47176 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF744 

Pacific Fishery Management Council; 

Public Meeting (Webinar) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s (Pacific Council) 

Ad hoc Community Advisory Board 

(CAB) will hold a two-day meeting in 

Portland, OR. The meeting is open to 

the public. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 and 

Wednesday, October 25, 2017, from 8 

a.m. each morning until business for 

each day has been completed. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Sheraton Portland Airport Hotel, 

Garden A/B/C Room, 8235 NE Airport 

Way, Portland, OR 97220; telephone: 

(503) 281–2500. 

Council address: Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, 

OR 97220. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Jim Seger, Pacific Council; telephone: 

(503) 820–2416. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

primary purpose of the CAB meeting is 

to review the public review draft of the 

catch share program five-year review 

document and continue to develop 

ranges of alternatives for Pacific Council 

consideration at the November 2017 

Pacific Council meeting. The issues to 

be covered were identified by the 

Pacific Council at its June 2017 meeting, 

and include: Meeting the at-sea whiting 

fishery bycatch needs; trawl sablefish 

area management (including limits on 

gear switching); shoreside individual 

fishing quota (IFQ) accumulation limit; 

shoreside IFQ choke species 

management; and catcher-processor 

sector accumulation limits on permit 

ownership and harvesting/processing. 

Ranges of alternatives are to be 

developed and finalized for analysis 

over the course of the November 2017 

and March/April 2018 Pacific Council 

meetings. Due to workload limitations, 

it is unlikely that all of these issues will 

move forward in 2018. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in the meeting agenda may be 

discussed, those issues may not be the 

subject of formal action during this 

meeting. Action will be restricted to 

those issues specifically listed in this 

document and any issues arising after 

publication of this document that 

require emergency action under section 

305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

provided the public has been notified of 

the intent to take final action to address 

the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. 

Kris Kleinschmidt (503) 820–2411 at 

least 10 business days prior to the 

meeting date. 

Dated: October 5, 2017. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21889 Filed 10–10–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF444 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Pile Driving 

Activities for the Restoration of Pier 

62, Seattle Waterfront, Elliot Bay 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

Seattle Department of Transportation 

(Seattle DOT) to incidentally harass, by 

Level B harassment only, marine 

mammals during pile driving and 

removal activities associated with the 

restoration of Pier 62 project in Seattle 

Waterfront, Elliot Bay in Seattle, 

Washington. 

DATES: This Authorization is applicable 

from October 4, 2017 through February 

28, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Egger, 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 to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, 

or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or 

kill any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

In compliance with NOAA policy, the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

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

and the Council on Environmental 

Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500– 

1508), NMFS determined the issuance 

of the IHA qualifies to be categorically 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 47177 

excluded from further NEPA review. 

This action is consistent with categories 

of activities identified in CE B4 of the 

Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. 

Summary of Request 

On January 27, 2017, NMFS received 

a request from the Seattle DOT for an 

IHA to take marine mammals incidental 

to pile driving activities for the 

restoration of Pier 62, Seattle 

Waterfront, Elliot Bay in Seattle, 

Washington. Seattle DOT’s request is for 

take of 11 species of marine mammals, 

by Level A and Level B harassment. 

Neither Seattle DOT nor NMFS expect 

mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

This IHA would cover one season of 

a larger project for which Seattle DOT 

intends to request take authorization for 

subsequent facets of the project. The 

second season of the project is expected 

to involve pile driving the remainder of 

piles for Pier 62 and Pier 63. 

Description of Specified Activities 

Overview 

The planned project will replace Pier 

62 and make limited modifications to 

Pier 63 on the Seattle waterfront of 

Elliot Bay, Seattle, Washington. The 

existing piers are constructed of 

creosote-treated timber piles and treated 

timber decking, which are failing. The 

planned project would demolish and 

remove the existing timber piles and 

decking of Pier 62, and replace them 

with concrete deck planks, concrete pile 

caps, and steel piling. 

The footprint of Pier 62 will remain 

as it currently is, with a small amount 

of additional over-water coverage 

(approximately 3,200 square feet) 

created by a new float system added to 

the south side of Pier 62. This float 

system is intended for moorage of 

transient, small-boat traffic, and will not 

be designed to accommodate mooring or 

berthing for larger vessels. This includes 

removing 815 timber piles, and will 

require installation of 180 steel piles for 

Pier 62. To offset the additional overwater coverage associated with the new 

float system, approximately 3,700 

square feet of Pier 63 will be removed. 

This includes removing 65 timber piles, 

and will require installation of nine 

steel piles to provide structural support 

for the remaining portion of Pier 63. 

Seattle DOT estimates 49 days will be 

needed to remove the old timber piles 

and 64 days for installation of steel piles 

for a total of 113 in-water construction 

days for both Pier 62 and Pier 63. Pile 

driving (removal and installation 

activities) will occur approximately 

eight hours a day during daylight hours 

only. 

The 14-inch (in) timber piles will be 

removed with a vibratory hammer or 

pulled with a clamshell bucket. The 30- 

in steel piles will be installed with a 

vibratory hammer to the extent possible. 

An impact hammer will be used for 

proofing steel piles or when 

encountering obstructions or difficult 

ground conditions. The contractor may 

elect to operate multiple pile crews for 

the Pier 62 Project. As a result, more 

than one vibratory or impact hammer 

may be active at the same time. The 

Seattle DOT will not operate more than 

two vibratory hammers concurrently. 

The Seattle DOT will proof 10 piles, 

spread over the different geological 

zones and construction zones of the pier 

foundation. For this proofing effort, one 

impact crane would be mobilized. In 

addition to proofing, if a pile reaches 

refusal (i.e., can be driven no farther) 

with a vibratory hammer, an impact 

hammer would be used to drive the pile 

to the required depth or embedment. It 

is not possible to anticipate which piles 

will need to be driven with an impact 

hammer. Even if the project were to 

mobilize two impact hammer crews on 

one day, given the nature of the work, 

simultaneous hammer strikes would not 

be possible. 

In-water noise from pile driving 

activities will result in the take, by 

Level A and Level B harassment only, 

of 11 species of marine mammals. It is 

assumed that a second season of inwater pile driving will be required to 

finish the pile installation. The specific 

scope of the second season of work will 

depend on work accomplished during 

the first season. A separate IHA 

application will be prepared for the 

second season of work. In-water work 

will occur within a modified or 

shortened work window (October 

through February) to reduce or 

minimize effects on juvenile salmonids. 

A detailed description of the planned 

Pier 62 project is provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (82 FR 34486; July 25, 2017). Since 

that time, no changes have been made 

to the planned activities. Therefore, a 

detailed description is not provided 

here. Please refer to that Federal 

Register notice for the description of the 

specific activity. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue 

an IHA to the Seattle DOT for the Pier 

62 project was published in the Federal 

Register on July 25, 2017 (82 FR 34486). 

That notice described, in detail, Seattle 

DOT’s activity, the marine mammal 

species that may be affected by the 

activity, and the anticipated effects on 

marine mammals. During the 30-day 

public comment period, NMFS received 

only one pertinent comment letter, from 

the Marine Mammal Commission 

(Commission). 

Comment 1: NMFS received a 

comment from the Commission and 

while the Commission agrees with 

NMFS’s determinations, it recommends 

that NMFS follow NMFS’s policy of a 

24-hour reset for enumerating the 

number of marine mammals that could 

be taken during the planned activities 

by applying standard rounding rules 

before summing the numbers of 

estimated takes across survey sites and 

survey days. 

Response: Calculating predicted take 

is not an exact science and there are 

arguments for using different 

mathematical approaches in different 

situations, and for making qualitative 

adjustments in other situations. NMFS 

is currently engaged in developing a 

protocol to help guide its take 

calculations given particular situations 

and circumstances. We believe, 

however, that the methodology for this 

action is appropriate and is not at odds 

with the 24-hour reset policy the 

Commission references. 

Comment 2: NMFS received 

comments from the Seattle Aquarium 

(Aquarium) requesting Seattle DOT 

coordinate with the Aquarium during 

pile driving and removal activities for 

the Aquarium’s captive marine 

mammals, some of which are housed 

outside of the main aquarium, and may 

potentially be exposed to sound and 

visual stimuli during the project. The 

Aquarium also requested additional 

mitigation measures during pile driving 

and removal activities to minimize 

impacts from noise on the Aquarium’s 

captive marine mammals as well as for 

air and water quality concerns. 

Response: After coordinating with 

Seattle DOT, NMFS confirmed that 

additional, voluntary measures will be 

carried out by the Seattle DOT to satisfy 

concerns from the Aquarium. Seattle 

DOT will implement the following: 

1. If aquarium animals are determined 

by the Aquarium veterinarian to be 

distressed, Seattle DOT will coordinate 

with Aquarium staff to determine 

appropriate next steps, which may 

include suspending pile driving work 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47178 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 

for 30 minutes, provided that 

suspension does not pose a safety issue 

for the Pier 62 project construction 

crews. 

2. Seattle DOT will make reasonable 

efforts to take at least one regularly 

scheduled 20-minute break in pile 

driving each day. 

3. Seattle DOT will regularly 

communicate with the Aquarium staff 

when pile driving is occurring. 

4. Seattle DOT will further coordinate 

with the Aquarium to determine 

appropriate methods to avoid and 

minimize impacts to water quality. 

5. Seattle DOT does not anticipate the 

project resulting in impacts associated 

with airborne dust. If, during 

construction, odors associated with the 

project are an issue, Seattle DOT will 

coordinate with its contractor to 

determine appropriate mitigation 

measures. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

The marine mammal species under 

NMFS’s jurisdiction that have the 

potential to occur in the construction 

area include Pacific harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina), northern elephant seal 

(Mirounga angustirostris), California sea 

lion (Zalophus californianus), Steller 

sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Dall’s 

porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), longbeaked common dolphin (Delphinus 

capensis), both southern resident and 

transient killer whales (Orcinus orca), 

humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaengliae), gray whale (Eschrichtius 

robustus), and minke whale 

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) (Table 1). 

Of these, the southern resident killer 

whale (SRKW) and humpback whale are 

protected under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA). Pertinent information for 

each of these species is presented in this 

document to provide the necessary 

background to understand their 

demographics and distribution in the 

area. 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN REGION OF ACTIVITY

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance 

survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—SuperfamilyMysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae 

Gray whale .......................... Eschrichtius robustus ......... Eastern North Pacific .......... -; N 20,990 (0.05; 20,125; 2011) 624 132 

Family Balaenidae 

Humpback whale ................ Megaptera novaeangliae 

novaeangliae.

California/Oregon/Washington.E; D 1,918 (0.03; 1,855; 2011) ... 11.0 ≥5.5 

Minke whale ........................ Balaenoptera acutorostrata 

scammoni.

California/Oregon/Washington.-; N 636 (0.72, 369, 2014) ......... 3.5 ≥1.3 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae 

Killer whale ......................... Orcinus orca ....................... Eastern North Pacific Offshore.-; N 240 (0.49, 162, 2008) ......... 1.6 0 

Killer whale ......................... Orcinus orca ....................... Eastern North Pacific 

Southern Resident.

E; D 78 (na, 78, 2014) ................ 0.14 0 

Long-beaked common dolphin.Dephinus capensis ............. California ............................. -; N 101,305 (0.49; 68,432, 

2014).

657 ≥35.4 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

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

Dall’s Porpoise .................... Phocoenoides dalli ............. California/Oregon/Washington.-; N 25,750 (0.45, 17,954, 2014) 172 ≥0.4 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

California sea lion ............... Zalophus californianus ........ U.S. ..................................... -; N 296,750 (na, 153,337, 

2011).

9,200 389 

Steller sea lion .................... Eumetopias jubatus ............ Eastern DPS ....................... -; N 60,131- 74,448 (-; 36,551; 

2013).

1,645 Insig. 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor seal ......................... Phoca vitulina ..................... Washington Northern Inland 

Waters stock.

-; N 11,036 (0.15, -, 1999) ......... Undet. 9.8 

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

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

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

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

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock 

abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual mortality/serious injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 47179 

A detailed description of the of the 

species likely to be affected by the Pier 

62 project, including brief introductions 

to the species and relevant stocks as 

well as available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

information regarding local occurrence, 

were provided in the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 

34486; July 25, 2017). Since that time, 

we are not aware of any changes in the 

status of these species and stocks; 

therefore, detailed descriptions are not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for these 

descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS’ 

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

species/mammals/) for generalized 

species accounts. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

the planned activities for the Pier 62 

project have the potential to result in 

Level B behavioral harassment of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

action area. There is also some potential 

for auditory injury (Level A harassment) 

to result, primarily for high frequency 

species, due to larger predicted auditory 

injury zones. Auditory injury is unlikely 

to occur for mid-frequency species and 

most pinnipeds. The mitigation and 

monitoring measures (i.e., exclusion 

zones, use of a bubble curtain, etc. as 

discussed in detail below in 

‘‘Mitigation’’ section), are expected to 

minimize the severity of such taking to 

the extent practicable. 

The project would not result in 

permanent impacts to habitats used 

directly by marine mammals, such as 

haulout sites, but may have potential 

short-term impacts to food sources such 

as marine invertebrates and fish species. 

Construction will also have temporary 

effects on salmonids and other fish 

species in the project area due to 

disturbance, turbidity, noise, and the 

potential resuspension of contaminants 

during the Pier 62 project. The Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 

FR 34486; July 25, 2017) included a 

detailed discussion of the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and their habitat, and 

therefore, that information is not 

repeated here; please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for that 

information. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes to be 

authorized through this IHA, which 

informed both NMFS’s 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 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as exposure to 

pile driving activities has the potential 

to result in disruption of behavioral 

patterns for individual marine 

mammals. There is also some potential 

for auditory injury (Level A harassment) 

to result, primarily for high frequency 

species due to larger predicted auditory 

injury zones. Auditory injury is unlikely 

to occur for mid-frequency species and 

most pinnipeds. The mitigation and 

monitoring measures (i.e., exclusion 

zones, use of a bubble curtain, etc. as 

discussed in detail below in 

‘‘Mitigation’’ section), are expected to 

minimize the severity of such taking to 

the extent practicable. 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 authorized take 

estimates. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

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

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et al. 

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

the available science indicates and the 

practical need to use a threshold based 

on a factor that is both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

uses a generalized acoustic threshold 

based on received level to estimate the 

onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS 

predicts that marine mammals are likely 

to be behaviorally harassed in a manner 

we consider Level B harassment when 

exposed to underwater anthropogenic 

noise above received levels of 120 dB re 

1 mPa root mean square (rms) for 

continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, 

drilling) sources and above 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 

(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. Seattle 

DOT’s planned activity includes the use 

of continuous (vibratory pile driving 

and removal) and impulsive (impact 

pile driving) sources, and therefore the 

120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) are 

applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’s Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (NMFS, 2016a) 

identifies dual criteria to assess auditory 

injury (Level A harassment) to five 

different marine mammal groups (based 

on hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). Seattle DOT’s planned 

activity includes the use of continuous 

(vibratory pile driving and removal) and 

impulsive (impact pile driving) sources. 

These thresholds were developed by 

compiling and synthesizing the best 

available science and soliciting input 

multiple times from both the public and 

peer reviewers to inform the final 

product, and are provided in Table 2 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47180 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 

TABLE 2—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset thresholds 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

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

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

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

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

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW); (Underwater) ..................................... Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB2 ......................................... LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

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

also be considered. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that fed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds. 

Background noise is the sound level 

that would exist without the planned 

activity (pile driving and removal, in 

this case), while ambient sound levels 

are those without human activity 

(NOAA 2009). The marine waterway of 

Elliott Bay is very active, and human 

factors that may contribute to 

background noise levels include ship 

traffic and fishing-boat depth sounders. 

Natural actions that contribute to 

ambient noise include waves, wind, 

rainfall, current fluctuations, chemical 

composition, and biological sound 

sources (e.g., marine mammals, fish, and 

shrimp; Carr et al. 2006). Background 

noise levels were compared to the 

NOAA/NMFS threshold levels designed 

to protect marine mammals to 

determine the Level B Harassment 

Zones for noise sources. Based on work 

completed by Washington State 

Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 

for Washington State Ferries (WSF) to 

determine background noise in the 

vicinity of Elliott Bay, specifically at the 

Seattle Ferry terminal, the background 

level of 124 dB rms was used to 

calculate the attenuation for vibratory 

pile driving and removal (WSDOT 

2015b). Although NMFS’s harassment 

threshold is typically 120 dB for 

continuous noise, based on multiple 

measurements, the data collected by 

WSDOT (2015b) indicate that ambient 

sound levels are typically higher than 

this sound level and ranged from 124 dB 

to 141 dB; therefore, we used 124 dB 

rms as the relevant threshold for the 

Seattle DOT Pier 62 project, assuming 

that any noise generated by the project 

below 124 dB would be subsumed by 

the existing background noise and have 

little likelihood of causing additional 

behavioral disturbance. 

The sound source levels for 

installation of the 30-in steel piles are 

based on surrogate data compiled by 

WSDOT. The source level of vibratory 

removal of 14-in timber piles were 

based on measurements conducted at 

the Port Townsend Ferry Terminal 

during vibratory removal of 12-in timber 

piles by WSDOT (Laughlin 2011). The 

recorded source level is 152 decibels 

(dB) re 1 micropascal (mPa) at 16 meters 

(m) from the pile. This value was also 

used for other pile driving projects (e.g., 

WSDOT Seattle Multimodal 

Construction Project—Colman Dock (82 

FR 31579; July 7, 2017)) in the same 

area as the Seattle Pier 62 project. In 

February of 2016, WSDOT conducted a 

test pile project at Colman Dock and the 

measured results from that project were 

used for that project and here to provide 

source levels for the prediction of 

isopleths ensonified over thresholds for 

the Seattle Pier 62 project. The results 

showed that the sound pressure level 

(SPL) root-mean-square (rms) for impact 

pile driving of 36-in steel pile is 189 dB 

re 1 mPa at 14 m from the pile (WSDOT 

2016b). This value is also used for 

impact driving of the 30-in steel piles, 

which is a precautionary approach. 

Source level of vibratory pile driving of 

36-in steel piles is based on test pile 

driving at Port Townsend in 2010 

(Laughlin 2011). Recordings of vibratory 

pile driving were made at a distance of 

10 m from the pile. The results show 

that the SPLrms for vibratory pile 

driving of 36-in steel pile was 177 dB re 

1 mPa (WSDOT 2016a). 

The method of incidental take 

requested is Level B acoustical 

harassment of any marine mammal 

occurring within the 160 dB rms 

disturbance threshold during impact 

pile driving of 30-in pipe piles; the 120 

dB rms disturbance threshold for 

vibratory pile driving of 30-in pipe 

piles; and the 120 dB rms disturbance 

threshold for vibratory removal of 14-in 

timber piles have been established as 

the three different Level B ZOIs that will 

be in place during active pile removal 

or installation of the different types of 

piles (Table 3). However, measured 

ambient noise levels in the area are 124 

dB; therefore, NMFS only considers take 

likely to occur in the area ensonified 

above 124 dB, as pile driving noise 

below 124 dB would likely be masked 

or their impacts diminished such that 

any reactions would not be considered 

take as a result of the high ambient 

noise levels. 

For the Level B ZOI’s, sound waves 

propagate in all directions when they 

travel through water until they dissipate 

to background levels or encounter 

barriers that absorb or reflect their 

energy, such as a landmass. Therefore, 

the area of the Level B ZOIs was 

determined using land as the boundary 

on the north, east and south sides of the 

project. On the west, land was also used 

to establish the zone for vibratory 

driving. From Alki on the south and 

Magnolia on the north, a straight line of 

transmission was established out to 

Bainbridge Island. For impact driving 

(and vibratory removal), sound 

dissipates much quicker and the impact 

zone stays within Elliott Bay. Pilerelated construction noise would extend 

throughout the nearshore and open 

water environments to just west of Alki 

Point and a limited distance into the 

East Waterway of the Lower Duwamish 

River, a highly industrialized waterway. 

Because landmasses block in-water 

construction noise, a ‘‘noise shadow’’ 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 47181 

created by Alki Point is expected to be 

present immediately west of this feature 

(refer to Seattle DOT’s application for 

maps depicting the Level B ZOIs). 

TABLE 3—LEVEL B ZONE DESCRIPTIONS AND DURATION OF ACTIVITY

Sound 

source Activity Construction method 

Level B 

threshold 

(m) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

1 .................. Removal of 14-in Timber Piles .............................. Vibratory ........................ 1,865 4.9 49 

2 .................. Installation of 30-in Steel Piles .............................. Vibratory ........................ 54,117 91 53

3 .................. Installation of 30-in Steel Piles .............................. Impact ............................ 1,201 2.3 11 

When NMFS Technical Guidance 

(NMFS 2016) was published, in 

recognition of the fact that ensonified 

area/volume could be more technically 

challenging to predict because of the 

duration component in the new 

thresholds, we developed a User 

Spreadsheet that includes tools to help 

predict a simple isopleth that can be 

used in conjunction with marine 

mammal density or occurrence to help 

predict takes. We note that because of 

some of the assumptions included in the 

methods used for these tools, we 

anticipate that isopleths produced are 

typically going to be overestimates of 

some degree, which will result in some 

degree of overestimate of Level A take. 

However, these tools offer the best way 

to predict appropriate isopleths when 

more sophisticated 3D modeling 

methods are not available, and NMFS 

continues to develop ways to 

quantitatively refine these tools, and 

will qualitatively address the output 

where appropriate. For stationary 

sources such as vibratory and impact 

pile driving, NMFS’s User Spreadsheet 

predicts the closest distance at which, if 

a marine mammal remained at that 

distance the whole duration of the 

activity, it would not incur PTS. Inputs 

used in the User Spreadsheet, and the 

resulting isopleths are reported below. 

The PTS isopleths were identified for 

each hearing group for impact and 

vibratory installation and removal 

methods that will be used in the Pier 62 

Project. The PTS isopleth distances 

were calculated using the NMFS 

acoustic threshold calculator (NMFS 

2016), with inputs based on measured 

and surrogate noise measurements taken 

during the EBSP and from WSDOT, and 

estimating conservative working 

durations (Table 4 and Table 5). 

TABLE 4—NMFS TECHNICAL ACOUSTIC GUIDANCE USER SPREADSHEET INPUT TO PREDICT PTS ISOPLETHS

Spreadsheet tab used 

Sound source 1 Sound source 2 Sound source 3 

(A) Vibratory 

pile driving 

(removal) 

(A) Vibratory 

pile driving 

(installation) 

(E.1) Impact 

pile driving 

(installation) 

User spreadsheet input 

Source Level (rms SPL) ........................................................................................................ a 155 dB b 180 dB ..........................

Source Level (Single Strike/shot SEL) .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... c 176 dB 

Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz) ....................................................................................... 2.5 2.5 2 

(a) Number of strikes in 1 h .................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 20 

(a) Activity Duration (h) within 24-h period ............................................................................ 8 8 4 

Propagation (xLogR) .............................................................................................................. 15 15 15 

Distance of source level measurement (meters)+ ................................................................ 16 10 14 

a Laughlin, Jim. 2011. Port Townsend Dolphin Timber Pile Removal—Vibratory Pile Monitoring Technical Memorandum. Prepared by Washington State Department of Transportation, Office of Air Quality and Noise, Seattle, Washington. January 2011. 3 dB added for use of two vibratory hammers. bSource level for 30-in steel piles was from test pile driving at Port Townsend Ferry Terminal in 2010. SPLrms for vibratory pile driving was 

177 dB re 1 μPa. and 3 dB was added for use of two hammers. cSource information is from the Underwater Sound Level Report: Colman Dock Test Pile Project 2016. 

TABLE 5—NMFS TECHNICAL ACOUSTIC GUIDANCE USER SPREADSHEET OUTPUT FOR PREDICTED PTS ISOPLETHS AND

LEVEL A DAILY ENSONIFIED AREAS

Sound source type 

PTS isopleth (meters) 

Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

High-frequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

User spreadsheet output 

1—Vibratory (pile removal) ...................................... 17.4 1.5 25.7 10.6 0.7 

2—Vibratory (installation) ......................................... 504.8 44.7 746.4 306.8 21.5 

3—Impact (installation) ............................................ 88.6 3.2 105.6 47.4 3.5 

Daily ensonified area (km2) a

Vibratory (pile removal) ............................................ 0.000476 0.000004 0.001037 0.000176 7.70E–13 

Vibratory (installation) .............................................. 0.400275 0.003139 0.875111 0.147853 0.000726 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47182 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 

TABLE 5—NMFS TECHNICAL ACOUSTIC GUIDANCE USER SPREADSHEET OUTPUT FOR PREDICTED PTS ISOPLETHS AND

LEVEL A DAILY ENSONIFIED AREAS—Continued 

Sound source type 

PTS isopleth (meters) 

Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

High-frequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

Impact (installation) .................................................. 0.012331 0.000016 0.017517 0.003529 1.92423E–05 

Note: 

a Daily ensonified areas were divided by two to only account for the ensonified area within the water and not over land. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Calculation and Estimation 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that informed the take calculation and 

we describe how the marine mammal 

occurrence information is brought 

together to produce a quantitative take 

estimate. In all cases we demonstrated 

take estimates using the species density 

data from the 2015 Pacific Navy Marine 

Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 

2015), to estimate take for marine 

mammals. 

Take estimates are based on average 

marine mammal density in the project 

area multiplied by the area size of 

ensonified zones within which received 

noise levels exceed certain thresholds 

(i.e., Level A and B harassment) from 

specific activities, then multiplied by 

the total number of days such activities 

would occur. 

Unless otherwise described, 

incidental take is estimated by the 

following equation: 

Incidental take estimate = species 

density * zone of influence * days 

of pile-related activity 

However, adjustments were made for 

nearly every marine mammal species, 

whenever their local abundance was 

known through other monitoring efforts. 

In those cases, the local abundance data 

was used for take calculations for the 

authorized take instead of general 

animal density (see below). 

Harbor Seal 

Based on U.S. Navy species density 

estimates (U.S. Navy 2015) for the 

inland waters of Puget Sound, potential 

take of harbor seal is shown in Table 6. 

Based on these calculations, Level A 

take is estimated at 10 harbor seals from 

vibratory pile driving and Level B take 

is estimated at 6,193 harbor seals from 

all sound sources. However, 

observational data from previous 

projects on the Seattle waterfront have 

documented only a fraction of what is 

calculated using the Navy density 

estimates for Puget Sound. For example, 

between zero and seven seals were 

observed daily for the EBSP and 56 

harbor seals were observed over 10 days 

in the area with the maximum number 

of 13 harbor seals sighted during the 

2016 Seattle Test Pile project (WSF 

2016). 

Therefore, the harbor seal take 

estimate is based on local seal 

abundance information using the 

maximum number of seals (13) sighted 

in one day during the 2016 Seattle Test 

Pile project multiplied by a total of 113 

pile driving days for the Seattle DOT 

Pier 62 Project. As a result, NMFS will 

authorize Level B harassment of 1,469 

harbor seals that could be exposed to 

noise levels associated with ‘‘take.’’ 

Fifty-three of the 113 days of activity 

would involve installation by vibratory 

pile driving, which has a much larger 

Level A zone (306.8 m) than the Level 

A zones for vibratory removal (10.6 m) 

and impact pile driving (47.4 m). Harbor 

seals may be difficult to observe at 

greater distances, therefore, during 

vibratory pile driving, it may not be 

known how long a seal is present in the 

Level A zone. We estimate that four 

harbor seals may experience Level A 

harassment during these 53 days. Four 

seals were considered to have the 

potential to be taken by Level A 

harassment based the local 

observational data for harbor seals, the 

larger ensonified area during vibratory 

pile driving for installation, and our best 

professional judgment that an animal 

would remain within the injury zone for 

prolonged exposure of intense noise. 

The number of Level B takes was 

adjusted to exclude those already 

counted for Level A takes, so the 

authorized Level B take is 1,465 harbor 

seals. 

TABLE 6—HARBOR SEAL ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Sound source Species 

density 

Level A 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

take 

Level A 

Estimated 

take 

Level B 

1 ............................................................... 1.219 0.000176 4.9 49 0 293 

2 ............................................................... 1.219 0.147853 91 53 10 * * 5,879 

3 ............................................................... 1.219 0.003529 2.3 11 0 31 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

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

* * (* Adjusted 5,869) 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Based on U.S. Navy species density 

estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential 

take of northern elephant seal is 

expected to be zero. However, The 

Whale Museum (as cited in WSDOT 

2016a) reported one sighting in the 

relevant area between 2008 and 2014. 

Therefore, the Seattle DOT requested 

and NMFS will authorize Level B 

harassment of one northern elephant 

seal. 

California Sea Lion 

Based on U.S. Navy species density 

estimates (U.S. Navy 2015) for the 

inland waters of Washington, including 

Eastern Bays and Puget Sound, potential 

take of California sea lion is shown in 

Table 7. Since the calculated Level A 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 47183 

zones of otariids are all very small 

(Table 5), we do not consider it likely 

that any sea lions would be taken by 

Level A harassment. All California sea 

lion takes estimated here are expected to 

be takes by Level B harassment. The 

estimated Level B take is 644 California 

sea lions. However, the Seattle DOT 

believes that this estimate is 

unrealistically low, based on local 

marine mammal monitoring. Therefore, 

NMFS will authorize Level B 

harassment of 1,695 California sea lions. 

The California sea lion take estimate is 

based on four seasons of local sea lion 

abundance information from the EBSP. 

Marine mammal visual monitoring 

during the EBSP indicates that a 

maximum of 15 sea lions were observed 

in a day during four years of project 

monitoring (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 

2016). Based on a total of 113 pile 

driving days for the Seattle Pier 62 

project, it is estimated that up to 1,695 

California sea lions could be exposed to 

noise levels associated with ‘‘take.’’ 

TABLE 7—CALIFORNIA SEA LION ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Sound source Species 

density 

Level A 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.1266 7.70E–13 4.9 49 0 30 

2 ............................................................... 0.1266 0.000726 91 53 0 611 

3 ............................................................... 0.1266 1.92423E–05 2.3 11 0 3 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

Steller Sea Lion 

Based on U.S. Navy species density 

estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential 

take of Steller sea lion is shown in Table 

8. Since the calculated Level A zones of 

otariids are all very small (Table 5), we 

do not consider it likely that any Steller 

sea lions would be taken by Level A 

harassment. The Seattle DOT requested 

and NMFS will authorize Level B 

harassment of 188 Steller sea lions. 

TABLE 8—STELLER SEA LION ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Sound source Species 

density 

Level A 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.0368 7.70E–13 4.9 49 0 9 

2 ............................................................... 0.0368 0.000726 91 53 0 178 

3 ............................................................... 0.0368 1.92423E–05 2.3 11 0 1 

Note: km2—square kilometers. 

Southern Resident Killer Whale 

Based on the U.S. Navy species 

density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015) the 

density for the SRKW is variable across 

seasons and across the range. The 

inland water density estimates vary 

from 0.001461 to 0.004760/km2 in fall 

and 0.004761–0.020240/km2 in winter. 

Therefore, the take request as shown in 

Table 9 is based on the highest density 

estimated during the winter season 

(0.020240/km2) for the SRKW 

population. 

With the variable winter density, the 

Level B take estimate can range from 24 

to 104 SRKW, with the upper take 

estimate greater than the estimated 

population size and the lower estimated 

take still greater than 20 percent of the 

population. NMFS will authorize Level 

B harassment of 24 SRKW based on a 

single occurrence of one pod (i.e., J 

Pod—24 individuals) that would be 

most likely to be seen near Seattle. The 

Seattle DOT will coordinate with the 

Orca Network and the Center for Whale 

Research (CWR) in an attempt to avoid 

all take of SRKW, but it may be possible 

that a group may enter the Level B ZOI 

before Seattle DOT could shut down 

due to the larger size of the Level B ZOI, 

particularly during vibratory pile 

driving (installation). Since the Level A 

zones of mid-frequency cetaceans are 

small (Table 5), we do not consider it 

likely that any SRKW would be taken by 

Level A harassment. 

TABLE 9—SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALE ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Sound source Species 

density 

Level A 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.020240 0.000004 4.9 49 0 5 

2 ............................................................... 0.020240 0.003139 91 53 0 98 

3 ............................................................... 0.020240 0.000016 2.3 11 0 1 

Note: km2—square kilometers. 

Transient Killer Whale 

Based on U.S. Navy species density 

estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential 

take of transient killer whale is shown 

in Table 10. As with the SRKW, the 

density estimate of transient killer 

whales is variable between seasons and 

regions. In fall, density estimates range 

from 0.001583 to 0.002373/km2 and in 

winter they range from 0.000575 to 

0.001582/km2. The winter density 

estimate, when most of the work is 

being conducted, will be used for 

estimating density and take. For Level B 

harassment, this results in a take 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47184 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 

estimate of eight individuals. However, 

the Seattle DOT believes that this 

estimate is low based on local data of 

seven transients that were reported in 

the area (Orca Network Archive Report 

2016a). Therefore, NMFS will authorize 

Level B harassment of 42 transient killer 

whales, which would cover up to 2 

groups of up to seven transient whales 

entering into the project area and 

remaining there for three days. Since the 

Level A zones of mid-frequency 

cetaceans are small (Table 5), we do not 

consider it likely that any transient 

killer whales would be taken by Level 

A harassment. 

TABLE 10—TRANSIENT KILLER WHALE ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Sound source Species 

density 

Level A 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.001582 0.000004 4.9 49 0 0 

2 ............................................................... 0.001582 0.003139 91 53 0 8 

3 ............................................................... 0.001582 0.000016 2.3 11 0 0 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

Long-Beaked Common Dolphin 

Based on U.S. Navy species density 

estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential 

take of long-beaked common dolphin is 

expected to be zero. However, in 2016, 

the Orca Network (2016c) reported a 

pod of up to 20 long-beaked common 

dolphins. Therefore, the Seattle DOT 

requested and NMFS authorized Level B 

harassment of 20 long-beaked common 

dolphins. Since the Level A zones of 

mid-frequency cetaceans are all very 

small (Table 5), we do not consider it 

likely that the long-beaked common 

dolphin would be taken by Level A 

harassment. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Based on species density estimates 

from Jefferson et al. (2016), potential 

take of harbor porpoise is shown in 

Table 11. Take by Level A harassment 

is estimated at 32 harbor porpoises and 

take by Level B harassment is estimated 

at 3,512 exposures to harbor porpoises. 

NMFS will authorize take by Level A 

harassment of 32 harbor porpoises and 

take by Level B harassment of 3,480 

harbor porpoises. 

TABLE 11—HARBOR PORPOISE ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Sound source Species 

density 

Level A 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.69 0.001037 4.9 49 0 166 

2 ............................................................... 0.69 0.875111 91 53 32 * * 3,328 

3 ............................................................... 0.69 0.017517 2.3 11 0 18 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

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

* * (*Adjusted 3,296). 

Dall’s Porpoise 

Based on U.S. Navy species density 

estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential 

take of Dall’s porpoise is shown in Table 

12. Based on these calculations, the 

Seattle DOT requested and NMFS will 

authorize take by Level A harassment of 

two Dall’s porpoise and take by Level B 

harassment of 199 Dall’s porpoise. 

TABLE 12—DALL’S PORPOISE ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Sound source Species 

density 

Level A 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.039 0.001037 4.9 49 0 10 

2 ............................................................... 0.039 0.875111 91 53 2 * * 190 

3 ............................................................... 0.039 0.017517 2.3 11 0 1 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

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

* * (*Adjusted 188). 

Humpback Whale 

Based on U.S. Navy species density 

estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential 

take of humpback whale is shown in 

Table 13. Although the standard take 

calculations would result in an 

estimated take of less than one 

humpback whale, to be conservative, 

the Seattle DOT requested and NMFS 

will authorize Level B harassment of 

five humpback whales based on take 

during previous work in Elliott Bay 

where two humpback whales were 

observed, including one take, during the 

175 days of work during the previous 

four years (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 

2016, and 2017). Since the Level A 

zones of low-frequency cetaceans are 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 47185 

smaller during vibratory removal (17.4 

m) or impact installation (88.6 m) 

compared to the Level A zone for 

vibratory installation (504.8 m) (Table 

5), we do not consider it likely that any 

humpbacks would be taken by Level A 

harassment during removal or impact 

installation. We also do not believe any 

humpbacks would be taken during 

vibratory installation due to the ability 

to see humpbacks easily during 

monitoring and additional coordination 

with the Orca Network and the CWR 

which would enable the work to be shut 

down before a humpback would be 

taken by Level A harassment. 

TABLE 13—HUMPBACK WHALE ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Sound source Species 

density 

Level A 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.00001 0.000476 4.9 49 0 0 

2 ............................................................... 0.00001 0.400275 91 53 0 0 

3 ............................................................... 0.00001 0.012331 2.3 11 0 0 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

Gray Whale 

Based on U.S. Navy species density 

estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential 

take of gray whale is shown in Table 14. 

The Seattle DOT requested and NMFS 

will authorize Level B harassment of 

three gray whales. Since the Level A 

zones of low-frequency cetaceans are 

smaller during vibratory removal (17.4 

m) or impact installation (88.6 m) 

compared to the Level A zone for 

vibratory installation (504.8 m) (Table 

5), we do not consider it likely that any 

gray whales would be taken by Level A 

harassment during removal or impact 

installation. We also do not believe any 

gray whales would be taken during 

vibratory installation due to the ability 

to see gray whales easily during 

monitoring and additional coordination 

with the Orca Network and the CWR, 

which would enable the work to be shut 

down before a gray whale would be 

taken by Level A harassment. 

TABLE 14—GRAY WHALE ESTIMATED TAKE BASED ON NMSDD PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON

Sound source Species 

density 

Level A 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.00051 0.000476 4.9 49 0 0 

2 ............................................................... 0.00051 0.400275 91 53 0 3 

3 ............................................................... 0.00051 0.012331 2.3 11 0 0 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

Minke Whale 

Based on U.S. Navy species density 

estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential 

take of minke whales is expected to be 

zero (Table 15). However, between 2008 

and 2014, the Whale Museum (as cited 

in WSDOT 2016a) reported one sighting 

in the relevant area. Although the take 

calculations would result in an 

estimated take of less than one minke 

whale, the Seattle DOT is requesting 

authorization for Level B harassment of 

two minke whales, based on previous 

sightings in the construction area by the 

Whale Museum. Based on the low 

probability that a minke whale would be 

observed during the project and then 

also enter into a Level A zone, we do 

not consider it likely that any minke 

whales would be taken by Level A 

harassment. 

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

Level B Zone Species 

density 

Level A 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Days of 

activity 

Estimated 

Level A 

take 

Estimated 

Level B 

take 

1 ............................................................... 0.00003 0.000476 4.9 49 0 0 

2 ............................................................... 0.00003 0.400275 91 53 0 <1 

3 ............................................................... 0.00003 0.012331 2.3 11 0 0 

Note: 

km2—square kilometers. 

The summary of the authorized take 

by Level A and Level B Harassment is 

described below in Table 16. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47186 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 

TABLE 16—SUMMARY OF REQUESTED INCIDENTAL TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT

Species Stock size Authorized 

Level A take 

Authorized 

Level B take 

Authorized 

total take 

% of 

population 

Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) .................................. 11,036 4 1,465 a ................................. 1,469 ................................... 13.31. 

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

California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) ...................... 296,750 0 1,695 c ................................. 1,695 ................................... Less than 1. 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) ............................... 60,131–74,448 0 188 ...................................... 188 ...................................... Less than 1. 

Southern resident killer whale DPS (Orcinus orca) .......... 78 0 24 (single occurrence of 

one pod) d.

24 (single occurrence of 

one pod).

30.77. 

Transient killer whale (Orcinus orca) ................................ 240 0 42 e ...................................... 42 ........................................ 20. 

Long-beaked common dolphin (Dephinus capensis) ....... 101,305 0 20 f ....................................... 20 ........................................ Less than 1. 

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) ............................ 11,233 32 3,480 ................................... 3,512 ................................... 31.26. 

Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) ................................ 25,750 2 199 ...................................... 201 ...................................... Less than 1. 

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaengliae) ..................... 1,918 0 5 g ........................................ 5 .......................................... Less than 1. 

Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) .................................. 20,990 0 3 .......................................... 3 .......................................... Less than 1. 

Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) ....................... 636 0 2 h ........................................ 2 .......................................... Less than 1. 

Note: 

aThe take estimate is based on a maximum of 13 seals observed on a given day during the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project. The number of Level B takes was adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A takes. bThe take estimate is based on The Whale Museum (as cited in WSDOT 2016a) reporting one sighting of a Northern elephant seal in the area between 2008 and 

2014. cThe take estimate is based on a maximum of 15 California sea lions observed on a given day during 4 monitoring seasons of the EBSP project. 

dThe take estimate is based on a single occurrence of one pod of SRKW (i.e., J-pod of 24 SRKW) that would be most likely to be seen near Seattle. eThe take estimate is based on local data which is greater than the estimates produced using the Navy density estimates. Therefore, the take is 20 percent of the 

transient killer whale stock. fThe take estimate is based on the Orca Network (2016c) reporting a pod of up to 20 long-beaked common dolphins. 

gThe take estimate is based on take during previous work in Elliott Bay, where two humpback whales were observed and is greater than what was calculated using 

2015 Navy density estimates. h The take estimate is based on The Whale Museum (as cited in WSDOT 2016a) reporting one sighting in the relevant area. Although the take calculations would 

result in an estimated take of less than one minke whale, to be conservative the Seattle DOT is requesting take of two minke whales. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

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

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to such 

activity, ‘‘and other means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking’’ for 

certain subsistence uses (latter not 

applicable for this action). NMFS 

regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) the likelihood 

of effective implementation (probability 

implemented as planned), and; 

(2) the practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

Several measures for mitigating effects 

on marine mammals from the pile 

installation and removal activities at 

Pier 62 and are described below. 

Timing Restrictions 

All work will be conducted during 

daylight hours. 

Bubble Curtain 

A bubble curtain will be used during 

pile driving activities with an impact 

hammer to reduce sound levels. 

Exclusion Zones 

Exclusion Zones will be implemented 

to protect marine mammals from Level 

A harassment (Table 17 below). The 

PTS isopleths described in Table 5 were 

used as a starting point for calculating 

the exclusion zones; however, Seattle 

DOT will implement a minimum 

shutdown zone of a 10 m radius around 

each pile for all construction methods 

for all marine mammals. Therefore, in 

some cases the exclusion zone will be 

slightly larger than was calculated for 

the PTS isopleths as described in Table 

5 (i.e., for mid-frequency cetaceans and 

otariid pinnipeds). Outside of any Level 

A take authorized, if a marine mammal 

is observed at or within the Exclusion 

Zone, work will shut down (stop work) 

until the individual has been observed 

outside of the zone, or has not been 

observed for at least 15 minutes for 

pinnipeds and small cetaceans and 30 

minutes for large whales. 

TABLE 17—EXCLUSION ZONES FOR VARIOUS PILE DRIVING ACTIVITIES FOR MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

Sound source type 

Exclusion zone (meters) 

Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

High-frequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

1—Vibratory (pile removal) ...................................... 17.4 10 25.7 10.6 10 

2—Vibratory (installation) ......................................... 504.8 44.7 746.4 306.8 21.5 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 47187 

TABLE 17—EXCLUSION ZONES FOR VARIOUS PILE DRIVING ACTIVITIES FOR MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS— 

Continued 

Sound source type 

Exclusion zone (meters) 

Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

High-frequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

3—Impact (installation) ............................................ 88.6 10 105.6 47.4 10 

Additional Shutdown Measures 

Seattle DOT will implement 

shutdown measures if the cumulative 

total number of individuals observed 

within the Level B harassment zone for 

any particular species reaches the 

number authorized under the IHA and 

if such marine mammals are sighted 

within the vicinity of the project area 

and are approaching the Level B 

harassment zone during in-water 

construction activities. 

Level B Harassment Zones 

Seattle DOT will monitoring the Level 

B harassment zones as described in 

Table 18. 

TABLE 18—LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES FOR VARIOUS PILE DRIVING ACTIVITIES

Activity Construction 

method 

Level B 

threshold 

(m) 

Level B 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Removal of 14-in Timber Piles .................................................................. Vibratory .......................................... * * 1,865 4.9 

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

Installation of 30-in Steel Piles .................................................................. Impact .............................................. 1,201 2.3 

Soft-Start for Impact Pile Driving 

Each day at the beginning of impact 

pile driving or any time there has been 

cessation or downtime of 30 minutes or 

more without pile driving, Seattle DOT 

will use the soft-start technique by 

providing an initial set of three strikes 

from the impact hammer at 40 percent 

energy, followed by a one-minute 

waiting period, then two subsequent 

three-strike sets. 

Additional Coordination 

The project team will monitor and 

coordinate with local marine mammal 

networks on a daily basis (i.e., Orca 

Network and/or the CWR) for sightings 

data and acoustic detection data to 

gather information on the location of 

whales prior to pile removal or pile 

driving activities. The project team will 

also coordinate with WSF to discuss 

marine mammal sightings on days when 

pile driving and removal activities are 

occurring on their nearby projects. 

Marine mammal monitoring will be 

conducted to collect information on the 

presence of marine mammals within the 

Level B Harassment Zones for this 

project. In addition, reports will be 

made available to interested parties 

upon request. With this level of 

coordination in the region of activity, 

Seattle DOT will get real-time 

information on the presence or absence 

of whales before starting any pile 

driving or removal activities. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s mitigation measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has determined that the 

mitigation measures provide the means 

of effecting the least practicable impact 

on the affected species or stocks and 

their habitat, paying particular attention 

to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas 

of similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking.’’ The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) 

indicate that requests for authorizations 

must include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present in the action 

area. Effective reporting is critical both 

to compliance as well as ensuring that 

the most value is obtained from the 

required monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Marine mammal monitoring will be 

conducted at all times during in-water 

pile driving and pile removal activities 

in strategic locations around the area of 

potential effects as described below: 

D During pile removal or installation 

with a vibratory hammer, three to four 

monitors would be used, positioned 

such that each monitor has a distinct 

view-shed and the monitors collectively 

have overlapping view-sheds. 

D During pile driving activities with 

an impact hammer, one monitor, based 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47188 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 

at or near the construction site, will 

conduct the monitoring. 

D In the case(s) where visibility 

becomes limited, additional land-based 

monitors and/or boat-based monitors 

may be deployed. 

D Monitors will record take when 

marine mammals enter the relevant 

Level B Harassment Zones based on 

type of construction activity. 

D If a marine mammal approaches an 

Exclusion Zone, the observation will be 

reported to the Construction Manager 

and the individual will be watched 

closely. If the marine mammal crosses 

into an Exclusion Zone, a stop-work 

order will be issued. In the event that a 

stop-work order is triggered, the 

observed marine mammal(s) will be 

closely monitored while it remains in or 

near the Exclusion Zone, and only when 

it moves well outside of the Exclusion 

Zone or has not been observed for at 

least 15 minutes for pinnipeds and 

small cetaceans and 30 minutes for large 

whales will the lead monitor allow work 

to recommence. 

Protected Species Observers 

Seattle DOT shall employ NMFSapproved protected species observers 

(PSOs) to conduct marine mammal 

monitoring for its Pier 62 Project. The 

PSOs will observe and collect data on 

marine mammals in and around the 

project area for 30 minutes before, 

during, and for 30 minutes after all pile 

removal and pile installation work. 

NMFS-approved PSOs shall meet the 

following requirements: 

1. Independent observers (i.e., not 

construction personnel) are required. 

2. At least one observer must have 

prior experience working as an observer. 

3. Other observers may substitute 

education (undergraduate degree in 

biological science or related field) or 

training for experience. 

4. 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. 

5. NMFS will require submission and 

approval of observer CVs. 

6. PSOs will monitor marine 

mammals around the construction site 

using high-quality binoculars (e.g., 

Zeiss, 10 x 42 power) and/or spotting 

scopes. Due to the different sizes of the 

Level B Zones from different pile sizes, 

several different Level B Zones and 

different monitoring protocols 

corresponding to a specific pile size will 

be established. 

7. If marine mammals are observed, 

the following information will be 

documented: 

(A) Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends; 

(B) Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period; 

(C) Weather parameters (e.g., percent 

cover, visibility); 

(D) Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tide state); 

(E) Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

sex and age class of marine mammals; 

(F) Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 

including bearing and direction of travel 

and distance from pile driving activity; 

(G) Distance from pile driving 

activities to marine mammals and 

distance from the marine mammals to 

the observation point; 

(H) Locations of all marine mammal 

observations; and 

(I) Other human activity in the area. 

Acoustic Monitoring 

In addition, acoustic monitoring will 

occur on up to six days per in-water 

work season to evaluate, in real time, 

sound production from construction 

activities and will capture all 

hammering scenarios that may occur 

under the planned project. Background 

noise recordings (in the absence of pilerelated work) will also be made during 

the study to provide a baseline 

background noise profile. Acoustic 

monitoring will follow NMFS’s 2012 

Guidance Documents: Sound 

Propagation Modeling to Characterize 

Pile Driving Sounds Relevant to Marine 

Mammals and Data Collection Methods 

to Characterize Underwater Background 

Sound Relevant to Marine Mammals in 

Coastal Nearshore Waters and Rivers of 

Washington and Oregon. 

The results and conclusions of the 

acoustic monitoring will be summarized 

and presented to NOAA/NMFS with 

recommendations on any modifications 

to this plan or Exclusion Zones. 

Reporting Measures 

Marine Mammal Monitoring Report 

Seattle DOT will submit a draft 

marine mammal monitoring report 

within 90 days after completion of the 

in-water construction work or the 

expiration of the IHA (if issued), 

whichever comes earlier. The report 

would include data from marine 

mammal sightings as described: Date, 

time, location, species, group size, and 

behavior, any observed reactions to 

construction, distance to operating pile 

hammer, and construction activities 

occurring at time of sighting and 

environmental data for the period (i.e., 

wind speed and direction, sea state, 

tidal state, cloud cover, and visibility). 

The marine mammal monitoring report 

will also include total takes, takes by 

day, and stop-work orders for each 

species. NMFS will have an opportunity 

to provide comments on the report, and 

if NMFS has comments, Seattle DOT 

will address the comments and submit 

a final report to NMFS within 30 days. 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by the IHA, such as an injury 

(Level A harassment), serious injury, or 

mortality, Seattle DOT would 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and immediately report the 

incident to the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS and the 

NMFS’ West Coast Stranding 

Coordinator. The report must include 

the following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Name and type of vessel involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Description of the incident; 

• Status of all sound source use in the 

24 hrs preceding the incident; 

• Water depth; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, sea state, 

cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hrs preceding the 

incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities would not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS would work with Seattle DOT to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. Seattle DOT may not 

resume their activities until notified by 

NMFS via letter, email, or telephone. 

Reporting of Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the event that Seattle DOT 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal, and the lead PSO determines 

that the cause of the injury or death is 

unknown and the death is relatively 

recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state 

of decomposition as described in the 

next paragraph), Seattle DOT will 

immediately report the incident to the 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS 

and the NMFS’ West Coast Stranding 

Coordinator. The report must include 

the same information identified in the 

paragraph above. Activities may 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 47189 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

would work with Seattle DOT to 

determine whether modifications in the 

activities are appropriate. 

In the event that Seattle DOT 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal, and the lead PSO determines 

that the injury or death is not associated 

with or related to the activities 

authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously 

wounded animal, carcass with moderate 

to advanced decomposition, or 

scavenger damage), Seattle DOT will 

report the incident to the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS and the 

NMFS Stranding Hotline and/or by 

email to the NMFS’ West Coast 

Stranding Coordinator within 24 hrs of 

the discovery. Seattle DOT would 

provide photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS. 

Activities may continue while NMFS 

reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. 

Acoustic Monitoring Report 

Seattle DOT will submit an Acoustic 

Monitoring Report within 90 days after 

completion of the in-water construction 

work or the expiration of the IHA (if 

issued), whichever comes earlier. The 

report will provide details on the 

monitored piles, method of installation, 

monitoring equipment, and sound levels 

documented during both the sound 

source measurements and the 

background monitoring. NMFS will 

have an opportunity to provide 

comments on the report or changes in 

monitoring for the second season, and if 

NMFS has comments, Seattle DOT will 

address the comments and submit a 

final report to NMFS within 30 days. If 

no comments are received from NMFS 

within 30 days, the draft report will be 

considered final. Any comments 

received during that time will be 

addressed in full prior to finalization of 

the report. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as ‘‘an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized for the Pier 62 

Project. Takes that are anticipated and 

authorized are expected to be limited to 

short-term Level A and Level B 

harassment (behavioral). Marine 

mammals present in the vicinity of the 

action area and taken by Level A and 

Level B harassment would most likely 

show overt brief disturbance (startle 

reaction) and avoidance of the area from 

elevated noise levels during pile driving 

and pile removal and the implosion 

noise. However, many marine mammals 

showed no observable changes during 

similar project activities for the EBSP. 

There are two endangered species that 

may occur in the project area, 

humpback whales and SRKW. However, 

few humpbacks are expected to occur in 

the project area and few have been 

observed during previous projects in 

Elliot Bay. SRKW have occurred in 

small numbers in the project area. 

Seattle DOT will shut down in the Level 

B ZOI should they meet or exceed the 

take of one occurrence of one pod (Jpod, 24 whales). 

There is ESA-designated critical 

habitat in the vicinity of Seattle DOT’s 

Pier 62 Project for SRKW. However, this 

IHA is authorizing the harassment of 

marine mammals, not the production of 

sound, which is what would result in 

adverse effects to critical habitat for 

SRKW. There is one documented harbor 

seal haulout area near Bainbridge 

Island, approximately 6 miles (9.66 km) 

from Pier 62. The haulout, which is 

estimated at less than 100 animals, 

consists of intertidal rocks and reef 

areas around Blakely Rocks and is at the 

outer edge of potential effects at the 

outer extent near Bainbridge Island 

(Jefferies et al. 2000). The level of use 

of this haulout during the fall and 

winter is unknown, but is expected to 

be much less than in the spring and 

summer, as air temperatures become 

colder than water temperatures resulting 

in seals in general hauling out less. 

Similarly, the nearest Steller sea lion 

haulout to the project area is located 

approximately 6 miles away (9.66 km) 

and is also on the outer edge of potential 

effects. This haulout is composed of net 

pens offshore of the south end of 

Bainbridge Island. 

The project also is not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammal habitat, as 

analyzed in the ‘‘Potential Effects of 

Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals and their Habitat’’ section. 

Project activities would not 

permanently modify existing marine 

mammal habitat. The activities may kill 

some fish and cause other fish to leave 

the area temporarily, thus impacting 

marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities in a limited portion of the 

foraging range; but, because of the short 

duration of the activities and the 

relatively small area of the habitat that 

may be affected, the impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term negative 

consequences. Therefore, given the 

consideration of potential impacts to 

marine mammal prey species and their 

physical environment, Seattle DOT’s 

Pier 62 Project would not adversely 

affect marine mammal habitat. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized. 

• Takes that are anticipated and 

authorized are expected to be limited to 

short-term Level B harassment 

(behavioral) and a small number of takes 

of Level A harassment (behavioral) for 

three species. 

• The project also is not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitat. 

• There are no known important 

feeding or pupping areas. There are two 

haulouts (harbor seals and Steller sea 

lions). However, they are at the most 

outer edge of the potential effects and 

approximately 6.6 miles from Pier 62. 

There are no other known important 

areas for marine mammals. 

• For eight of the eleven species, take 

is less than one percent of the stock 

abundance. Instances of take for the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47190 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 

other three species (harbor seals, killer 

whales, and harbor porpoise) range from 

about 13–31 percent of the stock 

abundance. However, when the fact that 

a fair number of these instances are 

expected to be repeat takes of the same 

animals is considered, the number of 

individual marine mammals taken is 

significantly lower. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the planned activity 

will have a negligible impact on all 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

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

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers and so, 

in practice, where estimated numbers 

are available, NMFS compares the 

number of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other factors may be 

considered in the analysis, such as the 

temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

Take of eight of the eleven species is 

less than one percent of the stock 

abundance. Instances of take for the 

SRKW and transient killer whales, 

harbor seals, and harbor porpoise ranges 

from about 13–31 percent of the stock 

abundance. However, when the fact that 

a fair number of these instances are 

expected to be repeat takes of the same 

animals is considered, the number of 

individual marine mammals taken is 

significantly lower. Specifically, for 

example, Jefferson et al. 2016 conducted 

harbor porpoise surveys in eight regions 

of Puget Sound, and estimated an 

abundance of 147 harbor porpoise in the 

Seattle area (1,798 porpoise in North 

Puget Sound and 599 porpoise in South 

Puget Sound). While individuals do 

move between regions, we would not 

realistically expect that 3,000+ 

individuals would be exposed around 

the pile driving for the Seattle DOT’s 

Pier 62 Project. Considering these 

factors, as well as the general small size 

of the project area as compared to the 

range of the species affected, the 

numbers of marine mammals estimated 

to be taken are small proportions of the 

total populations of the affected species 

or stocks. Further, for SRWK we 

acknowledge that 30.77% of the stock is 

authorized to be taken by Level B 

harassment, but we believe that a single, 

brief incident of take of one group of 

any species represents take of small 

numbers for that species. Based on the 

analysis contained herein of the 

planned activity (including the 

mitigation and monitoring measures) 

and the anticipated take of marine 

mammals, NMFS finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population sizes of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each 

Federal agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the West Coast Regional 

Office (WCRO), whenever we propose to 

authorize take for endangered or 

threatened species. 

The Permit and Conservation Division 

consulted under of section 7 of the ESA 

with the WCRO for the issuance of this 

IHA. The WCRO concluded that the 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of SRKW and 

humpback whales will not result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. NMFS will 

authorize take of SRKW and humpback 

whales, which are listed under the ESA. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to the 

Seattle DOT for the harassment of small 

numbers of marine mammals incidental 

to pile driving and removal activities for 

the Pier 62 Project within Elliot Bay, 

Seattle, Washington from October 2017 

to February 2018, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: October 4, 2017. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21857 Filed 10–10–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF711 

Caribbean Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Caribbean Fishery 

Management Council’s (Council) 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

(SSC) meeting change of dates due to 

the passing of hurricanes Irma and 

Maria through Puerto Rico. 

SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery 

Management Council’s SSC will hold a 

5-day meeting, from October 30, 2017, 

to November 3, 2017, to discuss the 

items contained in the agenda below. 

DATES: The meetings will be held from 

October 30 through November 3, 2017, 

from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at 

the Council Office, 270 Mun ̃oz Rivera 

Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto 

Rico. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 

270 Mun ̃ oz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918–1903, 

telephone: (787) 766–5926. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda 

—Call to Order 

—Adoption of Agenda 

—Overview 

Review outcomes from previous 

meeting 

—Review Acceptable Biological Catch 

(ABC) Control Rule Language 

Review suggestions from General 

Counsel and Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center (SEFSC) on text of 

Tier 4 of the control rule 

Develop language to define 

‘‘consensus’’ as used in determining 

Tier assignments (or otherwise alter 

language to remove the term) 

—Action 2: Finalize establishment of 

stock/stock complexes for each of 

the Puerto Rico, St. Croix, St. 

Thomas/St. John Fishery 

Management Plans (FMPs) 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES