the main impact issue 

associated with the proposed activity 

would be temporarily elevated sound 

levels and the associated direct effects 

on marine mammals, as discussed 

previously in this document. The 

primary potential acoustic impacts to 

marine mammal habitat are associated 

with elevated sound levels produced by 

vibratory and impact pile driving and 

removal and DTH drilling in the area. 

However, other potential impacts to the 

surrounding habitat from physical 

disturbance are also possible. 

In-Water Construction Effects on 

Potential Prey (Fish) 

Construction activities would produce 

continuous (i.e., vibratory pile driving 

and DTH drilling) and pulsed (i.e., 

impact driving) sounds. Fish react to 

sounds that are especially strong and/or 

intermittent low-frequency sounds. 

Short duration, sharp sounds can cause 

overt or subtle changes in fish behavior 

and local distribution. Hastings and 

Popper (2005) identified several studies 

that suggest fish may relocate to avoid 

certain areas of sound energy. 

Additional studies have documented 

effects of pile driving on fish, although 

several are based on studies in support 

of large, multiyear bridge construction 

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

2002; Popper and Hastings 2009). Sound 

pulses at received levels of 160 dB may 

cause subtle changes in fish behavior. 

SPLs of 180 dB may cause noticeable 

changes in behavior (Pearson et al., 

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

sufficient strength have been known to 

cause injury to fish and fish mortality. 

The most likely impact to fish from 

pile driving and drilling activities at the 

Project area would be temporary 

behavioral avoidance of the area. The 

duration of fish avoidance of this area 

after pile driving stops is unknown, but 

a rapid return to normal recruitment, 

distribution and behavior is anticipated. 

In general, impacts to marine mammal 

prey species are expected to be minor 

and temporary due to the short 

timeframe for the Project. 

Pile Driving Effects on Potential 

Foraging Habitat 

The area likely impacted by the 

Project is relatively small compared to 

the available habitat in Sitka Sound 

(e.g., most of the impacted area is 

limited to inside Symonds Bay, and 

some scenarios include a ZOI that 

extends several km into Sitka Sound 

(see the FAA’s application)). Avoidance 

by potential prey (i.e., fish) of the 

immediate area due to the temporary 

loss of this foraging habitat is also 

possible. The duration of fish avoidance 

of this area after pile driving stops is 

unknown, but a rapid return to normal 

recruitment, distribution and behavior 

is anticipated. Any behavioral 

avoidance by fish of the disturbed area 

would still leave significantly large 

areas of fish and marine mammal 

foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity in 

Sitka Sound. 

The duration of the construction 

activities is relatively short. The 

construction window is for a maximum 

of 70 days and each day, construction 

activities would only occur for a few 

hours during the day. Impacts to habitat 

and prey are expected to be minimal 

based on the short duration of activities. 

In summary, given the short daily 

duration of sound associated with 

individual pile driving and drilling 

events and the relatively small areas 

being affected, pile driving and drilling 

activities associated with the proposed 

action are not likely to have a 

permanent, adverse effect on any fish 

habitat, or populations of fish species. 

Thus, any impacts to marine mammal 

habitat are not expected to cause 

significant or long-term consequences 

for individual marine mammals or their 

populations. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of whether the number of 

takes is ‘‘small’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any 

act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41243 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level A 

and Level B harassment, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to vibratory and impact 

pile driving and removal and DTH 

drilling, and potential PTS for animals 

that may transit through the Level A 

zones undetected. Based on the nature 

of the activity and the anticipated 

effectiveness of the mitigation measures 

(i.e., soft start, ramp-up, etc.—discussed 

in detail below in Proposed Mitigation 

section), Level A harassment is not 

anticipated; however, a small number of 

takes by Level A harassment are 

proposed to be authorized for all species 

as a precaution if animals go undetected 

before a shutdown is in place. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or proposed to be 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

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

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the proposed take 

estimate. 

The estimation of marine mammal 

takes typically uses the following 

calculation since site-specific density is 

unavailable: 

Level B exposure estimate = N 

(number of animals) in the area * 

Number of days of noise generating 

activities. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

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

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2011). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

for continuous (e.g., vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 

(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. 

The FAA’s proposed activities 

include the use of continuous (vibratory 

pile driving and DTH drilling) and 

impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, 

and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) are applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (NMFS 2016) 

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 FAA’s proposed 

activity includes the use of impulsive 

(impact pile driving) and non-impulsive 

(vibratory pile driving and DTH drilling) 

sources. 

These thresholds were developed by 

compiling and synthesizing the best 

available science and soliciting input 

multiple times from both the public and 

peer reviewers to inform the final 

product, and are provided in the table 

below. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the thresholds are described in NMFS 

2016 Technical Guidance, which may 

be accessed at: http://

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

guidelines.htm. 

TABLE 6—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-frequency cetaceans ................................. Cell 1, Lpk,flat: 219 dB,LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ..... Cell 2, LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-frequency cetaceans .................................. Cell 3, Lpk,flat: 230 dB,LE,MF,24h: 185 dB .... Cell 4, LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-frequency cetaceans ................................ Cell 5, Lpk,flat: 202 dB,LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ..... Cell 6, LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

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

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

* NMFS 2016. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds. 

Pile driving and removal and DTH 

drilling generates underwater noise that 

can potentially result in disturbance to 

marine mammals in the Project area. 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * log10(R1/R2), 

where: 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement. 

This formula neglects loss due to 

scattering and absorption, which is 

assumed to be zero here. The degree to 

which underwater sound propagates 

away from a sound source is dependent 

on a variety of factors, most notably the 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41244 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

water bathymetry and presence or 

absence of reflective or absorptive 

conditions including in-water structures 

and sediments. Spherical spreading 

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

or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB 

reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance from the source (20 

* log[range]). Cylindrical spreading 

occurs in an environment in which 

sound propagation is bounded by the 

water surface and sea bottom, resulting 

in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for 

each doubling of distance from the 

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

spreading value of 15 is often used 

under conditions, such as at the Biorka 

Island dock, where water increases with 

depth as the receiver moves away from 

the shoreline, resulting in an expected 

propagation environment that would lie 

between spherical and cylindrical 

spreading loss conditions. Practical 

spreading loss (4.5 dB reduction in 

sound level for each doubling of 

distance) is assumed here. 

Underwater Sound—The intensity of 

pile driving and removal sounds is 

greatly influenced by factors such as the 

type of piles, hammers, and the physical 

environment in which the activity takes 

place. A number of studies, primarily on 

the west coast, have measured sound 

produced during underwater pile 

driving projects. These data are largely 

for impact driving of steel pipe piles 

and concrete piles as well as vibratory 

driving of steel pipe piles. 

JASCO Applied Sciences (JASCO) 

conducted acoustic modeling of pile 

installation and removal activities 

planned for the Project, which is 

included as Appendix A of the FAA’s 

application. To assess potential 

underwater noise exposure of marine 

mammals during construction activities, 

Quijano and Austin (2017) determined 

source levels for six different 

construction scenarios (see Table 3). 

The source levels are frequencydependent and suitable for modeling 

underwater acoustic propagation using 

JASCO’s Marine Operations Noise 

Model (MONM). The modeling 

predicted the extent of ensonification 

and the acoustic footprint from 

construction activities, taking into 

account the effects of pile driving 

equipment, bathymetry, sound speed 

profile, and seabed geoacoustic 

parameters. Auditory weighting was 

applied to the modeled sound fields to 

estimate received levels relative to 

hearing sensitivities of five marine 

mammal hearing groups following 

NMFS 2016 guidance. 

The results are based on currently 

adopted sound level thresholds for 

auditory injury (Level A) expressed as 

peak pressure level (PK) and 24-hr 

sound exposure level (SEL), and 

behavioral disturbance (Level B) 

expressed as sound pressure level (SPL). 

Using these guidelines, Quijano and 

Austin (2017) calculated the maximum 

extent (distance and ensonified areas) of 

the Level A and Level B exposure zones 

for each marine mammal functional 

hearing group. This was calculated for 

both impact and vibratory pile driving 

of 18- and 30-in piles for each of the 

following six Project scenarios. 

The model required as input, source 

sound levels in 1⁄3-octave bands between 

10 Hz and 25 kHz. Source levels for 

sheet pile and H pile installation were 

obtained from literature, but the 

available measurements did not cover 

the full frequency spectrum of interest; 

data for vibratory installation of sheet 

and H piles were available to maximum 

frequencies of 4 kHz and 10 kHz, 

respectively. Modeling of the six 

construction scenarios at the Project site 

on Biorka Island followed three steps: 

1. Piles driven into the sediment by 

impact, vibratory, or downhole drilling 

were characterized as sound-radiating 

sources. Source levels in 1⁄3-octavebands were obtained by modeling or by 

adjusting source levels found in the 

literature. The exact method to obtain 

the 1⁄3-octave-band levels depends on 

the pile geometry and pile driving 

equipment, and it is described on a 

case-by-case basis (see Appendix A); 

2. Underwater sound propagation was 

applied to predict how sound 

propagates from the pile into the water 

column as a function of range, depth, 

and azimuthal direction. Propagation 

depends on several conditions 

including the frequency content of the 

sound, the bathymetry, the sound speed 

in the water column, and sediment 

geoacoustics; and 

3. The propagated sound field was 

used to compute received levels over a 

grid of simulated receivers, from which 

distances to criteria thresholds and 

maps of ensonified areas were 

generated. 

Modeled results are presented as 

tables of distances at which SPLs or 

SELs fell below thresholds defined by 

criteria. For marine mammal injury, the 

Level A thresholds considered here 

follow the NMFS guidelines (NMFS 

2016). A detailed description of the 

modeling process is provided in 

Appendix A of the FAA’s IHA 

application. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41245 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

At-sea densities for marine mammal 

species have not been determined for 

marine mammals in Sitka Sound; 

therefore, all estimates here are 

determined by using observational data 

from biologists, peer-reviewed 

literature, and information obtained 

from personal communication with 

researchers and state and Federal 

biologists, and from local charter boat 

operators. 

Harbor Seals 

Harbor seals are expected to be in the 

Project area in low numbers (see 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity Section). 

We estimate that up to five harbor seals 

per day may be present in the Project 

area on all days of construction. 

Therefore, we propose to authorize 350 

takes by Level B harassment. Because 

the Level A ZOI for harbor seals is 

nearly 1 km, the FAA requests up to two 

harbor seal takes by Level A harassment 

if the animals enter the ZOI undetected 

and marine mammal observers (MMO)s 

are not able to request a shutdown prior 

to the seals being exposed to potential 

Level A harassment. 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lion abundance in the 

Project area is dependent on prey 

availability. Prey species are uncommon 

during the Project window; therefore, 

sea lion abundance is expected to be 

low. The FAA estimates that five sea 

lions may be in the Project area every 

day (70 days) of construction, therefore, 

we estimate that 350 sea lions may be 

taken by Level B harassment. We 

estimate that these takes would be split 

equally between the eDPS and wDPS 

(175 each). The Level A zone is less 

than 10 m; however, to be conservative, 

the FAA is requesting a small group of 

Steller sea lions to be taken by Level A 

harassment. This would equate to six 

total animals if split equally by DPS (3 

each). 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales are found in Sitka 

Bay seasonally. During mid-summer, 

tour boats generally see four to five 

whales per day, in the middle of Sitka 

Sound. Therefore, a count of 5 

humpback whales per day (70 days) was 

used to estimate takes per day on every 

day of construction for a total of 350 

takes by Level B harassment. All takes 

would be from the Central North Pacific 

stock under the MMPA. For ESA 

purposes, 93.9 percent would be from 

the Hawaii DPS (328 animals) and 6.1 

percent would be from the Mexico stock 

(22 animals) based on Wade et al., 2016. 

The maximum distance at which a 

humpback whale may be exposed to 

noise levels that exceed Level A 

thresholds is 1.4 km during Scenario 6. 

Even though the ensonified area extends 

outside of the entrance to Symonds Bay, 

a MMO stationed near the mouth of the 

bay at Hanus Point would be able to see 

a humpback whale outside Symonds 

Bay before it enters the Level A zone 

and could shut down the noise 

producing activity to avoid Level A 

take. In the unlikely event a whale 

would go undetected and enter the 

Level A zone, the FAA has requested 

three takes by Level A harassment for 

humpback whales. We estimate that all 

three humpback whales would be from 

the Hawaii DPS. 


mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICESEN30AU17.000</GPH>
41246 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

Killer Whale 

Generally, transient killer whales 

follow the movements of Steller sea 

lions and harbor seals on which they 

prey. Given the low numbers of Steller 

sea lions in Sitka Sound during 

summer, it is consistent that transient 

killer whales would also be rare or 

infrequent in the Project area (e.g., killer 

whales were only observed on five or 

six days by the whale watching 

industry). Small groups of 5 to 6 

transient killer whales per day could be 

observed throughout the summer 

months; therefore, we estimate that a 

group of 6 animals could enter the 

Project area on 6 occasions during the 

construction window, for a total of 36 

takes by Level B harassment. No Level 

A takes of killer whales is proposed to 

be authorized for this species. The 

maximum linear distance to the Level A 

threshold for killer whales is less than 

250 m from the source and a MMO 

would be able to observe animals at this 

distance and shutdown activities in 

time to avoid Level A take. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoise are expected to occur 

in the Project area in low numbers 

during the construction window. 

Sightings during this time period are 

infrequent; this species is not observed 

every day. The mean group size of 

harbor porpoise in Southeast Alaska 

was estimated to be between 2 to 3 

individuals (Dahlheim et al., 2009); 

therefore, we conservatively estimate 

that a group of three harbor porpoise 

may be present every other day of 

construction for a total of 105 takes by 

Level B harassment. The distances to 

Level A thresholds for harbor porpoise 

(HFC) are largest during impulse driving 

under Scenarios 5 and 6 (see Table 3), 

and extend beyond the entrance to 

Symonds Bay. The duration of 

Scenarios 5 and 6 is expected to be 21 

days (see Table 3); therefore, we expect 

that a small group of three harbor 

porpoise may enter the Level A zone on 

half of the days of Scenarios 5 and 6 

(10.5 days) for a total of 32 takes by 

Level A harassment. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

All estimates are conservative and 

include the following assumptions: 

• All pilings installed at each site 

would have an underwater noise 

disturbance equal to the piling that 

causes the greatest noise disturbance 

(i.e., the piling farthest from shore) 

installed with the method that has the 

ZOI. The largest underwater disturbance 

(Level B) ZOI would be produced by 

DTH drilling; therefore take estimates 

were calculated using the vibratory piledriving ZOIs. The ZOIs for each 

threshold are not spherical and are 

truncated by land masses on either side 

of the Project area, which would 

dissipate sound pressure waves. 

• Exposures were based on an 

estimated total of 70 work days. Each 

activity ranges in amount of days 

needed to be completed (Table 3). 

• All marine mammal individuals 

potentially available are assumed to be 

present within the relevant area, and 

thus incidentally taken; 

• An individual can only be taken 

once during a 24-hour period; and, 

• Exposures to sound levels at or 

above the relevant thresholds equate to 

take, as defined by the MMPA. 

Estimates of potential instances of 

take may be overestimates of the 

number of individuals taken. In the 

context of stationary activities such as 

pile driving and in areas where resident 

animals may be present, this number 

represents the number of total take that 

may accrue to a smaller number of 

individuals, with some number of 

animals being exposed more than once 

per individual. While pile driving and 

removal can occur any day throughout 

the in-water work window, and the 

analysis is conducted on a per day basis, 

only a fraction of that time (typically a 

matter of hours on any given day) is 

actually spent pile driving/removal. The 

potential effectiveness of mitigation 

measures in reducing the number of 

takes is typically not quantified in the 

take estimation process. For these 

reasons, these take estimates may be 

conservative. 

TABLE 8—CALCULATIONS FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE ESTIMATION

Species 

Takes proposed 

to be authorized 

by Level A 

harassment 

Takes proposed 

to be authorized 

by Level B 

harassment 

Steller sea lion: Eastern and Western stock ............................................................................................... 6 350 

Harbor seal .................................................................................................................................................. 2 350 

Humpback whale ......................................................................................................................................... 3 350 

Killer whale: Eastern North pacific Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Island, and Bering Sea Transient stock and 

West Coast Transient stock ..................................................................................................................... 0 36 

Harbor porpoise ........................................................................................................................................... 32 105 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on such species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of such species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully balance 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—which 

considers the nature of the potential 

adverse impact being mitigated 

(likelihood, scope, range), as well as the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented; and the 

likelihood of effective implementation, 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41247 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

The ZOIs were used to develop 

mitigation measures for pile driving and 

removal activities at the Project area. 

The ZOIs effectively represent the 

mitigation zone that would be 

established around each pile to prevent 

Level A harassment to marine 

mammals, while providing estimates of 

the areas within which Level B 

harassment might occur. In addition to 

the specific measures described later in 

this section, the FAA would conduct 

briefings between construction 

supervisors and crews, marine mammal 

monitoring team, and staff prior to the 

start of all pile driving activity, and 

when new personnel join the work, in 

order to explain responsibilities, 

communication procedures, marine 

mammal monitoring protocol, and 

operational procedures. 

Monitoring and Shutdown for 

Construction Activities 

The following measures would apply 

to the FAA’s mitigation through 

shutdown and disturbance zones: 

Shutdown Zone—For all pile driving 

activities, the FAA will establish a 

shutdown zone intended to contain the 

area in which SPLs equal or exceed the 

auditory injury criteria for cetaceans 

and pinnipeds. The purpose of a 

shutdown zone is to define an area 

within which shutdown of activity 

would occur upon sighting of a marine 

mammal (or in anticipation of an animal 

entering the defined area), thus 

preventing injury of marine mammals 

(as described previously under Potential 

Effects of the Specified Activity on 

Marine Mammals, serious injury or 

death are unlikely outcomes even in the 

absence of mitigation measures). 

Modeled radial distances for shutdown 

zones are shown in Table 9. However, 

a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m will 

be established during all pile driving 

activities, regardless of the estimated 

zone; and 

Disturbance Zone—Disturbance zones 

are the areas in which SPLs equal or 

exceed 160 and 120 dB rms (for impulse 

and continuous sound, respectively). 

Disturbance zones provide utility for 

monitoring conducted for mitigation 

purposes (i.e., shutdown zone 

monitoring) by establishing monitoring 

protocols for areas adjacent to the 

shutdown zones. Monitoring of 

disturbance zones enables observers to 

be aware of and communicate the 

presence of marine mammals in the 

Project area but outside the shutdown 

zone and thus prepare for potential 

shutdowns of activity. However, the 

primary purpose of disturbance zone 

monitoring is for documenting instances 

of Level B harassment; disturbance zone 

monitoring is discussed in greater detail 

later (see Proposed Monitoring and 

Reporting). Nominal radial distances for 

disturbance zones are shown in Table 9. 

Given the size of the disturbance zone 

for vibratory pile driving and DTH 

drilling, it is impossible to guarantee 

that all animals would be observed or to 

make comprehensive observations of 

fine-scale behavioral reactions to sound, 

and only a portion of the zone (e.g., 

what may be reasonably observed by 

visual observers stationed between 

Symonds Bay and Sitka Sound) would 

be observed. In order to document 

observed instances of harassment, 

monitors record all marine mammal 

observations, regardless of location. The 

observer’s location, as well as the 

location of the pile being driven, is 

known from a GPS. The location of the 

animal is estimated as a distance from 

the observer, which is then compared to 

the location from the pile. It may then 

be estimated whether the animal was 

exposed to sound levels constituting 

incidental harassment on the basis of 

predicted distances to relevant 

thresholds in post-processing of 

observational and acoustic data, and a 

precise accounting of observed 

incidences of harassment created. This 

information may then be used to 

extrapolate observed takes to reach an 

approximate understanding of actual 

total takes. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41248 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Monitoring Protocols—Monitoring 

would be conducted before, during, and 

after pile driving and vibratory removal 

activities. In addition, observers shall 

record all instances of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and shall document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from piles being driven. 

Observations made outside the 

shutdown zone will not result in 

shutdown; that pile segment would be 

completed without cessation, unless the 

animal approaches or enters the 

shutdown zone, at which point all pile 

driving activities would be halted. 

Monitoring will take place from 15 

minutes prior to initiation through 30 

minutes post-completion of pile driving 

and removal activities. 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. Please see Section 11 

of the FAA’s application 

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

incidental/construction.htm), for the 

FAA’s proposed monitoring protocols. 

The following additional measures 

apply to visual monitoring: 

(1) Monitoring will be conducted by 

qualified observers, who will be placed 

at the best vantage point(s) practicable 

to monitor for marine mammals and 

implement shutdown/delay procedures 

when applicable by calling for the 

shutdown to the hammer operator. A 

minimum of two observers will be 

required for all pile driving/removal 

activities. Marine Mammal Observer 

(MMO) requirements for construction 

actions are as follows: 

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

construction personnel) are required; 

(b) At least one observer must have 

prior experience working as an observer; 

(c) Other observers (that do not have 

prior experience) may substitute 

education (undergraduate degree in 

biological science or related field) or 

training for experience; 

(d) Where a team of three or more 

observers are required, one observer 

should be designated as lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator. The lead 

observer must have prior experience 

working as an observer; and 

(e) NMFS will require submission and 

approval of observer resumes. 

(2) Qualified MMOs are trained 

biologists, and need the following 

additional minimum qualifications: 

(a) Visual acuity in both eyes 

(correction is permissible) sufficient for 

discernment of moving targets at the 

water’s surface with ability to estimate 

target size and distance; use of 

binoculars may be necessary to correctly 

identify the target; 

(b) Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 


mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICESEN30AU17.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41249 

(c) Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

(d) Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

(e) Writing skills sufficient to prepare 

a report of observations including but 

not limited to the number and species 

of marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were suspended to avoid 

potential incidental injury from 

construction sound of marine mammals 

observed within a defined shutdown 

zone; and marine mammal behavior; 

and 

(f) 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. 

(3) Prior to the start of pile driving 

activity, the shutdown zone will be 

monitored for 15 minutes to ensure that 

it is clear of marine mammals. Pile 

driving will only commence once 

observers have declared the shutdown 

zone clear of marine mammals; animals 

will be allowed to remain in the 

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

own volition) and their behavior will be 

monitored and documented. The 

shutdown zone may only be declared 

clear, and pile driving started, when the 

entire shutdown zone is visible (i.e., 

when not obscured by dark, rain, fog, 

etc.). In addition, if such conditions 

should arise during impact pile driving 

that is already underway, the activity 

would be halted. 

(4) If a marine mammal approaches or 

enters the shutdown zone during the 

course of pile driving operations, 

activity will be halted and delayed until 

either the animal has voluntarily left 

and been visually confirmed beyond the 

shutdown zone or 15 minutes have 

passed without re-detection of small 

cetaceans and pinnipeds, and 30 

minutes for humpback whales. 

Monitoring will be conducted 

throughout the time required to drive a 

pile. 

(5) Using delay and shut-down 

procedures, if a species for which 

authorization has not been granted or if 

a species for which authorization has 

been granted but the authorized takes 

are met, approaches or is observed 

within the Level B harassment zone, 

activities will shut down immediately 

and not restart until the animals have 

been confirmed to have left the area. 

Soft Start 

The use of a soft start procedure is 

believed to provide additional 

protection to marine mammals by 

warning or providing a chance to leave 

the area prior to the hammer operating 

at full capacity, and typically involves 

a requirement to initiate sound from the 

hammer at reduced energy followed by 

a waiting period. This procedure is 

repeated two additional times. It is 

difficult to specify the reduction in 

energy for any given hammer because of 

variation across drivers and, for impact 

hammers, the actual number of strikes at 

reduced energy will vary because 

operating the hammer at less than full 

power results in ‘‘bouncing’’ of the 

hammer as it strikes the pile, resulting 

in multiple ‘‘strikes.’’ For impact 

driving, we require an initial set of three 

strikes from the impact hammer at 

reduced energy, followed by a 30- 

second waiting period, then 2 

subsequent 3 strike sets. Soft start will 

be required at the beginning of each 

day’s impact pile driving work and at 

any time following a cessation of impact 

pile driving of 30 minutes or longer. 

Timing Restrictions 

The FAA will only conduct 

construction activities during daytime 

hours. Construction will also be 

restricted to the months of May through 

September to avoid overlap with times 

when marine mammals have higher 

densities in the Project area. 

We have carefully evaluated the 

FAA’s proposed mitigation measures 

and considered their effectiveness in 

past implementation to preliminarily 

determine whether they are likely to 

effect the least practicable impact on the 

affected marine mammal species and 

stocks and their habitat. 

Any mitigation measure(s) we 

prescribe should be able to accomplish, 

have a reasonable likelihood of 

accomplishing (based on current 

science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed below: 

(1) Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may 

contribute to this goal); 

(2) A reduction in the number (total 

number or number at biologically 

important time or location) of 

individual marine mammals exposed to 

stimuli expected to result in incidental 

take (this goal may contribute to 1, 

above, or to reducing takes by 

behavioral harassment only); 

(3) A reduction in the number (total 

number or number at biologically 

important time or location) of times any 

individual marine mammal would be 

exposed to stimuli expected to result in 

incidental take (this goal may contribute 

to 1, above, or to reducing takes by 

behavioral harassment only); 

(4) A reduction in the intensity of 

exposure to stimuli expected to result in 

incidental take (this goal may contribute 

to 1, above, or to reducing the severity 

of behavioral harassment only); 

(5) Avoidance or minimization of 

adverse effects to marine mammal 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

the prey base, blockage or limitation of 

passage to or from biologically 

important areas, permanent destruction 

of habitat, or temporary disturbance of 

habitat during a biologically important 

time; and 

(6) For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation, an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation. 

Based on our evaluation of the FAA’s 

proposed measures, as well as any other 

potential measures considered by 

NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the proposed mitigation 

measures provide the means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on marine 

mammal species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the proposed action area. 

Effective reporting is critical to both 

compliance and 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 in action area (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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41250 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

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) population, 

species, or stock; 

• 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 Marine Mammal Observations 

The FAA will collect sighting data 

and behavioral responses to 

construction for marine mammal 

species observed in the region of 

activity during the period of activity. All 

MMOs will be trained in marine 

mammal identification and behaviors 

and are required to have no other 

construction-related tasks while 

conducting monitoring. A minimum of 

two MMOs will be required for all pile 

driving/removal activities. The FAA 

will monitor the shutdown zone and 

disturbance zone before, during, and 

after pile driving, with observers located 

at the best practicable vantage points. 

Based on our requirements, the FAA 

would implement the following 

procedures for pile driving and removal: 

• MMOs would be located at the best 

vantage point(s) in order to properly see 

the entire shutdown zone and as much 

of the disturbance zone as possible; 

• During all observation periods, 

observers will use binoculars and the 

naked eye to search continuously for 

marine mammals; 

• If the shutdown zones are obscured 

by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile 

driving at that location will not be 

initiated until that zone is visible. 

Should such conditions arise while 

impact driving is underway, the activity 

would be halted; and 

• The shutdown and disturbance 

zones around the pile will be monitored 

for the presence of marine mammals 

before, during, and after any pile driving 

or removal activity. 

Data Collection 

We require that observers use 

approved data forms. Among other 

pieces of information, the FAA will 

record detailed information about any 

implementation of shutdowns, 

including the distance of animals to the 

pile and description of specific actions 

that ensued and resulting behavior of 

the animal, if any. In addition, the FAA 

will attempt to distinguish between the 

number of individual animals taken and 

the number of incidences of take. We 

require that, at a minimum, the 

following information be collected on 

the sighting forms: 

• Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period; 

• Weather parameters (e.g., percent 

cover, visibility); 

• Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tide state); 

• Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

sex and age class of marine mammals; 

• Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 

including bearing and direction of 

travel, and if possible, the correlation to 

SPLs; 

• Distance from pile driving or 

removal activities to marine mammals 

and distance from the marine mammals 

to the observation point; 

• Description of implementation of 

mitigation measures (e.g., shutdown or 

delay); 

• Locations of all marine mammal 

observations; and 

• Other human activity in the area. 

Reporting 

A draft report would be submitted to 

NMFS within 90 days of the completion 

of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 

days prior to the requested date of 

issuance of any future IHA for projects 

at the same location, whichever comes 

first. The report will include marine 

mammal observations pre-activity, 

during-activity, and post-activity during 

pile driving and removal days, and will 

also provide descriptions of any 

behavioral responses to construction 

activities by marine mammals and a 

complete description of all mitigation 

shutdowns and the results of those 

actions and an extrapolated total take 

estimate based on the number of marine 

mammals observed during the course of 

construction. A final report must be 

submitted within 30 days following 

resolution of comments on the draft 

report. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determinations 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

Pile driving and removal activities 

associated with the dock replacement 

Project, as outlined previously, have the 

potential to disturb or displace marine 

mammals. Specifically, the specified 

activities may result in take, in the form 

of Level A and Level B harassment (PTS 

and behavioral disturbance), from 

underwater sounds generated from pile 

driving and removal. Potential takes 

could occur if individuals of these 

species are present in the ensonified 

zone when pile driving and removal 

occurs. Most of the Level A takes are 

precautionary as marine mammals are 

not expected to enter and stay in the 

Level A ensonified area for the duration 

needed to incur PTS. However, if all 

authorized takes be Level A harassment 

were to occur, they would be of small 

numbers compared to the stock sizes 

and would not adversely affect the stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. Additionally, 

the FAA’s mitigation measures, 

including a shutdown of construction 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41251 

activities if animals enter the Level A 

zone, further reduces the chance for PTS 

in marine mammals. Therefore, the 

effects to marine mammals are expected 

to be negligible. 

No TTS, serious injury, or mortality is 

anticipated given the nature of the 

activities and measures designed to 

minimize the possibility of injury to 

marine mammals. The potential for 

these outcomes is minimized through 

the construction method and the 

implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures. Specifically, 

vibratory and impact hammers and 

drilling will be the primary methods of 

installation. Impact pile driving 

produces short, sharp pulses with 

higher peak levels and much sharper 

rise time to reach those peaks. If impact 

driving is necessary, implementation of 

soft start and shutdown zones 

significantly reduces any possibility of 

injury. Given sufficient ‘‘notice’’ 

through use of soft start (for impact 

driving), marine mammals are expected 

to move away from a sound source that 

is annoying prior to it becoming 

potentially injurious, however, as noted 

previously a small number of potential 

takes by PTS are proposed for 

authorization and have been analyzed. 

The FAA will use a minimum of two 

MMOs stationed strategically to increase 

detectability of marine mammals, 

enabling a high rate of success in 

implementation of shutdowns to avoid 

injury. 

The FAA’s proposed activities are 

localized and of relatively short 

duration (a maximum of 70 days for pile 

driving and removal). The entire Project 

area is limited to Symonds Bay and into 

Sitka Sound for some scenarios. These 

localized and short-term noise 

exposures may cause short-term 

behavioral modifications in harbor 

seals, Steller sea lions, harbor porpoises, 

killer whales, and humpback whales. 

Moreover, the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

reduce the likelihood of injury. 

Additionally, no important feeding and/ 

or reproductive areas for marine 

mammals are known to be within the 

ensonified area during the construction 

window. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment, on the basis of 

reports in the literature as well as 

monitoring from other similar activities, 

will likely be limited to reactions such 

as increased swimming speeds, 

increased surfacing time, or decreased 

foraging (if such activity were occurring) 

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

2014). Significant behavioral 

modifications that could potentially 

lead to effects on growth, survival, or 

reproduction are not expected to occur 

given the short duration and small scale 

of the project activities. Most likely, 

individuals will simply move away 

from the sound source and be 

temporarily displaced from the areas of 

pile driving and drilling, although even 

this reaction has been observed 

primarily only in association with 

impact pile driving. Thus, even repeated 

Level B harassment of some small 

subset of the overall stock is unlikely to 

result in any significant realized 

decrease in fitness for the affected 

individuals, and thus would not result 

in any adverse impact to the stock as a 

whole. Non-auditory physiological 

effects and masking are not expected to 

occur from the FAA’s Project activities. 

The Project also is not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitat. The 

Project activities would 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. However, because of the 

short duration of the activities and the 

relatively small area of the habitat that 

may be affected, and the decreased 

potential of prey species to be in the 

Project area during the construction 

work window, the impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term negative 

consequences. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• Level B harassment may consist of, 

at worst, temporary modifications in 

behavior (e.g. temporary avoidance of 

habitat or changes in behavior); 

• The lack of important feeding, 

pupping, or other areas in the action 

area during the construction window; 

• Mitigation is expected to minimize 

the likelihood and severity of the level 

of harassment; and 

• The small percentage of the stock 

that may be affected by Project activities 

(<15 percent for all stocks). 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the FAA’s construction activities will 

have a negligible impact on the affected 

marine mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

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

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers and so, 

in practice, where estimated numbers 

are available, NMFS compares the 

number of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

Table 10 details the number of 

instances that animals could be exposed 

to received noise levels that could cause 

Level A and Level B harassment for the 

proposed work at the Project site 

relative to the total stock abundance. 

The numbers of animals authorized to 

be taken for all species would be 

considered small relative to the relevant 

stocks or populations even if each 

estimated instance of take occurred to a 

new individual—an extremely unlikely 

scenario. The total percent of the 

population (if each instance was a 

separate individual) for which take is 

requested is less than 15 percent for all 

stocks (Table 10). For pinnipeds, 

especially harbor seals occurring in the 

vicinity of the Project area, there will 

almost certainly be some overlap in 

individuals present day-to-day, and the 

number of individuals taken is expected 

to be notably lower. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41252 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

TABLE 10—ESTIMATED NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE OF STOCK THAT MAY BE EXPOSED TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT

Species 

Proposed 

authorized 

Level A 

takes 

Proposed 

authorized 

Level B 

takes 

Stock(s) 

abundance 

estimate 1

Percentage of 

total stock 

(percent) 

Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina) ............................................................................

Sitka/Chatham stock ........................................................................................ 2 350 14,855 2.37 

Steller sea lion (Eumatopias jubatus): 

Western U.S. Stock .................................................................................. 6 350 50,983 0.698 

Eastern U.S. Stock ................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 41,638 0.855 

Killer whale (Orcinus orca): 

Eastern North Pacific, Gulf of AK, Aleutian Island, and Bering Sea 

Transient Stock ..................................................................................... 0 36 587 6.13 

West Coast Transient Stock ..................................................................... ........................ ........................ 243 14.8 

Humpback whale (Megaptera noviaengliae) ...................................................

Central North Pacific Stock ............................................................................. 3 350 10,103 3.49 

Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) ..........................................................

Southeast Alaska Stock ................................................................................... 32 105 11,146 1.23 

1All stock abundance estimates presented here are from the 2016 Alaska Stock Assessment Report. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must 

find that the specified activity will not 

have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ 

on the subsistence uses of the affected 

marine mammal species or stocks by 

Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as: an impact resulting from the 

specified activity: (1) That is likely to 

reduce the availability of the species to 

a level insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 

hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing 

subsistence users; or (iii) Placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; 

and (2) That cannot be sufficiently 

mitigated by other measures to increase 

the availability of marine mammals to 

allow subsistence needs to be met. 

Harbor seals and Steller sea lions are 

subsistence harvested in Alaska. During 

2012, the estimated subsistence take of 

harbor seals in southeast Alaska was 

595 seals with 49 of these taken near 

Sitka (Wolfe et al., 2013). This is the 

lowest number of seals taken since 1992 

(Wolfe et al., 2013) and is attributed to 

the decline in subsistence hunting 

pressure over the years as well as a 

decrease in efficiency per hunter (Wolf 

et al., 2013). 

The peak hunting season in southeast 

Alaska occurs during the month of 

November and again over the March to 

April time frame (Wolfe et al., 2013). 

This corresponds to times when seals 

are aggregated in shoal areas as they 

prey on forage species such as herring, 

making them easier to find and hunt. 

The proposed Project is in an area 

where subsistence hunting for harbor 

seals or sea lions could occur (Wolfe et 

al., 2013), but the location is not 

preferred for hunting. There is little to 

no hunting documented in the vicinity 

and there are no harvest quotas for nonlisted marine mammals. For these 

reasons and the fact that Project 

activities would occur outside of the 

primary subsistence hunting seasons, 

there would be no impact on 

subsistence activities or on the 

availability of marine mammals for 

subsistence use. 

To satisfy requirements under Section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, R&M Consultants, Inc. 

reached out to the Sitka Tribe of Alaska, 

Central Council of the Tlingit and 

Haida, and Sealaska regarding cultural 

resources in 2016. No issues or concerns 

with the Project were raised during this 

effort. 

Based on the description of the 

specified activity, the measures 

described to minimize adverse effects 

on the availability of marine mammals 

for subsistence purposes, and the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that there will not be an 

unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from the FAA’s 

proposed activities. 

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, in this 

case with the Alaska regional Protected 

Resources Division Office, whenever we 

propose to authorize take for 

endangered or threatened species. 

NMFS is proposing to authorize take 

of two DPSs (i.e., wDPS of Steller sea 

lions and Mexico DPS of humpback 

whales), which are listed under the 

ESA. The Permit and Conservation 

Division has requested initiation of 

Section 7 consultation with the Alaska 

Region for the issuance of this IHA. 

NMFS will conclude the ESA 

consultation prior to reaching a 

determination regarding the proposed 

issuance of the authorization. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to the FAA for conducting their 

Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. This 

section contains a draft of the IHA itself. 

The wording contained in this section is 

proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if 

issued). 

1. This IHA is valid for 1 year from 

May 1, 2018 through April 30, 2019. 

2. This IHA is valid only for pile 

driving and removal activities 

associated with the Biorka Island Dock 

Replacement Project in Symonds Bay, 

Alaska from May 1 to September 30, 

2018. 

3. General Conditions 

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

possession of the FAA, its designees, 

and work crew personnel operating 

under the authority of this IHA. 

(b) The species authorized for taking 

are summarized in Table 11. 

(c) The taking, by Level A and Level 

B harassment, is limited to the species 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41253 

listed in condition 3(b). See Table 1 for 

numbers of take authorized. 

TABLE 11—AUTHORIZED TAKE

NUMBERS

Species 

Authorized take 

Level A Level B 

Harbor seal ................... 2 350 

California sea lion ......... 6 350 

Harbor porpoise ............ 32 105 

Killer whale ................... 0 36 

Humpback whale .......... 3 350 

(d) The taking by injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, or death of 

the species listed in condition 3(b) of 

the Authorization or any taking of any 

other species of marine mammal is 

prohibited and may result in the 

modification, suspension, or revocation 

of this IHA, unless authorization of take 

by Level A harassment is listed in 

condition 3(b) of this Authorization. 

(e) The FAA shall conduct briefings 

between construction supervisors and 

crews, marine mammal monitoring 

team, and staff prior to the start of all 

pile driving and removal activities, and 

when new personnel join the work. 

4. Mitigation Measures 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to implement the following 

mitigation measures. 

(a) For all pile driving and removal, 

the FAA shall implement a minimum 

shutdown zone of 10 m radius around 

the pile. Additionally, the FAA shall 

implement shutdown zones for each 

construction scenario as presented in 

Table 12. If a marine mammal comes 

within or approaches the applicable 

shutdown zone, such operations shall 

cease. 

(b) For in-water heavy machinery 

work other than pile driving (e.g., 

standard barges, tug boats, bargemounted excavators, or clamshell 

equipment used to place or remove 

material), if a marine mammal comes 

within 10 meters, operations shall cease 

and vessels shall reduce speed to the 

minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions. 

(c) The FAA shall establish 

monitoring locations as described 

below. Please also refer to the FAA’s 

application (see www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

permits/incidental/construction.htm). 

i. For all pile driving and removal 

activities, a minimum of two observers 

shall be deployed, with one positioned 

to achieve optimal monitoring of the 

shutdown zones and the second 

positioned to achieve optimal 

monitoring of surrounding waters of 

Biorka dock and portions of Symonds 

Bay and Sitka Sound. If practicable, the 

second observer should be deployed to 

an elevated position with clear sight 

lines to the Project area. 

ii. These observers shall record all 

observations of marine mammals, 

regardless of distance from the pile 

being driven, as well as behavior and 

potential behavioral reactions of the 

animals. 

iii. All observers shall be equipped for 

communication of marine mammal 

observations amongst themselves and to 

other relevant personnel (e.g., those 

necessary to effect activity delay or 

shutdown). 

(d) Monitoring shall take place from 

15 minutes prior to initiation of pile 

driving and removal activity through 30 

minutes post-completion of pile driving 

and removal activity. In the event of a 

delay or shutdown of activity resulting 


mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICESEN30AU17.002</GPH>
41254 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

from marine mammals in the shutdown 

zone, animals shall be allowed to 

remain in the shutdown zone (i.e., must 

leave of their own volition) and their 

behavior shall be monitored and 

documented. Monitoring shall occur 

throughout the time required to drive a 

pile. The shutdown zone must be 

determined to be clear during periods of 

good visibility (i.e., the entire shutdown 

zone and surrounding waters must be 

visible to the naked eye). 

(e) If a marine mammal approaches or 

enters the shutdown zone, all pile 

driving and removal activities at that 

location shall be halted. If pile driving 

is halted or delayed due to the presence 

of a marine mammal, the activity may 

not commence or resume until either 

the animal has voluntarily left and been 

visually confirmed beyond the 

shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have 

passed without re-detection of small 

cetaceans and pinnipeds and 30 

minutes for humpback whales. 

(f) Using delay and shut-down 

procedures, if a species for which 

authorization has not been granted or if 

a species for which authorization has 

been granted but the authorized takes 

are met, approaches or is observed 

within the Level B harassment zone 

(Table 2), activities will shut down 

immediately and not restart until the 

animals have been confirmed to have 

left the area. 

(g) Monitoring shall be conducted by 

qualified observers. Trained observers 

shall be placed from the best vantage 

point(s) practicable to monitor for 

marine mammals and implement 

shutdown or delay procedures when 

applicable through communication with 

the equipment operator. Observer 

training must be provided prior to 

project start and in accordance with the 

monitoring measures in the application, 

and shall include instruction on species 

identification (sufficient to distinguish 

the species listed in 3(b)), description 

and categorization of observed 

behaviors and interpretation of 

behaviors that may be construed as 

being reactions to the specified activity, 

proper completion of data forms, and 

other basic components of biological 

monitoring, including tracking of 

observed animals or groups of animals 

such that repeat sound exposures may 

be attributed to individuals (to the 

extent possible). 

(h) The FAA shall use soft start 

techniques recommended by NMFS for 

impact pile driving. Soft start requires 

contractors to provide an initial set of 

strikes at reduced energy, followed by a 

thirty-second waiting period, then two 

subsequent reduced energy strike sets. 

Soft start shall be implemented at the 

start of each day’s impact pile driving 

and at any time following cessation of 

impact pile driving for a period of thirty 

minutes or longer. 

(i) Pile driving shall only be 

conducted during daylight hours. 

5. Monitoring 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to conduct marine mammal 

monitoring during pile driving and 

removal activities. Marine mammal 

monitoring and reporting shall be 

conducted in accordance with the 

monitoring measures in the application. 

(a) The FAA shall collect sighting data 

and behavioral responses to pile driving 

and removal and drilling activities for 

marine mammal species observed in the 

region of activity during the period of 

activity. All observers shall be trained in 

marine mammal identification and 

behaviors, and shall have no other 

construction-related tasks while 

conducting monitoring. 

(b) For all marine mammal 

monitoring, the information shall be 

recorded as described in the monitoring 

measures section of the application. 

6. Reporting 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to: 

(a) Submit a draft report on all 

monitoring conducted under the IHA 

within 90 days of the completion of 

marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days 

prior to the issuance of any subsequent 

IHA for projects at the Project area, 

whichever comes first. A final report 

shall be prepared and submitted within 

thirty days following resolution of 

comments on the draft report from 

NMFS. This report must contain the 

informational elements described in the 

application, at minimum (see 

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

incidental/construction.htm), and shall 

also include: 

i. Detailed information about any 

implementation of shutdowns, 

including the distance of animals to the 

pile and description of specific actions 

that ensued and resulting behavior of 

the animal, if any. 

ii. Description of attempts to 

distinguish between the number of 

individual animals taken and the 

number of incidents of take, such as 

ability to track groups or individuals. 

iii. An estimated total take estimate 

extrapolated from the number of marine 

mammals observed during the course of 

construction activities, if necessary. 

(b) Reporting injured or dead marine 

mammals: 

i. In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by this IHA, such as a serious 

injury or mortality, the FAA shall 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and the Alaska Regional Stranding 

Coordinator. The report must include 

the following information: 

A. Time and date of the incident; 

B. Description of the incident; 

C. Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

D. Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

E. Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

F. Fate of the animal(s); and 

G. Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

Activities shall not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS will work with the FAA to 

determine what measures are necessary 

to minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. The FAA may not resume 

their activities until notified by NMFS. 

ii. In the event that the FAA discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead observer determines that the 

cause of the injury or death is unknown 

and the death is relatively recent (e.g., 

in less than a moderate state of 

decomposition), the FAA shall 

immediately report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and the Alaska Regional Stranding 

Coordinator. 

The report must include the same 

information identified in 6(b)(i) of this 

IHA. Activities may continue while 

NMFS reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. NMFS will work with the FAA 

to determine whether additional 

mitigation measures or modifications to 

the activities are appropriate. 

iii. In the event that the FAA 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal, and the lead observer 

determines that the injury or death is 

not associated with or related to the 

activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., 

previously wounded animal, carcass 

with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, scavenger damage), the 

FAA shall report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and the Alaska Regional Stranding 

Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of 

the discovery. The FAA shall provide 

photographs or video footage or other 

documentation of the stranded animal 

sighting to NMFS. 

7. This Authorization may be 

modified, suspended or withdrawn if 

the holder fails to abide by the 

conditions prescribed herein, or if 

NMFS determines the authorized taking 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41255 

is having more than a negligible impact 

on the species or stock of affected 

marine mammals. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the draft authorization, and any other 

aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHAs 

for the FAA’s dock replacement 

construction activities. Please include 

with your comments any supporting 

data or literature citations to help 

inform our final decision on the FAA’s 

request for MMPA authorization. 

Dated: August 24, 2017. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18347 Filed 8–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Vietnam War Commemoration 

Advisory Committee; Notice of Federal 

Advisory Committee Meeting 

AGENCY: Deputy Chief Management 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory 

Committee meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense 

(DoD) is publishing this notice to 

announce that the following Federal 

Advisory Committee meeting of the 

Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory 

Committee will take place. 

DATES: Open to the public Thursday, 

September 28, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. to 

12:00 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Pentagon Library and 

Conference Center, 1155 Defense 

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–1155. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. 

Marcia Moore, 703–571–2005 (Voice), 

703–692–4691 (Facsimile), 

marcia.l.moore12.civ@mail.mil (Email). 

Mailing address is DoD Vietnam War 

Commemoration Program Office, 241 

18th Street South, Suite 101, Arlington, 

VA 22202. Web site: http://

www.vietnamwar50th.com. The most 

up-to-date changes to the meeting 

agenda can be found on the Web site. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

meeting is being held under the 

provisions of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 

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

Government in the Sunshine Act of 

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

41 CFR 102–3.140 and 102–3.150. 

In accordance with Public Law 110– 

181 sec. 598; the 2008 National Defense 

Authorization Act authorized the 

Secretary of Defense to establish the 

Vietnam War Commemoration Office. 

The Office promotes events, exhibits, 

partnerships, and other activities to 

meet the objectives specified in Law: 1. 

To thank and honor veterans of the 

Vietnam War, including personnel who 

were held as prisoners of war (POW), or 

listed as missing in action (MIA), for 

their service and sacrifice on behalf of 

the United States and to thank and 

honor the families of these veterans. 2. 

To highlight the service of the Armed 

Forces during the Vietnam War and the 

contributions of Federal agencies and 

governmental and non-governmental 

organizations that served with, or in 

support of, the Armed Forces. 3. To pay 

tribute to the contributions made on the 

home front by the people of the United 

States during the Vietnam War. 4. To 

highlight the advances in technology, 

science, and medicine related to 

military research conducted during the 

Vietnam War. 5. To recognize the 

contributions and sacrifices made by the 

allies of the United States during the 

Vietnam War. 

Purpose of the Meeting: The Vietnam 

War Commemoration Advisory 

Committee is providing 

recommendations on the Vietnam War 

Commemoration Office’s Strategic Plan. 

Agenda: The meeting will begin at 

10:00 a.m. and end at 12:00 p.m. on 

September 28, 2017. Members will share 

their individual comments on the 

Strategic Plan and will then build a 

consensus on their recommendations. 

Meeting Accessibility: The walk to the 

meeting room will take approximately 

10 minutes. Ramp access is available for 

the physically challenged. Visitors in 

wheelchairs must be accompanied by 

someone who will assist them. 

Written Statements: The public is 

invited to submit written statements to 

the Designated Federal Officer by 

Friday, September 22, 2017 using the 

contact information in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Dated: August 24, 2017. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18321 Filed 8–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[EL17–33–000] 

Great River Energy; Notice of Filing 

Take notice that on July 25, 2017, 

Great River Energy submitted a 

supplement to its December 29, 2016 

updated revenue requirement for 

Reactive Power Service provided under 

Schedule 2 of the Midwest ISO Tariff. 

Any person desiring to intervene or to 

protest this filing must file in 

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 

Protests will be considered by the 

Commission in determining the 

appropriate action to be taken, but will 

not serve to make protestants parties to 

the proceeding. Any person wishing to 

become a party must file a notice of 

intervention or motion to intervene, as 

appropriate. Such notices, motions, or 

protests must be filed on or before the 

comment date. On or before the 

comment date, it is not necessary to 

serve motions to intervene or protests 

on persons other than the Applicant. 

The Commission encourages 

electronic submission of protests and 

interventions in lieu of paper using the 

eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. 

Persons unable to file electronically 

should submit an original and 5 copies 

of the protest or intervention to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 

20426. 

This filing is accessible on-line at 

http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary 

link and is available for review in the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room in 

Washington, DC. There is an 

eSubscription link on the Web site that 

enables subscribers to receive email 

notification when a document is added 

to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance 

with any FERC Online service, please 

email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or 

call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, 

call (202) 502–8659. 

Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern 

Time on September 5, 2017. 

Dated: August 24, 2017. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18369 Filed 8–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES