47700 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 

‘‘Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class 

seating capacity’’ does not delineate the 

number of seats actually in a subject aircraft 

or the actual seating configuration of a 

subject aircraft. Thus, the number of seats 

actually in a subject aircraft may be below 

100 or exceed 150. 

A ‘‘minimum 2,900 nautical mile range’’ 

means: 

(i) Able to transport between 100 and 150 

passengers and their luggage on routes equal 

to or longer than 2,900 nautical miles; or 

(ii) covered by a U.S. Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) type certificate or 

supplemental type certificate that also covers 

other aircraft with a minimum 2,900 nautical 

mile range. 

The scope includes all aircraft covered by 

the description above, regardless of whether 

they enter the United States fully or partially 

assembled, and regardless of whether, at the 

time of entry into the United States, they are 

approved for use by the FAA. 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is currently classifiable under 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (HTSUS) subheading 8802.40.0040. 

The merchandise may alternatively be 

classifiable under HTSUS subheading 

8802.40.0090. Although these HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of the investigation 

is dispositive. 

Appendix II 

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Period of Investigation 

IV. Scope of the Investigation 

V. Scope Comments 

VI. Application of Facts Available and Use of 

Adverse Inference 

A. Application of Facts Available 

B. Use of Adverse Inference 

C. Preliminary Estimated WeightedAverage Dumping Margin Based on 

Adverse Facts Available 

D. Corroboration of the AFA Rate 

VII. Conclusion 

[FR Doc. 2017–22203 Filed 10–12–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

XRIN 0648–XF547 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Haines 

Ferry Terminal Modification Project 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed incidental harassment 

authorization; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities 

(ADOT&PF) for authorization to take 

marine mammals incidental to the 

Haines Ferry Terminal Modification 

Project in Haines, Alaska. Pursuant to 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to 

incidentally take marine mammals 

during the specified activities. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than November 13, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Physical 

comments should be sent to 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

and electronic comments should be sent 

to ITP.Daly@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments received 

electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

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

incidental/construction.htm without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jaclyn Daly, 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.’’ 

NMFS has defined ‘‘unmitigable 

adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as 

‘‘an impact resulting from the specified 

activity: 

(1) That is likely to reduce the 

availability of the species to a level 

insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 

hunting areas; (ii) directly displacing 

subsistence users; or (iii) placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; 

and 

(2) That cannot be sufficiently 

mitigated by other measures to increase 

the availability of marine mammals to 

allow subsistence needs to be met. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 47701 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action with respect to 

environmental consequences on the 

human environment. 

Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the issuance of the 

proposed IHA qualifies to be 

categorically 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. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On January 9, 2017, NMFS received a 

request from ADOT&PF for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to 

conducting improvements at the Haines 

Ferry Terminal. On February 3, 2017, 

NMFS requested additional information 

and ADOT&PF submitted a revised 

application on March 27, 2017, which 

NMFS deemed adequate and complete. 

However, after further discussions, 

ADOT&PF submitted a final application 

on May 30, 2017, and then subsequently 

sent a request on August 17, 2017, to 

change the effective dates in the 

application to accommodate a delayed 

construction schedule. ADOT&PF’s 

request is for harassment only and 

NMFS concurs that serious injury or 

mortality is not expected to result from 

this activity. Therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

ADOT&PF’s request is for take of 

humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae), harbor seals (Phoca 

vitulina), harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena), and Dall’s porpoise 

(Phocoenoides dalli) by Level A and 

Level B harassment, and an additional 

two species, Steller sea lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus) and killer whale 

(Orcinus orca) by Level B harassment 

only. Pile driving would occur for 19 

days and pile removal would take 2 

additional days (total of 21 days) over 

the course of 4 months from October 1, 

2018, through September 30, 2019, but 

excluding March 1 through May 31, 

2019. No subsequent IHA would be 

necessary to complete the project. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

ADOT&PF is proposing to construct 

two new berths and associated 

infrastructure adjacent at the existing 

Haines Ferry Terminal (see Attachment 

1 in ADOT&PF’s application for project 

drawings). The project includes impact 

and vibratory pile driving and vibratory 

pile removal. Sounds resulting from pile 

driving and removal may result in the 

incidental take of marine mammals by 

Level A and Level B harassment up to 

approximately 4.78 and 21.1 square 

kilometers (km2), respectively, around 

the terminal. The terminal is located in 

southeast Alaska in Lutak Inlet. 

Dates and Duration 

The IHA would be valid from October 

1, 2018, through September 30, 2019; 

however, pile driving and removal 

would occur for only 21 days over the 

course of four months during this time 

period and work would not occur from 

March 1 through May 31, 2019. 

ADOT&PF anticipates up to 1 hour of 

vibratory pile driving and 15 to 30 

minutes of impact pile driving per day. 

Specified Geographic Region 

The northern part of Lynn Canal 

braids into several inlets including 

Chilkat, Chilkoot, Taiya and Lutak 

Inlets. Tanani Point marks the 

confluence of Lutak Inlet and Chilkoot 

Inlet and is located approximately one 

mile (mi) southeast of the terminal. The 

Terminal is located near the mouth of 

Lutak Inlet, approximately four miles 

north of the town of Haines, in northern 

Southeast Alaska at 59°16′54′′ N., 

135°27′44.6′′ W. (see Figures 1–1 and 1– 

2 in ADOT’s application). At the 

terminal where pile driving may occur, 

Lutak Inlet is approximately 1.3 miles 

(mi) wide and water depth ranges from 

20–40 feet (ft; 6–9 meters (m)); however, 

water depth in Lynn Canal reaches over 

300 ft (91 m). Lutak Inlet is a glacial 

scoured fiord, characterized by a typical 

U-shaped glacial valley. The sediment is 

homogeneous, consisting of dark gray, 

silty gravel material, as well as cobbles 

and boulders. Other than the terminal, 

the region is not industrialized and is 

surrounded by several state parks and 

the Glacier Bay National Park and 

Preserve. 

Detailed Description of Specific 

Activities 

The Terminal is a multi-use dock 

used by Alaska Marine Highway 

Systems (AMHS) mainline and fast 

ferries, Alaska Marine Lines (AML) (tug 

and barge), and Delta Western (tug and 

barge). It is the second busiest AMHS 

port of call and can see up to four ferries 

coming and going during any given day 

in summer. The AMHS provides a 

transportation link for Alaska residents 

and businesses, as well as for nonresidents visiting the state. 

The Haines Ferry Terminal 

Modification Project involves 

constructing an AMHS End Berth 

Facility adjacent to the existing dock. 

The expansion is necessary because the 

current configuration does not allow for 

operation of the new Alaska Class 

vessels, which are expected to be 

operational in 2018. Specifically, 

modification work includes removing 

an existing structure and installing 

moorings, vehicle transfer float, float 

restraint structures, steel transfer 

bridges and associated abutment and 

bearing structure, berthing structures, 

catwalks and gangways, and a pilesupported passenger waiting shelter. 

The structure to be removed with a 

vibratory hammer is comprised of four 

30-inch (in) cylindrical steel pipe piles. 

To construct the new infrastructure, 

ADOT&PF would install 37 new piles. 

Fifteen piles would be 36-in diameter 

with 1 in. wall thickness. The remaining 

22 piles would be 30-in diameter and 3⁄4

in thick. To minimize noise 

propagation, the steel piles would be 

driven with a vibratory hammer, as 

practicable, except for final proofing, 

which would require use of an impact 

hammer. Based on previous pile driving 

work at the Terminal in 2015, 

ADOT&PF anticipates each pile would 

require up 45 to 60 minutes of vibratory 

driving (to account for proper placement 

and alignment of the pile) followed by 

an average of 700 strikes of the impact 

hammer for a total average installation 

time of 60–90 minutes. One pile driver 

would be used onsite; therefore, only 

one pile would be installed at a time. A 

construction barge may be used during 

the project to facilitate pile driving and 

removal; however, the barge would be 

anchored. 

All pile driving and removal would 

occur within 500 feet (152 meters) of the 

shoreline. Assuming two 30 in diameter 

piles could be removed each day, pile 

removal would take two days. Pile 

driving the 30-in piles is expected to 

take 11 days while an additional 8 days 

would be necessary to install the 36-in 

piles. In total, ADOT&PF would be 

elevating noise levels around the project 

area for 21 days (two days of pile 

removal plus 19 days of pile driving) of 

the 4 month construction window (four 

months from October 1, 2018, through 

September 30, 2019, excluding March 1, 

2019 through May, 31 2019). 

Other work for the project includes 

using a clamshell bucket dredge to 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47702 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 

remove sediment around the terminal. 

However, dredging is not anticipated to 

result in the taking of marine mammals; 

therefore, this activity will not be 

discussed further. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

the Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting sections). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR; 

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

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS 

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

species/mammals/). 

Table 1 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in Lynn Canal 

and summarizes information related to 

the population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

ESA and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 

follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). 

PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’s U.S. Alaska SARs (Muto et al. 

2017). All values presented in Table 1 

are the most recent available at the time 

of publication and are available in the 

draft 2016 SARs (available online at: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm). 

Three cetacean species have ranges 

near the terminal but are unlikely to 

occur in the project area: The Pacific 

white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus 

obliquidens), gray whale (Eschrichtius 

robustus), and minke whale 

(Balaenopera acutorostrata). The range 

of Pacific white-sided dolphin is 

suggested to overlap with Lynn Canal 

(Angliss and Allen, 2015), but no 

sightings have been documented in the 

project area (Dahlheim et al. 2009, MOS 

2016). Gray whale sightings in this 

northern portion of Southeast Alaska are 

very rare; there have only been eight 

sightings since 1997 (MOS 2016). These 

observations were made in the lower 

portions of Lynn Canal and were not 

close to the Lutak Inlet/upper Lynn 

Canal area. Finally, only one minke 

whale has been observed in Taiya Inlet 

over the past five years (MOS 2016). 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT WITHIN UPPER LYNN CANAL DURING THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITY

Common name Scientific name MMPA Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

Nbest, (CV, Nmin, 

most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenidae 

Humpback whale ....... Megaptera 

novaeangliae.

Central North Pacific E, D,Y ...... 10,103 (0.3, 7,890, 

2006).

83 24 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae 

Killer whale ................. Orcinus orca .............. Alaska Resident ........ -, N ........... 2,347 (N/A, 2,347, 

2012) 4.

24 1 

Northern Resident ..... -, N ........... 261 (N/A, 261, 2011) 4 1.96 0 

Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Bering 

Sea.

-, N ........... 587 (N/A, 587, 2012) 4 5.9 1 

West Coast Transient -, N ........... 243 (N/A, 243, 2009) 4 2.4 0 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

Harbor porpoise ......... Phocoena phocoena Southeast Alaska ...... -, Y ........... 975 (0.10, 896, 

2012) 5.

8.9 5 34 

Dall’s porpoise ........... Phocoenoides dalli .... Alaska ........................ -,N ............ 83,400 (0.097, N/A, 

1993).

Undet 38 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

Steller sea lion ........... Eumetopias jubatus ... Western U.S. ............. E, D; Y ..... 49,497 (2014) ............ 297 233 

Eastern U.S. .............. -, D, Y ...... 60,131–74,448 (2013) 1,645 92.3 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 47703 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT WITHIN UPPER LYNN CANAL DURING THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITY— 

Continued 

Common name Scientific name MMPA Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

Nbest, (CV, Nmin, 

most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual M/SI 3

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor seal ................ Phoca vitulina 

richardii.

Lynn Canal/Stephens 

Passage.

-, N ........... 9,478 (8,605, 2011) ... 155 50 

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 (N/A). 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 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. 4 N is based on counts of individual animals identified from photo-identification catalogs. 

5 In the 2016 SAR for harbor porpoise, NMFS identified population estimates and PBR for porpoises within inland southeast Alaska waters 

(these abundance estimates have not been corrected for g(0); therefore, they are likely conservative). The Annual M/SI value provided is for all 

Alaska fisheries, not just inland waters of southeast Alaska. 

Pinnipeds 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lion populations that 

primarily occur west of 144° W. (Cape 

Suckling, Alaska) comprise the western 

Distinct Population Segment (wDPS), 

while all others comprise the eastern 

DPS (eDPS); however, there is regular 

movement of both DPSs across this 

boundary (Muto et al. 2017). Both of 

these populations may occur in the 

action area. Steller sea lions were listed 

as threatened range-wide under the ESA 

on 26 November 1990 (55 FR 49204). 

Steller sea lions were subsequently 

partitioned into the western and eastern 

DPSs in 1997 (Muto et al. 2017), with 

the wDPS being listed as endangered 

under the ESA and the eDPS remaining 

classified as threatened (62 FR 24345) 

until it was delisted in November 2013. 

In August 1993, NMFS published a final 

rule designating critical habitat for the 

Steller sea lion as a 20-nautical mile 

buffer around all major haul-outs and 

rookeries, as well as associated 

terrestrial, air and aquatic zones, and 

three large offshore foraging areas (50 

CFR 226.202). There is no Steller sea 

lion critical habitat in the action area. 

In Lynn Canal, Steller sea lions are 

most likely part of the eDPS; however, 

wDPS animals have moved into the area 

over the past several years. The first 

western DPS Steller sea lion 

documented in Lynn Canal occurred in 

2003 at Benjamin Island in southern 

Lynn Canal (approximately 97 km or 60 

miles south from the Ferry Terminal 

and 40 km or 25 miles north of Juneau, 

Alaska). This animal was subsequently 

re-sighted in 2003 and 2004. Two 

additional animals have been observed 

at Benjamin Island in 2005 and 2006. 

The Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game (ADF&G) has documented 88 

western DPS Steller sea lions in the 

eastern region, of which 40 percent were 

female, and nine of these animals gave 

birth at rookeries in the eastern region. 

Data suggest five out of these nine 

females have permanently immigrated 

to the eastern region. Branded 

individuals from the western DPS have 

also been observed at Gran Point located 

about 22.5 km (14 mi) southeast of the 

project area. The eDPS stock has been 

increasing (Muto et al. 2017). Pup 

counts for the wDPS have been 

decreasing; however, this could be due 

to movement of adult females out of the 

region (suggesting some level of 

permanent emigration) indicating that 

sea lions may have responded to mesoscale (on the order of 100s of kilometers) 

variability in their environment (Muto 

et al. 2017). 

Steller sea lions use terrestrial haulout 

sites to rest and take refuge. They also 

gather on well-defined, traditionally 

used rookeries to pup and breed. These 

habitats are typically gravel, rocky, or 

sand beaches; ledges; or rocky reefs 

(Allen and Angliss, 2013). Gran Point, 

which is located 14 mi (22.5 km) 

southeast of the project area, is the 

closest year-round Steller sea lion 

haulout. However, during the spring 

eulachon run, a seasonal haulout site is 

located on Taiya Point at the southern 

tip of Taiya Inlet (approximately 5 km 

or 3.1 mi from Haines Terminal). The 

eulachon run (which occurs for 

approximately three to four weeks 

during mid-March through May) in 

Lutak Inlet is extremely important to 

Steller sea lions for seasonal foraging. 

These spawning aggregations of forage 

fish provide densely aggregated, highenergy prey for Steller sea lions (and 

harbor seals) for brief time periods and 

influence haulout use (Sigler et al. 2004; 

Womble et al. 2005; Womble and Sigler 

2006). The pre-spawning aggregations 

and spawning season for many forage 

fish species occur between March and 

May in Southeast Alaska just prior to 

the breeding season of sea lions (Pitcher 

et al. 2001; Womble and Sigler 2006). 

After May, Steller sea lion presence in 

the action area declines (see section 4.2 

in ADOT&PF’s application for more 

detailed information on fish runs and 

corresponding Steller sea lion presence). 

Steller sea lions are included in 

subsistence harvests. From 2011–2012, 

an average of 50 animals from this stock 

were harvested each year, which is 

higher than previous estimates of 30 

animals, on average, per year from 

2004–2008 (Muto and Angliss, 2015). 

Incidental entanglement in fishing gear 

and marine debris is the biggest 

contributor to their annual humancaused mortality rate. In addition, since 

2012, known cases of intentional 

mortality (e.g., gunshot, explosives) 

have also contributed to this rate with 

an average of 15 animals per year from 

2012 through 2015 (Muto et al. 2016). 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals generally are 

nonmigratory, with local movements 

associated with such factors as tides, 

weather, season, food availability, and 

reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp 1944, 

Fisher 1952, Bigg 1969, 1981, Hastings 

et al. 2004). 

Harbor seals are included in 

subsistence harvests. From 2011–2012, 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47704 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 

an average of 50 seals from the Lynn 

Canal/Stephens Passage stock were 

harvested each year, which is higher 

than previous estimates of 30 animals, 

on average, per year from 2004–2008 

(Muto et al. 2017). Entanglement is the 

biggest contributor to their annual 

human-caused mortality. Lynn Canal/ 

Stephens Passage harbor seals are not 

listed as depleted or strategic under the 

MMPA and are not listed under the 

ESA. 

Cetaceans 

Humpback Whale 

Under the MMPA, there are three 

stocks of humpback whales in the North 

Pacific: (1) The California/Oregon/ 

Washington and Mexico stock, 

consisting of winter/spring populations 

in coastal Central America and coastal 

Mexico which migrate to the coast of 

California to southern British Columbia 

in summer/fall (Calambokidis et al. 

1989, Steiger et al. 1991, Calambokidis 

et al. 1993); (2) the central North Pacific 

stock, consisting of winter/spring 

populations of the Hawaiian Islands 

which migrate primarily to northern 

British Columbia/Southeast Alaska, the 

Gulf of Alaska, and the Bering Sea/ 

Aleutian Islands (Perry et al. 1990, 

Calambokidis et al. 1997); and (3) the 

western North Pacific stock, consisting 

of winter/spring populations off Asia 

which migrate primarily to Russia and 

the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands. The 

central North Pacific stock is the only 

stock that is found near the project 

activities. 

On September 8, 2016, NMFS 

published a final decision changing the 

status of humpback whales under the 

ESA (81 FR 62259), effective October 11, 

2016. Previously, humpback whales 

were listed under the ESA as an 

endangered species worldwide. In the 

2016 decision, NMFS recognized the 

existence of 14 DPSs, classified four of 

those as endangered and one as 

threatened, and determined that the 

remaining nine DPSs do not warrant 

protection under the ESA. WNP DPS 

whales do not occur in Southeast 

Alaska. Whales from the Mexico DPS, 

which is a threatened species, have a 6.1 

percent probability of occurrence in 

Southeast Alaska. Humpback whales in 

Southeast Alaska are most likely to be 

from the Hawaii DPS (93.9 percent 

probability), which is not protected 

under the ESA. 

Humpback whales are not common in 

the action area but, if they are sighted, 

are generally present during mid- to late 

spring (mid-May through June) and 

vacate the area by July to follow large 

aggregations of forage fish in lower Lynn 

Canal. However, in recent years 

humpback whales have been observed 

at the entrance to Taiya Inlet throughout 

the fall months (MOS 2016). Four to five 

whales were observed in the area from 

spring 2015 to November (MOS 2016). 

Killer Whale 

Based on data regarding association 

patterns, acoustics, movements, and 

genetic differences, eight killer whale 

stocks are now recognized: (1) The 

Alaska Resident stock; (2) the Northern 

Resident stock; (3) the Southern 

Resident stock; (4) the Gulf of Alaska, 

Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea 

Transient stock; (5) the AT1 Transient 

stock; (6) the West Coast transient stock, 

occurring from California through 

southeastern Alaska; and (7) the 

Offshore stock, and (8) the Hawaiian 

stock. Only the Alaska resident; 

Northern resident; Gulf of Alaska, 

Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea 

Transient (Gulf of Alaska transient); and 

the West coast transient stocks are 

considered in this application because 

other stocks occur outside the 

geographic area under consideration. 

Any of these four stocks could be seen 

in the action area; however, the 

Northern resident stock is most likely to 

occur in the area. 

The Alaska resident stock is found 

from southeastern Alaska to the 

Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea. 

Intermixing of Alaska residents have 

been documented among the three 

areas, at least as far west as the eastern 

Aleutian Islands (Allen and Angliss, 

2013). The Northern resident stock 

occurs from Washington State through 

part of southeastern Alaska. The 

Northern Resident stock is a 

transboundary stock and includes killer 

whales that frequent British Columbia, 

Canada and southeastern Alaska 

(Dahlheim et al., 1997; Ford et al., 

2000). The Gulf of Alaska transient 

stock occurs mainly from Prince 

William Sound through the Aleutian 

Islands and Bering Sea. The West coast 

transient stock includes animals that 

occur in California, Oregon, 

Washington, British Columbia and 

southeastern Alaska. 

Transient killer whales occur in 

smaller, less matrilineal groupings than 

resident killer whales. They are also 

more likely to rely on stealth tactics 

when foraging, making fewer and less 

conspicuous calls, and edging along 

shorelines and around headlands in 

order to hunt their prey, including, 

Steller sea lions, harbor seals, and 

smaller cetaceans, in highly coordinated 

attacks (Barrett-Lennard et al. 2011). 

Residents often travel in much larger 

and closer knit groups within which 

they share any fish they catch. 

Data from Lutak Inlet suggests that a 

small number of killer whales 

infrequently enter the inlet, generally 

during spring fish runs when large 

aggregations of pinnipeds are also 

present (K. Hastings, pers. comm.). Up 

to 15 to 20 killer whales have been 

observed in Taiya Inlet 4 to 5 times a 

year from early spring through fall 

(MOS 2016). Transient killer whales 

have also been observed in Lutak Inlet 

in front of the Terminal when sea lions 

are present (K. Hastings, pers. comm.), 

presumably following their preferred 

food source. The mean group size of 

four to six animals documented by 

Dahlheim et al. (2009) is consistent with 

4 to 5 sightings of up to 20 whales 

outside Taiya (MOS 2016) and Lutak 

Inlets. 

Harbor Porpoise 

In Alaska, harbor porpoises are 

currently divided into three stocks, 

based primarily on geography. These are 

(1) the Southeast Alaska stock— 

occurring from the northern border of 

British Columbia to Cape Suckling, 

Alaska, (2) the Gulf of Alaska stock— 

occurring from Cape Suckling to 

Unimak Pass, and (3) the Bering Sea 

stock—occurring throughout the 

Aleutian Islands and all waters north of 

Unimak Pass (Allen and Angliss 2014). 

Only the Southeast Alaska stock is 

considered in this application because 

the other stocks are not found in the 

geographic area under consideration. 

The total estimated annual level of 

human-caused mortality and serious 

injury (M/SI) for harbor porpoise in 

Alaska (n=34) exceeds the calculated 

PBR of 8.9 harbor porpoise. However, 

this calculated PBR is based on the 

minimum population estimate for 

harbor porpoise in inland waters of 

southeast Alaska only (n=896) while the 

annual level of human caused M/SI is 

derived from take in all fisheries 

throughout Alaska. Therefore, PBR 

represents the total amount of animals 

that can be removed from all harbor 

porpoise stocks in Alaska combined. No 

mortality or serious injury of harbor 

porpoise from the Southeast Alaska 

stock has been observed incidental to 

U.S. commercial fisheries in Alaska in 

2010–2014 (Breiwick 2013; MML 

unpubl. data). Population trends and 

status of this stock relative to its 

optimum sustainable population are 

currently unknown. 

In Lynn Canal, observations of harbor 

porpoise are not frequent and occur 

primarily in lower Lynn Canal; 

however, the species has been observed 

as far north as Haines during the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 47705 

summer surveys (Dahlheim et al. 2009). 

At the Haines Ferry Terminal, one small 

pod of harbor porpoise were observed 

on September 22, 2015 (ADOT&PF 

2015). In addition, approximately 30 

individuals have been observed in 

multiple groups of two or three, from 

spring through fall (MOS 2016). 

There are no subsistence use of this 

species; however, entanglement in 

fishing gear contributes to humancaused mortality and serious injury. 

Muto et al. (2016) also reports harbor 

porpoise are vulnerable to physical 

modifications of nearshore habitats 

resulting from urban and industrial 

development (including waste 

management and nonpoint source 

runoff) and activities such as 

construction of docks and other overwater structures, filling of shallow areas, 

dredging, and noise (Linnenschmidt et 

al. 2013). 

Dall’s Porpoise 

Currently one stock of Dall’s porpoise 

is recognized in Alaskan waters (Muto 

et al. 2015). Dall’s porpoise have not 

been observed in the waters of Lutak 

Inlet immediately adjacent to the 

Terminal but may be present in 

northern Lynn Canal. Local observers 

have observed only three to six Dall’s 

porpoises in Taiya Inlet during the early 

spring and late fall (MOS 2016). 

At present, there is no reliable 

information on trends in abundance for 

the Alaska stock of Dall’s porpoise 

(Muto et al. 2015). From 2009 to 2013, 

no mortality or serious injury of Dall’s 

porpoise was reported to the NMFS 

Alaska. There are also no subsistence 

uses of this species (Muto et al. 2015). 

Dall’s porpoise are vulnerable to 

physical modifications of nearshore 

habitats resulting from urban and 

industrial development, including waste 

management and nonpoint source 

runoff) and noise (Linnenschmidt et al. 

2013). 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibels 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (note 

that these frequency ranges correspond 

to the range for the composite group, 

with the entire range not necessarily 

reflecting the capabilities of every 

species within that group): 

• Low-frequency cetaceans 

(mysticetes): generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 hertz (Hz) and 35 

kilohertz (kHz); 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger 

toothed whales, beaked whales, and 

most delphinids): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz; 

• High-frequency cetaceans 

(porpoises, river dolphins, and members 

of the genera Kogia and 

Cephalorhynchus; including two 

members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, 

on the basis of recent echolocation data 

and genetic data): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz; 

• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true 

seals): generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between approximately 50 Hz 

to 86 kHz; and 

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared 

seals): generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz. 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2016) for a review of 

available information. Six marine 

mammal species (four cetacean and two 

pinniped (one otariid and one phocid) 

species) have the reasonable potential to 

co-occur with the proposed survey 

activities. Of the cetacean species that 

may be present, one is classified as a 

low-frequency cetacean (i.e., all 

mysticete species), one is classified as a 

mid-frequency cetacean (i.e., all 

delphinid and ziphiid species and the 

sperm whale), and two are classified as 

high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., porpoise 

and Kogia spp.). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section later in this 

document will include a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination’’ section 

will consider the content of this section, 

the ‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section, and the ‘‘Proposed 

Mitigation’’ section, to draw 

conclusions regarding the likely impacts 

of these activities on the reproductive 

success or survivorship of individuals 

and how those impacts on individuals 

are likely to impact marine mammal 

species or stocks. 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile driving and removal is the primary 

means by which marine mammals may 

be harassed from ADOT&PF’s specified 

activity. Animals exposed to natural or 

anthropogenic sound may experience 

physical and psychological effects, 

ranging in magnitude from none to 

severe (Southall et al. 2007). In general, 

exposure to pile driving noise has the 

potential to result in auditory threshold 

shifts and behavioral reactions (e.g., 

avoidance, temporary cessation of 

foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive 

behavior). Exposure to anthropogenic 

noise can also lead to non-observable 

physiological responses such an 

increase in stress hormones. Additional 

noise in a marine mammal’s habitat can 

mask acoustic cues used by marine 

mammals to carry out daily functions 

such as communication and predatory 

and prey detection. The effects of pile 

driving noise on marine mammals are 

dependent on several factors, including, 

but not limited to, sound type (e.g., 

impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the 

species, age and sex class (e.g., adult 

male vs. mom with calf), duration of 

exposure, the distance between the pile 

and the animal, received levels, 

behavior at time of exposure, and 

previous history with exposure 

(Southall et al., 2007, Wartzok et al. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47706 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 

2004). Here we discuss physical 

auditory effects (threshold shifts) 

followed by behavioral effects and 

potential impacts on habitat. 

NMFS defines a noise-induced 

threshold shift (TS) as ‘‘a change, 

usually an increase, in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level’’ (NMFS, 2016). The amount of 

threshold shift is customarily expressed 

in dB (ANSI 1995, Yost 2007). A TS can 

be permanent or temporary. As 

described in NMFS (2016), there are 

numerous factors to consider when 

examining the consequence of TS, 

including, but not limited to, the signal 

temporal pattern (e.g., impulsive or nonimpulsive), likelihood an individual 

would be exposed for a long enough 

duration or to a high enough level to 

induce a TS, the magnitude of the TS, 

time to recovery (seconds to minutes or 

hours to days), the frequency range of 

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

hearing and vocalization frequency 

range of the exposed species relative to 

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

how animal uses sound within the 

frequency band of the signal; e.g., 

Kastelein et al. 2014b), and the overlap 

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

spatial, temporal, and spectral). When 

analyzing the auditory effects of noise 

exposure, it is often helpful to broadly 

categorize sound as either impulsive— 

noise with high peak sound pressure, 

short duration, fast rise-time, and broad 

frequency content—or non-impulsive. 

When considering auditory effects, 

vibratory pile driving is considered to 

be non-impulsive source while impact 

pile driving is treated as an impulsive 

source. 

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)— 

NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 

irreversible increase in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS, 2016). Available data from 

humans and other terrestrial mammals 

indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al. 

1958, 1959; Ward 1960; Kryter et al. 

1966; Miller 1974; Ahroon et al. 1996; 

Henderson et al. 2008). 

With the exception of a single study 

unintentionally inducing PTS in a 

harbor seal (Kastak et al., 2008), there 

are no empirical data measuring PTS in 

marine mammals largely due to the fact 

that, for various ethical reasons, 

experiments involving anthropogenic 

noise exposure at levels inducing PTS 

are not typically pursued or authorized 

(NMFS, 2016). 

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)—A 

temporary, reversible increase in the 

threshold of audibility at a specified 

frequency or portion of an individual’s 

hearing range above a previously 

established reference level (NMFS, 

2016). Based on data from cetacean TTS 

measurements (see Southall et al. 2007 

for a review), a TTS of 6 dB is 

considered the minimum threshold shift 

clearly larger than any day-to-day or 

session-to-session variation in a 

subject’s normal hearing ability 

(Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 

2000; Finneran et al. 2002). As 

described in Finneran (2016), marine 

mammal studies have shown the 

amount of TTS increases with 

cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At 

low exposures with lower SELcum, the 

amount of TTS is typically small and 

the growth curves have shallow slopes. 

At exposures with higher higher SELcum, 

the growth curves become steeper and 

approach linear relationships with the 

noise SEL. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. We 

note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 

a simple function of aging has been 

observed in marine mammals, as well as 

humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 

2007), so we can infer that strategies 

exist for coping with this condition to 

some degree, though likely not without 

cost. 

The potential for TTS from impact 

pile driving exists. After exposure to 

playbacks of impact pile driving sounds 

(rate 2760 strikes/hour) in captivity, 

mean TTS increased from 0 dB after 15 

minute exposure to 5 dB after 360 

minute exposure; recovery occurred 

within 60 minute (Kastelein et al. 2016). 

However, one must consider duration of 

exposure in the field. Installing piles at 

the Haines terminal requires 700 strikes 

per pile (average 15 minutes) with re-set 

time and one hour of vibratory pile 

driving before impact driving the 

second pile. Given marine mammals are 

likely moving through the action area 

and not remaining for extended periods 

of time, the potential for TTS declines. 

Behavioral Harassment 

Exposure to noise from pile driving 

and removal also has the potential to 

behavioral disturb marine mammals. 

Disturbance may result in changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where sound sources are located. 

Pinnipeds may increase their haul-out 

time, possibly to avoid in-water 

disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). 

These potential behavioral responses to 

sound are highly variable and contextspecific and reactions, if any, depend on 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day, and 

many other factors (Richardson et al., 

1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et 

al., 2007). For example, animals that are 

resting may show greater behavioral 

change in response to disturbing sound 

levels than animals that are highly 

motivated to remain in an area for 

feeding (Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 

2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). 

If a marine mammal does react to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of that change may not be 

important to the individual, the stock, 

or the species as a whole. However, if 

a sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on the animals could be 

important. In general, pinnipeds seem 

more tolerant of, or at least habituate 

more quickly to, potentially disturbing 

underwater sound than do cetaceans, 

and generally seem to be less responsive 

to exposure to industrial sound than 

most cetaceans. 

In 2016, ADOT&PF documented 

observations of marine mammals during 

construction activities (i.e., pile driving 

and down-hole drilling) at the Kodiak 

Ferry Dock (see 80 FR 60636 for Final 

IHA Federal Register notice). In the 

marine mammal monitoring report for 

that project (ABR 2016), 1,281 Steller 

sea lions were observed within the 

Level B disturbance zone during pile 

driving or drilling (i.e., documented as 

Level B take). Of these, 19 individuals 

demonstrated an alert behavior, 7 were 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 47707 

fleeing, and 19 swam away from the 

project site. All other animals (98 

percent) were engaged in activities such 

as milling, foraging, or fighting and did 

not change their behavior. In addition, 

two sea lions approached within 20 

meters of active vibratory pile driving 

activities. Three harbor seals were 

observed within the disturbance zone 

during pile-driving activities; none of 

them displayed disturbance behaviors. 

Fifteen killer whales and three harbor 

porpoise were also observed within the 

Level B harassment zone during pile 

driving. The killer whales were 

travelling or milling while all harbor 

porpoises were travelling. No signs of 

disturbance were noted for either of 

these species. Given the similarities in 

activities and habitat and the fact the 

same species are involved, we expect 

similar behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to the specified activity. That 

is, disturbance, if any, is likely to be 

temporary and localized (e.g., small area 

movements). 

Masking and Acoustic Habitat 

Masking is the obscuring of sounds of 

interest to an animal by other sounds, 

typically at similar frequencies. It may 

be caused by both natural (e.g., wind, 

waves, other animals) or anthropogenic 

(e.g., pile driving) sources. Marine 

mammals are highly dependent on 

sound, and their ability to recognize 

sound signals amid other sound is 

important in communication and 

detection of both predators and prey. 

Masking may partially or entirely 

reduce the audibility of acoustic signals 

(Southall et al. 2007). Background 

ambient sound may interfere with or 

mask the ability of an animal to detect 

a sound signal even when that signal is 

above its absolute hearing threshold. 

Masking of natural sounds can result 

when human activities produce high 

levels of background sound at 

frequencies important to marine 

mammals. Conversely, if the 

background level of underwater sound 

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

and high waves), an anthropogenic 

sound source would not be detectable as 

far away as would be possible under 

quieter conditions and would itself be 

masked. Masking is also likely to result 

in more severe consequences when 

continuous. At the Haines terminal, pile 

driving is intermittent. That is, vibratory 

hammering would occur for 

approximately one hour followed by a 

break before impact hammering to allow 

changes in equipment. There would also 

be another delay before driving the 

second pile. Further, pile driving would 

not occur for multiple consecutive days 

but instead would be spaced out over 19 

days (plus 2 days for pile removal) over 

the course of approximately four 

months. Therefore, while masking may 

occur if a marine mammal if a marine 

mammal is in the terminal area, it 

would be of short duration. In addition, 

ADOT&PF would conduct pile driving 

outside of important foraging times (i.e., 

spring echelon runs) the action area 

does not support key reproduction or 

other vital areas. Therefore, the impact 

of masking is likely to be minimal. 

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects 

Construction activities at the Haines 

Ferry terminal could have localized, 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat and their prey by increasing inwater sound pressure levels and slightly 

decreasing water quality. Increased 

noise levels may adversely affect marine 

mammal prey in the vicinity of the 

project area. During impact pile driving, 

elevated levels of underwater noise 

would ensonify across Lutak Inlet where 

both fish and mammals occur and could 

affect foraging success. ADOT&PF 

would avoid pile driving during the 

more critical months (March 1 through 

May 31) when ephemeral fish run in the 

inlet, thereby avoiding the greatest 

densities of marine mammals. 

In-water pile driving, pile removal, 

and dredging activities would also cause 

short-term effects on water quality due 

to increased turbidity. Dredging is likely 

to cause the greatest increase in 

suspended solids; however, turbidity 

plumes created is localized to about 7.6 

m (25 ft) and could last from a few 

minutes to several hours. Any 

contaminants associated with the resuspended sediments would be tightly 

bound to the sediment matrix. Because 

of the relatively small dredge area, 

turbidity plumes would be limited to 

the immediate vicinity of the terminal 

and adjacent portion of the inlet. 

ADOT&PF would employ standard 

construction best management practices 

(BMPs; see section 9 and 11.1 in 

ADOT’s application), thereby, reducing 

any impacts. Therefore, the impact from 

increased turbidity levels is expected to 

be discountable. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of whether the number of 

takes is small and the negligible impact 

determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any 

act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as use of the 

impact and vibratory hammers has the 

potential to result in disruption of 

behavioral patterns and/or TTS for 

individual marine mammals. Impact 

pile driving may also result in auditory 

injury (Level A harassment) for 

mysticetes, high frequency cetaceans, 

and phocids due to modeled auditory 

injury zones based on exposure to noise 

from installing two piles per day. 

However, there are multiple hours 

between impact pile driving each pile; 

therefore, these zones are conservative 

as animals are not known to linger in 

the area. Therefore, PTS potential is low 

and, if occurs, would likely be minimal 

(e.g., PTS onset). Auditory injury is not 

expected for mid-frequency species and 

otariids as the accumulation of energy 

does not reach NMFS’ PTS thresholds. 

The death of a marine mammal is also 

a type of incidental take. However, as 

described previously, no mortality is 

anticipated or proposed to be authorized 

for this activity. Below we describe how 

the take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals may be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

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

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and, (4) the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the proposed take 

estimate. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47708 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 

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 

(e.g., hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) 

making effects 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 microPascal (mPa) root mean square 

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

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns, impact pile 

driving) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. ADOT&PF includes the 

use of continuous (vibratory pile 

driving) and impulsive (impact pile 

driving); therefore, the 120 and 160 dB 

re 1 mPa (rms) thresholds are applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 

2016) identifies dual criteria to assess 

auditory injury (Level A harassment) for 

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). 

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. 

The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the thresholds are described in NMFS 

2016 Technical Guidance, which may 

be accessed at: http://

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

guidelines.htm. 

TABLE 2—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

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

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

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

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

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

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

also be considered. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds. 

ADOT&PF prepared an acoustic 

modeling report that discusses their 

modeling approach and identifies 

modeled source levels and harassment 

zones for the Haines Ferry Terminal 

project (Quijano et al., 2016). A 

summary of the methods of the 

modeling effort is presented here; the 

full report is available at http://

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

incidental/construction.htm. 

To assess potential underwater noise 

exposure of marine mammals during 

pile driving, ADOT&PF used two 

models: A Pile Driving Source Model 

(PDSM) to estimate the sound radiation 

generated by the pile driver acting upon 

the pile (i.e., source levels), and a Full 

Waveform Range-dependent Acoustic 

Model (FWRAM) to simulate sound 

propagation away from the pile. The 

modeling considered the effect of pile 

driving equipment, bathymetry, water 

sound speed profile, and seabed 

geoacoustic parameters to predict the 

acoustic footprint from impact and 

vibratory pile driving of cylindrical pipe 

piles with respect to NMFS Level A and 

Level B thresholds. The report presents 

scenarios in which one pile or two piles 

are driven per day; however, for 

purposes here, NMFS considered only 

the two pile scenario since ADOT&PF 

has indicated that up to two piles could 

be driven per day. The resulting Level 

A harassment distances represent the 

location at which an animal would 

remain for the entire duration it takes to 

drive one pile, reset, and then drive 

another pile that, in reality, occurs over 

multiple hours in one day. The Level B 

isopleth distances represent 

instantaneous exposure to the Level B 

harassment criterion. 

To model sounds resulting from 

impact and vibratory pile driving of 30- 

in and 36-in cylindrical pipe pipes, the 

PDSM was used in conjunction with 

GRL Engineer’s Wave Equation Analysis 

Program (GRLWEAP) pile driving 

simulation software to obtain an 

equivalent pile source signature (i.e., 

source level) consisting of a vertical 

array of discrete point sources (Table 3). 

This signature accounts for several 

parameters that describe the operation: 

Pile type, material, size, and length; the 

pile driving equipment; and 

approximate pile penetration rate. The 

amplitude and phase of the point 

sources along the array were computed 

so that they collectively mimicked the 

time-frequency characteristics of the 

acoustic wave at the pile wall that 

results from a hammer strike (impact 

driving) or from forced vibration 

(vibratory driving) at the top end of the 

pile. This approach estimates spectral 

levels within the band 10–800 Hz where 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 47709 

most of the energy from pile driving is 

concentrated. An extrapolation method 

(Zykov et al. 2016) was used to extend 

modeled levels in 1/3-octave-bands up 

to 25 kHz, by applying a ¥2 dB per 1/ 

3-octave-band roll-off coefficient to the 

SEL value starting at the 800 Hz band. 

This was done to estimate the acoustic 

energy at higher frequencies to compare 

to NMFS thresholds. 

Once the pile source signature was 

computed, the FWRAM sound 

propagation modeling code was used to 

determine received levels as a function 

of depth, range, and azimuth direction. 

FWRAM is a time-domain acoustic 

model that used, as input, the PDSMgenerated array of point sources 

representing the pile and computes 

synthetic pressure waveforms. To 

exclude sound field outliers, NMFS uses 

the maximum range at which the given 

sound level was encountered after 

excluding 5 percent of the farthest such 

points (R95%) to estimate harassment 

threshold distances. To account for 

hearing groups, full-spectrum 

frequency-dependent weighting 

functions were applied at each 

frequency. The model also showed the 

transition from down-slope to up-slope 

propagation as the sound crosses Lutak 

Inlet, resulting in a sound field that 

decays at a constant rate with range. 

Steel cylindrical pipe piles 41 m (135 

ft) long with 1⁄2 in thick walls were 

modeled for a total penetration of 14 m 

(46 ft) into the sediment. In the case of 

vibratory pile driving, both pile sizes 

were assumed to be driven by an ICE– 

44B vibratory pile driver. For impact 

pile driving, the parameters 

corresponding to the Delmag D30–32 

and D36–32 impact pile drivers were 

used to model scenarios with 30-in and 

36-in diameter piles, respectively. 

Sound energy was accumulated over a 

specified number of hammer strikes, not 

as a function of time. The number of 

strikes required to install a single pile 

(assumed to be 700 strikes per pile) was 

estimated based on pile driving logs 

from another pile driving project at 

Haines. Sound footprints were 

calculated for the installation of two 

piles (thus, accumulated over 1400 

strikes). For vibratory pile driving, 

sound energy was accumulated for the 

two piles that could be installed or 

removed in a 24-hour period. 

Modeled source levels and distances 

to NMFS acoustic thresholds based on 

these source levels and the sound 

propagation model are presented in 

Table 3 and 4. 

TABLE 3—IMPACT PILE DRIVING: MODELED SOURCE LEVELS AND HARASSMENT ZONES FOR IMPACT DRIVING TWO PILES

PER DAY

[A dash indicates the threshold was not reached*] 

Hearing group 

Level A 

threshold 

distance 

(R95%) (km) 

Level A 

threshold area 

(km2) 

Level B (160 

dB) threshold 

distance (km) 

Level B 

threshold area 

(km2) 

30 inch piles: modeled SL = 179.5 dB SEL 

Low-frequency cetacean .................................................................................. 1.65 3.17 1.98 4.52 

Mid-frequency cetacean .................................................................................. — — 

High-frequency cetacean ................................................................................. 1.45 1.13 

Phocid pinniped ............................................................................................... 0.26 0.09 

Otarrid pinniped ............................................................................................... — — 

36 inch piles: modeled SL = 180.9 dB SEL 

Low-frequency cetacean .................................................................................. 2.04 4.78 2.67 6.79 

Mid-frequency cetacean .................................................................................. — — 

High-frequency cetacean ................................................................................. 1.49 2.17 

Phocid pinniped ............................................................................................... 0.33 0.15 

Otarrid pinniped ............................................................................................... — — 

* NMFS also considers peak sound pressure levels; however, in no case were these thresholds reached or greater than the SEL distances. 

TABLE 4—VIBRATORY PILE DRIVING: MODELED SOURCE LEVELS AND HARASSMENT ZONES FOR VIBRATORY DRIVING TWO

PILES PER DAY

[A dash indicates the threshold was not reached*] 

Hearing group 

Level A 

threshold 

Distance 

(R95%) (km) 

Level A 

threshold area 

(km2) 

Level B (160 

dB) threshold 

distance (km) 

Level B 

threshold area 

(km2) 

30 inch piles: modeled SL = 177.6 dB rms 

ALL ................................................................................................................... — — 5.61 21.14 

36 inch piles: modeled SL = 179.8 dB rms 

Low-frequency cetacean .................................................................................. 0.02 <0.01 5.62 21.17 

Mid-frequency cetacean .................................................................................. — — 

High-frequency cetacean ................................................................................. — — 

Phocid pinniped ............................................................................................... — — 

Otarrid pinniped ............................................................................................... — — 

* NMFS also considers peak sound pressure levels; however, in no case were these thresholds reached or greater than the SEL distances. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47710 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 

The modeling approach described 

above and in ADOT&PF’s application 

constitutes a new approach in that it 

models both source levels and 

propagation loss to estimate distances to 

NMFS harassment thresholds. Some 

preliminary data comparing measured 

sound levels to those produced by the 

models has been presented, but no peer 

reviewed analysis has been undertaken. 

To test the validity of the model, NMFS 

has included a proposed requirement 

that ADOT&PF conduct a source source 

verification (SSV) study upon the onset 

of pile driving to validate the model or, 

if necessary, adjust the harassment 

zones based on measured data. This 

SSV study will also provide the first 

measurements of sound levels generated 

by 36-in piles driven by ADOT&PF. 

ADOT&PF has prepared a draft acoustic 

monitoring plan which can be found at 

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

incidental/construction.htm. We 

welcome comments on the ADOT&PF’s 

source level modeling approach and the 

acoustic monitoring plan. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

The data on marine mammals in this 

area are diverse and fairly robust due 

mostly to ADF&G surveys. Strong 

seasonal occurrence of marine mammals 

in this area is well documented; 

therefore, density estimates for each 

species were calculated by month rather 

than averaged throughout the year. For 

example, we have already discussed the 

seasonality of Steller sea lions and how 

prey aggregations affect their 

abundance. Monthly Steller sea lion 

densities were calculated based on 

abundance surveys conducted at Gran 

Point (ADF&G, pers. comm). 

Considering the Steller sea lion data 

used to calculate density is from Gran 

Point, ADOT&PF used this location to 

mark the southern boundary of the 

action area. The area from Gran Point 

north that encompasses Lutak Inlet and 

Lynn Canal is 91.3 km2; this area was 

used for all species’ density estimates. 

For species other than Steller sea lion, 

average sighting rate was used to 

calculate density (i.e., species 

occurrence rate per month/91.3km2). 

Harbor seals are generally present in the 

action area throughout the year, but 

their local abundance is clearly defined 

by the presence of available prey. 

During mid-March through mid-June, 

they are abundant in Lutak Inlet. For 

these months, an average of 100 seals 

per day in the inlet is considered a 

conservative estimate. For all other 

months, an estimate of 10 seals per 

month was incorporated into the 

density equation. Humpback whales are 

present in the action area from midApril through June at a rate of five 

whales per month and given that a few 

whales have atypically remained in the 

area through the fall months (MOS 

2016), we assumed two whales may 

remain within the action area from 

August through November. Densities for 

killer whales were calculated assuming 

five animals enter the area seasonally 

from one of the resident or transient 

stocks, and may remain from April 

through November. Harbor porpoise 

may be present in low numbers (average 

of five per month) throughout the year. 

Finally, Dall’s porpoise are not sighted 

very frequently but tend to travel in 

larger groups; therefore, ten animals per 

for the four months of construction were 

considered in the density calculations. 

Table 5 provides the resulting marine 

mammal densities for months when 

terminal construction would occur 

(again, no pile activities would occur 

from March 1 through May 31 to avoid 

peak marine mammal abundance and 

critical foraging periods). Although the 

table provides all relevant months, we 

used the months with highest density to 

calculate estimated take for each 

species, thus producing the most 

conservative estimates. Please refer to 

section 6.6.1 in ADOT’s application for 

supporting data information. 

TABLE 5—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY ESTIMATES (ANIMALS/km2) DURING MONTHS WHEN PILE ACTIVITIES MAY OCCUR

Species Jan Feb June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 

Steller sea lion ................................................................. 2.06 1.87 7.55 1.35 0 0.01 1.85 1.59 2.47 

Harbor seal ....................................................................... 0.109 0.109 1.09 0.109 0.109 0.109 0.109 0.109 0.109 

Humpback whale .............................................................. 0 0 0.054 0.054 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0 

Killer whale ....................................................................... 0 0 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0 

Harbor porpoise ............................................................... 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 

Dall’s porpoise .................................................................. 0 0 0 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0 0 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

The following equation was used to 

calculate potential Level A take per 

species per pile type: Level A 

harassment zone/pile installation 

method/pile type * June density * # of 

pile driving days/pile type. As described 

above, there would be 19 days of pile 

driving and 2 days of pile removal for 

a total of 21 pile activity days. We used 

the June density because, when 

densities changed throughout the year, 

this is when the highest density of all 

species occurs in the project area within 

the project in-water work window (with 

the exception of Dall’s porpoise-see 

below) and ADOT&PF could conduct 

activities during this month. Therefore, 

the resulting take estimates assume all 

work is conducted in June, producing 

conservative estimates. The resulting 

Level A takes by pile type (30-in and 36- 

in) were then added to generate a total 

take number. For Level B harassment, 

the equation is the same; however, we 

first subtracted any Level A area from its 

corresponding Level B zone so not to 

‘‘double count’’ takes. 

ADOT&PF may take 1.9 humpback 

whales by Level A harassment when 

impact driving 30′′ piles (i.e., 3.17 km2

* 0.054 animals/km2 * 11 days). 

ADOT&PF may take 2.1 humpback 

whales by Level A harassment when 

impact driving 36-in piles (i.e., 4.78 km2

* 0.054 animals/km2 * 8 days). 

Together, these equal 4 (i.e., 1.9 from 

30-in + 2.1 from 36′′) potential Level A 

takes (Table 6). The Level B harassment 

zone for impact driving 30′′ piles was 

calculated as 4.52 km2¥3.17 km2 = 1.35 

km2. As such, potential take is 

calculated as 1.35 km2 * 0.054 animals/ 

km2 * 11 days = 1 animal. To calculate 

take from impact driving 36’’ piles, the 

Level A zone (4.78 km2) was subtracted 

from the Level B zone (6.79 km2) and 

the process was repeated: 2.01 km2 * 

0.054 animals/km2 * 8 days = 1 animal. 

These takes were then added for a total 

of 2 takes from Level B harassment from 

impact pile driving. Finally, we 

included the potential Level B takes 

from vibratory pile driving and removal 

(Level B area = 21.1 km2) using the 

method as described above. The 

resulting Level B takes (n = 24) were 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 47711 

added to the impact pile driving Level 

B takes (n = 2) for a total Level B take 

of 26 humpback whales. 

For killer whales, Level B takes from 

vibratory pile driving were calculated 

using June density and the full 21.1 km2

Level B zone since no Level A takes are 

predicted: 21.1 km2 * 0.054 animals/ 

km2 * 21 days = 24 animals. Level B 

take from impact driving 30-in piles is 

calculated as 4.52 km2 * 0.054 animals/ 

km2 * 11 days = 2.7 killer whales. Level 

B take from impact driving was 

calculated as 6.79 km2 * 0.054 animals/ 

km2 * 8 days = 2.9 killer whales. 

Together, we proposed to authorize 

Level B take of 30 killer whales over the 

21 days of pile activity. 

For Dall’s porpoise, we used the July 

density of 0.03 animals/km2 in the take 

equations. The resulting Level A take 

was lower than the average group size; 

therefore, we increased to the number of 

takes to represent the possibility one 

group of ten Dall’s porpoise may come 

within the Level A zone during impact 

pile driving. For Level B take, calculated 

take fell between 10 and 20 animals; 

therefore, we assumed two groups of ten 

each may occur within the Level B zone 

and are proposing to authorize 20 Level 

B takes. 

Harbor porpoise take estimates were 

based on a density of .054 porpoise/km2

with a Level A isopleth of 1.13 km2 and 

2.17 km2 for impact pile driving 30-in 

(11 days) and 36-in (8 days) piles, 

respectively. The resulting 1 animal is 

less than the average group size; 

therefore, we are proposing to authorize 

the take of three harbor porpoise. For 

Level B, calculated take was estimated 

at 28 animals. Level B take numbers for 

harbor porpoise were based on a 

21.1km2 impact zone for vibratory pile 

driving while an isopleth of 4.62 km2

and 3.39 km2 were used for pile driving 

30-in (11 days) and 36-in (8 days) piles. 

Harbor seal Level A take numbers 

were based on 1.09 seals/km2, a Level A 

zone of 0.09 and 0.15 km2 for impact 

pile driving 30-in (11 days) and 36-in (8 

days) piles, respectively. In total, three 

Level A takes of harbor seals are 

expected. For Level B, a 21.1 km2

impact zone for vibratory pile driving 

was used whereas a 6.64 km2 and 4.43 

km2 isopleth were used for impact pile 

driving 36-in and 30-in piles. In all, 

Level B take numbers for vibratory and 

impact pile driving were 598. It is 

important to note that given harbor seals 

are more likely to haul-out and linger 

within the Level B harassment zone, it 

is more likely that this number 

represents exposures and not individual 

seals. As with all other species, it is also 

likely animals will travel through the 

Level B zone heading up the inlet and 

then back down again. Because 

individual identification is not always 

possible, these separate sighting events 

would be counted as individual takes. 

For Steller sea lions, Level B takes 

from vibratory pile driving were 

calculated using the most conservative 

June density (assuming worst case 

scenario that all work occurs in June) 

and the full 21.1 km2 Level B zone since 

no Level A takes are predicted: 21.1 km2

* 7.55 animals/km2 * 21 days = 3345.4 

animals. Level B take from impact 

driving 30-in piles was calculated as 

4.52 km2 * 7.55 animals/km2 * 11 days 

= 375.4 sea lions. Level B take from 

impact driving 36-in piles was 

calculated as 6.79 km2 * 7.55 animals/ 

km2 * 8 days = 410.1 sea lions. 

Together, NMFS proposes to authorize 

4131 takes of sea lions over the 21 days 

of pile activity. This amount is not 

believed to be the number of individual 

Steller sea lions harassed but some 

lesser amount of individuals with 

repeated exposures. 

Table 6 includes the total proposed 

take levels, by species, manner of 

taking, and the percentage of stock 

potentially taken by Level B harassment 

(we did not include Level A take 

percentages as the proposed number of 

take is essentially zero percent for all 

stocks). 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES AND MONTH, RESULTING FROM IMPACT

AND VIBRATORY PILE DRIVING

Species Stock or DPS Stock or DPS 

size 1 Level A Level B Level B % of stock/DPS 

Steller sea lion .................................. eastern U.S ...................................... 60,131 0 2 4,131 6.7 

western U.S ...................................... 49,497 0 2 83 0.16 

Harbor Seal ....................................... Lynn ..................................................

Canal/Stephens ................................

Passage ...........................................

9,478 3 598 6.3 

Humpback whale .............................. Central North Pacific ........................ 10,103 4 3 26 0.3 

Killer whale ........................................ Alaska Resident ............................... 2,347 0 30 1.3–12.3 

Northern Resident ............................ 261 0 

Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, 

Bering Sea.

587 0 

West Coast Transient ...................... 243 0 

Harbor porpoise ................................ Southeast Alaska ............................. 975 4 3 28 0.27 

Dall’s porpoise .................................. Alaska ............................................... 83,400 4 10 4 20 0.04 

1Stock or DPS size here is Nbest according to NMFS 2016 Stock Assessment Reports. 2 Calculated Level B take of all SSL’s is based on a June density of 7.55 animals which equals 4131 individuals. Based on the percent of 

branded animals at Gran Point and in consultation with the Alaska Regional Office, we used a 2 percent distinction factor to determine the number of animals potentially from the western DPS. 3 Calculated Level B take of all humpback whales is based on a June density of 0.054 animals which equals 4131 individuals. For ESA section 

7 consultation purposes, 6.1 percent are designated to the Mexico DPS and the remaining are designated to the Hawaii DPS; therefore, we assigned 2 Level B takes to the Mexico DPS. 4The calculated Level A take for harbor porpoise and Dall’s porpoise is less than the average group size; therefore, we are proposing to authorize Level A take of one group of each species (i.e., 3 and 10 animals, respectively). For Dall’s porpoise, we propose to authorize two groups 

(i.e., 20 animals) to be taken by Level B harassment. The calculated amount of Level B take for harbor porpoise is sufficient to cover multiple 

groups; therefore, no adjustments were made. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

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

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to such 

activity, ‘‘and other means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking’’ for 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47712 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 

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, as well as 

subsistence uses. 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. 

The following mitigation measures are 

proposed in the IHA: 

• Schedule: No pile driving or 

removal would occur from March 1 

through May 31 to avoid peak marine 

mammals abundance periods and 

critical foraging periods. 

• Pile Driving Delay/Shut-Down: If an 

animal comes within 10 m (33 ft) of a 

pile being driven or removed, 

ADOT&PF would shut down. Pile 

driving activities would only be 

conducted during daylight hours when 

it is possible to visually monitor for 

marine mammals. If poor environmental 

conditions restrict visibility (e.g., from 

excessive wind or fog, high Beaufort 

state), pile installation would be 

delayed. If a species for which 

authorization has not been granted or if 

a species for which authorization has 

been granted but the authorized takes 

are met, ADOT&PF would delay or shutdown pile driving if the marine 

mammals approaches or is observed 

within the Level A and/or B harassment 

zone. 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 serious 

injury or mortality, the protected 

species observer (PSO) on watch would 

immediately call for the cessation of the 

specified activities and immediately 

report the incident to the Chief of the 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and NMFS Alaska Regional Office. 

• Soft-start: For all impact pile 

driving, a ‘‘soft start’’ technique will be 

used at the beginning of each pile 

installation to allow any marine 

mammal that may be in the immediate 

area to leave before hammering at full 

energy. The soft start requires 

ADOT&PF to provide an initial set of 

three strikes from the impact hammer at 

40 percent energy, followed by a oneminute waiting period, then two 

subsequent 3-strike sets. If any marine 

mammal is sighted within the Level A 

zone designated for that species prior to 

pile-driving, or during the soft start, 

ADOT&PF will delay pile-driving until 

the animal is confirmed to have moved 

outside and on a path away from Level 

A zone or if 15 minutes have elapsed 

since the last sighting. 

• Other best management practices: 

ADOT&PF will drive all piles with a 

vibratory hammer to the maximum 

extent possible (i.e., until a desired 

depth is achieved or to refusal) prior to 

using an impact hammer. ADOT&PF 

will also use the minimum hammer 

energy needed to safely install the piles. 

ADOT&PF will also utilize sound 

attenuation devices (e.g., pile caps/ 

cushions) to reduce source levels and, 

by association, received levels. 

However, because the actual amount of 

reduction of sound energy from using 

those devices in unknown, ADOT&PF 

and NMFS used relied on unattenuated 

source levels to calculate harassment 

zones. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

we have preliminarily determined that 

the proposed mitigation measures 

provide the means 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. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the proposed action area. 

Effective reporting is critical 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. 

Visual Monitoring 

Monitoring would be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after pile driving and removal activities. 

In addition, observers shall record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and shall document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from piles being driven or 

removed. Pile driving activities include 

the time to install or remove a single 

pile or series of piles, as long as the time 

elapsed between uses of the pile driving 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 47713 

equipment is no more than thirty 

minutes. 

A primary PSO would be placed at 

the terminal where pile driving would 

occur and a second observer would be 

placed at Tanani Point, located 

approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) southeast 

of the terminal. This second observer is 

at an advantage to observe species prior 

to entering the Level A zone as they 

move up Chilkoot Inlet, covering a 

majority of the Level B zone. PSOs 

would scan the waters using binoculars, 

and/or spotting scopes, and would use 

a handheld GPS or range-finder device 

to verify the distance to each sighting 

from the project site. All PSOs would be 

trained in marine mammal 

identification and behaviors and are 

required to have no other project-related 

tasks while conducting monitoring. The 

following measures also apply to visual 

monitoring: 

(1) Monitoring will be conducted by 

qualified observers, who will be placed 

at the best vantage point(s) practicable 

to monitor for marine mammals and 

implement shutdown/delay procedures 

when applicable by calling for the 

shutdown to the hammer operator. 

Qualified observers are trained 

biologists, with the following minimum 

qualifications: 

(a) Visual acuity in both eyes 

(correction is permissible) sufficient for 

discernment of moving targets at the 

water’s surface with ability to estimate 

target size and distance; use of 

binoculars may be necessary to correctly 

identify the target; 

(b) Advanced education in biological 

science or related field (undergraduate 

degree or higher required); 

(c) Experience and ability to conduct 

field observations and collect data 

according to assigned protocols (this 

may include academic experience); 

(d) Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

(e) Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

(f) Writing skills sufficient to prepare 

a report of observations including but 

not limited to the number and species 

of marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were suspended to avoid 

potential incidental injury from 

construction sound of marine mammals 

observed within a defined shutdown 

zone; and marine mammal behavior; 

and 

(g) Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report would be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal activities. It 

will include an overall description of 

work completed, a narrative regarding 

marine mammal sightings, and 

associated marine mammal observation 

data sheets. Specifically, the report must 

include: 

• Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period; 

• Weather parameters (e.g., percent 

cover, visibility); 

• Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tide state); 

• Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

sex and age class of marine mammals; 

• Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 

including bearing and direction of travel 

and distance from pile driving activity; 

• Distance from pile driving activities 

to marine mammals and distance from 

the marine mammals to the observation 

point; 

• Locations of all marine mammal 

observations; and 

• Other human activity in the area. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft final 

report will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such 

as an injury, serious injury or mortality, 

ADOT&PF would immediately cease the 

specified activities and report the 

incident to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator. 

The report would include the following 

information: 

• Description of the incident; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

Beaufort sea state, visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities would not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS would work with ADOT&PF to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. ADOT&PF would not be 

able to resume their activities until 

notified by NMFS via letter, email, or 

telephone. 

In the event that ADOT&PF 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 (e.g., in 

less than a moderate state of 

decomposition as described in the next 

paragraph), ADOT&PF would 

immediately report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding 

Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska 

Regional Stranding Coordinator. The 

report would include the same 

information identified in the paragraph 

above. Activities would be able to 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

would work with ADOT&PF to 

determine whether modifications in the 

activities are appropriate. 

In the event that ADOT&PF 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), 

ADOT&PF would report the incident to 

the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or 

by email to the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours 

of the discovery. ADOT&PF would 

provide photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS and 

the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. 

Acoustic Monitoring 

ADOT&PF relied on source level and 

sound propagation models to estimate 

Level A and harassment zones. To 

validate the outputs of these models, 

ADOT&PF will conduct acoustic 

monitoring during the first two days of 

pile driving. The acoustic monitoring 

plan is available for review at http://

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

incidental/construction.htm. In 

summary, ADOT&PF will deploy three 

bottom-mounted Autonomous 

Multichannel Acoustic Recorders 

(AMARs) and conduct spot 

measurements with a hydrophone over 

the side of a vessel. The AMARs will be 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47714 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 

set 10 m, 1000m and 5,000 m from the 

pile. Within one week, ADOT&PF will 

provide NMFS a report of their acoustic 

measurements. NMFS will review the 

report and if empirical data 

demonstrates adjustments to Level A 

and B take zones are warranted, those 

adjustments will be made. 

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 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). 

The Level A harassment zones 

identified in Tables 3 and 4 are based 

upon an animal exposed to impact pile 

driving two piles per day. Considering 

duration of impact driving each pile (up 

to 15 minutes) and breaks between pile 

installations (to reset equipment and 

move pile into place), this means an 

animal would have to remain within the 

area estimated to be ensonified above 

the Level A harassment threshold for 

multiple hours. This is highly unlikely 

given marine mammal movement 

throughout the area. If an animal was 

exposed to accumulated sound energy, 

the resulting PTS would likely be small 

(e.g., PTS onset) at lower frequencies 

where pile driving energy is 

concentrated. Nevertheless, we propose 

authorizing a small amount of Level A 

take for four species which is 

considered in our analysis. 

Behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to pile driving and removal at 

the Terminal, if any, are expected to be 

mild and temporary. Marine mammals 

within the Level B harassment zone may 

not show any visual cues they are 

disturbed by activities (as noted during 

modification to the Kodiak Ferry Dock) 

or could become alert, avoid the area, 

leave the area, or display other mild 

responses that are not observable such 

as changes in vocalization patterns. 

Given the short duration of noisegenerating activities per day and that 

pile driving and removal would occur 

on 21 days across 4 months, any 

harassment would be temporary. In 

addition, ADOT&PF would not conduct 

pile driving or removal during the 

spring eulachon and herring runs as 

well as the fall salmon runs, when 

marine mammals are in greatest 

abundance and engaging in 

concentrated foraging behavior. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized. 

• ADOT&PF would avoid pile driving 

and removal during peak periods of 

marine mammals abundance and 

foraging (i.e., March 1 through May 31 

eulachon and herring runs,). 

• ADOT&PF would implement 

mitigation measures such as vibratory 

driving piles to the maximum extent 

practicable, soft-starts, use of sound 

attenuation devices, and shut downs. 

• Monitoring reports from similar 

work in Alaska have documented little 

to no effect on individuals of the same 

species impacted by the specified 

activities. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed 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 qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The amount of take NMFS proposes to 

authorize is 0.03 to 12.3 percent of any 

stock’s best population estimate. The 

12.3 percent is based on the possibility 

all 30 takes of killer whales are from the 

West Coast Transient stock (population 

size 243) which is highly unlikely. The 

next lowest percent of stock is for the 

Steller sea lion eDPS at 6.7 percent; 

however, this is also conservative 

because it assumes all pile driving 

occurs in June which has the highest 

Steller sea lion density and assumes all 

takes are of individual animals which is 

likely not the case. Harbor seal takes 

represent 6.3 percent of the Lynn Canal/ 

Stephens passage population while 

takes for the remaining five species, 

including the Steller sea lion wDPS, 

represent less than 1 percent of all 

stocks. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with NMFS Alaska Protected 

Resources Division Office, whenever we 

propose to authorize take for 

endangered or threatened species. 

NMFS is proposing to authorize take 

of the Steller sea lion wDPS and the 

Mexico humpback whale DPS which are 

listed under the ESA. The Permit and 

Conservation Division has requested 

initiation of Section 7 consultation with 

the Alaska Region for the issuance of 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 47715 

this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA 

consultation prior to reaching a 

determination regarding the proposed 

issuance of the authorization. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to ADOT&PF for conducting pile 

driving and removal at the Haines Ferry 

Terminal, Alaska, from October 1, 2018 

September 30, 2019 provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. This section contains 

a draft of the IHA itself. The wording 

contained in this section is proposed for 

inclusion in the IHA (if issued). 

1. This IHA is valid from October 1 

2018, through September 30, 2019. 

2. This IHA is valid only for pile 

driving and removal during the Haines 

Ferry Terminal Modification Project, 

Haines, Alaska. 

3. General Conditions. 

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

possession of, its designees, and work 

crew personnel operating under the 

authority of this IHA. 

(b) The species authorized for taking 

is the Steller sea lions (Eumetopias 

jubatus), harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), 

harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), 

and Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) 

humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) and killer whale (Orcinus 

orca). 

(c) The taking, by harassment, is 

limited to the species listed in condition 

3(b). See Table 6 for manner of taking 

and numbers of take authorized, by 

species. 

(d) The taking by serious injury or 

death of the species listed in condition 

3(b) of this IHA or any taking of species 

of marine mammal not listed in 

condition 3(b) is prohibited and may 

result in the modification, suspension, 

or revocation of this IHA. 

(e) The taking of any marine mammal 

in a manner prohibited under this IHA 

must be reported immediately to the 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS. 

(f) ADOT&PF shall conduct briefings 

between construction supervisors and 

crews, marine mammal monitoring 

team, and ADOT&PF staff prior to the 

start of pile driving and removal for the 

Haines Ferry Terminal Modification 

Project, and when new personnel join 

the work, in order to explain 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocol, and operational procedures. 

4. Mitigation 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to implement the following 

mitigation measures: 

(a) Timing Restrictions: Pile driving 

and removal shall occur only during 

daylight hours from October 1, 2018, 

through September 30, 2019, excluding 

March 1, 2019, to May 31, 2019. 

(b) Weather Restrictions: If poor 

environmental conditions restrict 

visibility (e.g., from excessive wind or 

fog, high Beaufort state), the 

commencement of pile installation shall 

be delayed. 

(c) Pile Driving Operations 

(i) ADOT&PF shall drive all piles with 

a vibratory hammer to the maximum 

extent possible (i.e., until a desired 

depth is achieved or to refusal) prior to 

using an impact hammer. ADOT&PF 

shall also use the minimum hammer 

energy needed to safely install the piles. 

(ii) ADOT&PF shall use sound 

attenuation devices (e.g., pile caps/ 

cushions) in an attempt to reduce source 

levels. 

(iii) ADOT&PF shall use a ‘‘soft start’’ 

technique at the beginning of impact 

pile driving to allow any marine 

mammal that may be in the immediate 

area to leave before hammering at full 

energy. The soft start requires 

ADOT&PF to provide an initial set of 

three strikes from the impact hammer at 

40 percent energy, followed by a oneminute waiting period, then two 

subsequent 3–strike sets. 

(iv) ADOT&PF shall use a direct pull 

method as the primary removal method 

for piles and, if ineffective, then using 

a vibratory hammer; 

(d) Shut-down Procedures. 

(i) A shut-down zone of 10 m shall be 

established during impact pile driving. 

Pile driving shall not commence until 

marine mammals are not sighted within 

the shut-down zone for a 15-minute 

period. If a marine mammal enters the 

shut down zone during pile driving, the 

activity shall stop until the animal 

leaves the shut-down zone or until 15 

minutes has elapsed without 

observation of the animal within the 

zone. 

(ii) If any marine mammal is sighted 

within the Level A zone (see Tables 3 

and 4) designated for that species prior 

to pile-driving, or during the soft start, 

ADOT&PF shall delay pile-driving until 

the animal is confirmed to have moved 

outside and on a path away from Level 

A zone or if 15 minutes have elapsed 

since the last sighting. 

(iii) ADOT&PF shall use delay and 

shut-down procedures, if a species for 

which authorization has not been 

granted or if a species for which 

authorization has been granted but the 

authorized takes are met, approaches or 

is observed within the Level A and/or 

B harassment zone. 

(iv) ADOT&PF shall use delay and 

shut-down procedures, if a species for 

which authorization has not been 

granted or if a species for which 

authorization has been granted but the 

authorized takes are met, approaches or 

is observed within the Level A and/or 

B harassment zone (as appropriate). 

5. Monitoring. 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to abide by the following 

monitoring conditions: 

(a) Two qualified Protected Species 

Observer (PSOs) shall be used to detect, 

document, and minimize impacts to 

marine mammals. One PSO shall be 

stationed at the Terminal and another 

shall be stationed at Tanani Point or 

other vantage point that allows visual 

line of sight across Chilkoot Inlet. 

(b) Qualifications for PSOs for visual 

monitoring include: 

(i) Visual acuity in both eyes 

(correction is permissible) sufficient for 

discernment of harbor seals on land or 

in the water with ability to estimate 

target size and distance; use of 

binoculars may be necessary to correctly 

identify the target; 

(ii) Advanced education in biological 

science or related field (undergraduate 

degree or higher required); 

(iii) Experience and ability to conduct 

field observations and collect data 

according to assigned protocols (this 

may include academic experience); 

(iv) Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

(v) Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

(vi) Writing skills sufficient to prepare 

a report of observations including but 

not limited to the number and species 

of marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when construction activities were 

conducted; dates and times when 

construction activities were suspended 

to avoid potential incidental injury from 

construction sound or visual 

disturbance of marine mammals 

observed; and marine mammal 

behavior; and 

(vii) Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

(c) PSO Monitoring and Data 

Collection: Monitoring shall be 

conducted before, during, and after pile 

driving and removal activities. PSOs 

shall record all incidents of marine 

mammal occurrence, regardless of 

distance from activity, and shall 

document any behavioral reactions in 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47716 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 

concert with distance from construction 

activities. PSOs shall be placed at the 

best vantage point(s) practicable to 

monitor for marine mammals. The PSO 

shall also conduct biological resources 

awareness training for construction 

personnel. The awareness training shall 

be provided to brief construction 

personnel on identification of marine 

mammals (including neonates) and the 

need to avoid and minimize impacts to 

marine mammals. If new construction 

personnel are added to the project, the 

contractor shall ensure that the 

personnel receive the mandatory 

training before starting work. The PSO 

shall have authority to stop construction 

if marine mammals appear distressed 

(evasive maneuvers, rapid breathing, 

inability to flush) or in danger of injury. 

(d) Monitoring requirements also 

include: 

(i) The holder of this Authorization 

must designate at least one biologicallytrained, on-site individual(s), approved 

in advance by NMFS, to monitor marine 

mammal species. The PSO shall be 

trained in marine mammal 

identification and behaviors and are 

required to have no other constructionrelated tasks while conducting 

monitoring. 

(ii) PSOs shall be provided with the 

equipment necessary to effectively 

monitor for marine mammals in order to 

record species, behaviors, and responses 

to construction activities. 

(iii) Pre-activity Monitoring: At least 

30 minutes prior to the start of all pile 

driving, the PSO(s) must conduct 

observations on the number, type(s), 

location(s), and behavior(s) of marine 

mammals. 

(iv) Data collection during marine 

mammal monitoring shall consist of 

counts of all marine mammals by 

species and number (if possible, also 

include sex and age class), a description 

of behavior, location, direction of 

movement, type of construction that is 

occurring, time construction activities 

starts and ends, any noise or visual 

disturbance, and time of the 

observation. The type of take (i.e., Level 

A or B) and the assumed cause (whether 

related to construction activities or not) 

shall be noted. Environmental 

conditions such as weather, visibility, 

temperature, tide level, current, and sea 

state shall also be recorded. A written 

log of dates and times of monitoring 

activity shall be kept. The log shall 

report the following information: 

• Time of PSO arrival on site; 

• Time of the commencement of 

construction activities; 

• Distances to all marine mammals 

relative to the disturbance; 

• Observations, notes on marine 

mammal behavior during construction 

activities, as described above, and on 

the number and distribution observed in 

the project vicinity; 

• For observations of all other marine 

mammals (if observed) the time and 

duration of each animal’s presence in 

the project vicinity; the number of 

animals observed; the behavior of each 

animal, including any response to 

construction activities; 

• Time of the cessation of 

construction activities; 

• Time of PSO departure from site; 

and 

• An estimate of the number (by 

species) of marine mammals that are 

known to have been disturbed by 

construction activities (based on visual 

observation) with a discussion of any 

specific behaviors those individuals 

exhibited. Disturbance must be recorded 

according to NMFS’ three-point scale. 

(v) Post-activity Monitoring: At least 

30 minutes following the cessation of 

pile driving for the day, the PSO(s) will 

continue to scan for marine mammals 

and document any sightings in 

accordance with section 4(c)(iv) of this 

IHA. 

(e) Acoustic Monitoring: ADOT&PF 

shall conduct acoustic monitoring at the 

onset of pile driving per the Acoustic 

Monitoring Plan. The data shall be 

analyzed to determine if any 

adjustments to the harassment zones are 

warranted. 

6. Reporting. 

(a) The ADOT&PF shall submit a draft 

report to NMFS within 90 days of the 

completion of marine mammal 

monitoring, or sixty days prior to the 

issuance of any subsequent IHA for this 

project (if required), whichever comes 

first. The report shall include marine 

mammal observations pre-activity, 

during-activity, and post-activity of 

construction, and shall also provide 

descriptions of any behavioral responses 

by marine mammals due to disturbance 

from construction activities and a 

complete description of total take 

estimate based on the number of marine 

mammals observed during the course of 

construction. If comments are received 

from the NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources on the draft report, a final 

report shall be submitted to NMFS 

within 30 days thereafter following 

resolution of comments on the draft 

report from NMFS. If no comments are 

received from NMFS, the draft report 

will be considered to be the final report. 

This report must contain the 

informational elements described above 

and in the monitoring plan of the 

application and at minimum shall also 

include: 

(b) Reporting injured or dead marine 

mammals: 

(i) In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by this IHA, such as serious 

injury or mortality, ADOT&PF shall 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and report the incident to the 

NMFS’ Office of Protected Resources 

and the West Coast Regional Stranding 

Coordinator. The report must include 

the following information: 

• Time and date of the incident; 

• Description of the incident; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, tidal 

conditions, cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations and active sound 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

Activities shall not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS will work with ADOT&PF to 

determine what measures are necessary 

to minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. ADOT&PF may not resume 

their activities until notified by NMFS. 

(ii) In the event that ADOT&PF 

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 (e.g., in less than a moderate state 

of decomposition), ADOT&PF shall 

immediately report the incident to the 

NMFS’ Office of Protected Resources 

and the Alaska Regional Stranding 

Coordinator. The report must include 

the same information identified in 

6(b)(i) of this IHA. Activities may 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

will work with the ADOT&PF to 

determine whether additional 

mitigation measures or modifications to 

the activities are appropriate. 

(iii) In the event that the ADOT&PF 

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), the ADOT&PF shall 

report the incident to the NMFS’ Office 

of Protected Resources and the Alaska 

Regional Stranding Coordinator within 

24 hours of the discovery. ADOT&PF 

shall provide photographs or video 

footage or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 47717 

7. This Authorization may be 

modified, suspended or withdrawn if 

the holder fails to abide by the 

conditions prescribed herein, or if 

NMFS determines the authorized taking 

is having more than a negligible impact 

on the species or stock of affected 

marine mammals. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the draft authorization, and any other 

aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA 

for the proposed Haines Ferry Terminal 

Dock Modification Project. Please 

include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform our final decision on the 

request for MMPA authorization. 

Dated: October 6, 2017. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22145 Filed 10–12–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF739 

Nominations to the Marine Fisheries 

Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; request for nominations. 

SUMMARY: Nominations are being sought 

for appointment by the Secretary of 

Commerce to fill vacancies on the 

Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee 

(MAFAC or Committee) that are open or 

will be pending in February 2018. 

MAFAC is the only Federal advisory 

committee with the responsibility to 

advise the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) on all matters concerning 

living marine resources that are the 

responsibility of the Department of 

Commerce. The Committee makes 

recommendations to the Secretary to 

assist in the development and 

implementation of Departmental 

regulations, policies, and programs 

critical to the mission and goals of 

NMFS. Nominations are encouraged 

from all interested parties involved with 

or representing interests affected by 

NMFS actions in managing living 

marine resources. Nominees should 

possess demonstrable expertise in a 

field related to the management of living 

marine resources and be able to fulfill 

the time commitments required for two 

annual meetings and year round 

subcommittee work. Individuals serve 

for a term of three years for no more 

than two consecutive terms if reappointed. NMFS is seeking qualified 

nominees to fill upcoming vacancies 

being created by term limits. 

DATES: Nominations must be 

postmarked or have an email date stamp 

on or before November 27, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Nominations should be sent 

to Heidi Lovett, MAFAC Assistant 

Director, NMFS Office of Policy, 14th 

Floor, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heidi Lovett, MAFAC Assistant 

Director; (301) 427–8034; email: 

heidi.lovett@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

MAFAC was approved by the Secretary 

on December 28, 1970, and 

subsequently chartered under the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 

U.S.C. App. 2, on February 17, 1971. 

The Committee meets twice a year with 

supplementary subcommittee meetings 

as determined necessary by the 

Committee Chair and Subcommittee 

Chairs. No less than 15 and no more 

than 21 individuals may serve on the 

Committee. Membership is comprised of 

highly qualified, diverse individuals 

representing commercial, recreational, 

subsistence, and aquaculture fisheries 

interests; seafood industry; 

environmental organizations; academic 

institutions; tribal and consumer 

groups; and other living marine resource 

interest groups from a balance of U.S. 

geographical regions, including the 

Western Pacific and Caribbean. 

A MAFAC member cannot be a 

Federal employee, member of a Regional 

Fishery Management Council, registered 

Federal lobbyist, State employee, or 

agent of a foreign principal. Selected 

candidates must pass a security check 

and submit a financial disclosure form. 

Membership is voluntary, and except for 

reimbursable travel and related 

expenses, service is without pay. 

Each nomination submission should 

include the nominee’s name, a cover 

letter describing the nominee’s 

qualifications and interest in serving on 

the Committee, curriculum vitae or 

resume of the nominee, and no more 

than three supporting letters describing 

the nominee’s qualifications and 

interest in serving on the Committee. 

Self-nominations are acceptable. The 

following contact information should 

accompany each nominee’s submission: 

name, address, telephone number, fax 

number, and email address (if 

available). 

Nominations should be sent to Heidi 

Lovett (see ADDRESSES) and must be 

received by November 27, 2017. The full 

text of the Committee Charter and its 

current membership can be viewed at 

the NMFS’ Web page at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mafac.htm. 

Dated: October 10, 2017. 

Jennifer Lukens, 

Director for the Office of Policy, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22220 Filed 10–12–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF535 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Gary Paxton 

Industrial Park Dock Modification 

Project. 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has issued an 

incidental harassment authorization 

(IHA) to the City and Borough of Sitka 

(CBS) for the taking marine mammals 

incidental to modifying the Gary Paxton 

Industrial Park (GPIP) dock in Sawmill 

Cove, Alaska. 

DATES: The IHA is valid from October 1, 

2017 through December 31, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES