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modified, suspended or withdrawn if 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
47718 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 

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) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action with respect to 

environmental consequences on the 

human environment. 

Accordingly, NMFS has determined 

that the issuance of the 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. 

Summary of Request 

On June 21, 2017, NMFS received a 

complete application from CBS 

requesting take of marine mammals 

incidental to the GPIP dock 

modification project in Sawmill Cove, 

Alaska. CBS is authorized to take six 

species of marine mammals, by Level B 

harassment, and three of those six 

species by Level A harassment. Pile 

driving and removal would occur for 16 

days from October 1 through December 

31, 2017 with the majority of work 

completed in October. No subsequent 

IHAs would be necessary to complete 

the project. No mortality or serious 

injury is expected or authorized. 

Description of Specified Activity 

Overview 

CBS is modifying an existing marine 

and commercial industrial site by 

removing existing aging docks and 

installing a new floating dock, small 

craft float, and transfer bridge. To do so, 

CBS must remove existing abandoned, 

creosote-treated piles and install new 

piles. Pile driving and pile removal 

associated with this work may result in 

auditory injury (Level A harassment) 

and behavioral harassment (Level B 

harassment) of select marine mammal 

species. All pile driving and removal 

would take place at the existing dock 

facility and occur for 16 days. The 

purpose of the project is to provide deep 

water port access, meet modern safety 

standards, and promote marine 

commerce in the region. 

Dates and Duration 

The IHA is valid from October 1, 

2017, through December 31, 2017; 

however, the majority of work will 

occur in October. Removing old timber 

piles with a vibratory hammer will 

occur for up to 5 hours per day for 6 

days. Removing the temporary template 

piles will occur for up to 1 hour on 2 

additional days. Vibratory pile driving 

will occur for up to 2 hours per day for 

6 days to install the permanent piles 

while impact pile driving will occur for 

up to 10 minutes a day for proofing 

following vibratory pile driving. In total, 

pile activities will occur for a maximum 

of 16 days . 

Specified Geographic Region 

Sawmill Cove is a small body of water 

located near Sitka, Alaska, at the mouth 

of Silver Bay,which opens to Sitka 

Sound and the Gulf of Alaska (see 

figures 1 and 2 in application). 

Bathymetry in Sawmill Cove shows a 

fairly even seafloor that gradually falls 

to a depth of approximately 50 feet (ft) 

(15 meters (m)). To the southeast, Silver 

Bay is approximately 0.5 miles (mi) (0.8 

kilometers (km)) wide, 5.5 mi (8.9 km) 

long, and 150–250 ft (46–76 m) deep. 

The bay is uniform with few rock 

outcroppings or islands. To the 

southwest, the Eastern Channel opens to 

Sitka Sound, dropping off to depths of 

400 ft (120 m) approximately 1.6 km (1 

mi) southwest of the project site. 

Sawmill Cove is an active marine 

commercial and industrial area. The 

dock footprint is previously disturbed 

with abandoned dock structures 

associated with the former Alaska Pulp 

Mill. Silver Bay Seafoods processing 

plant is located adjacent to the project 

site. This plant processes herring and 

salmon (primarily pink salmon). 

Detailed Description of Specific 

Activities 

The purpose of the project is to 

construct a multipurpose docking area 

that will serve a wide variety of vessels, 

provide deep water port access to the 

GPIP, meet modern standards for safety, 

and promote marine commerce in the 

region. The Federal Register notice 

soliciting comments on the proposed 

IHA contains a complete description of 

the specified activities and we provide 

a summary here. 

The work includes removing 280 

abandoned creosote-treated piles 

located in shallow water, installing a 

large floating deep-water dock (a 

repurposed barge measuring 250 ft (76.2 

m) x 74 ft (22.6 m) x 19 ft (5.8 m)), small 

craft float (12 ft (3.7 m) x 100 ft (30.5 

m)), and v-shaped float (see Figure 4 

and 5 in CBS’s application). To 

complete the new dock, CBS will 

construct two dolphin structures to 

support the floating dock. Each dolphin 

requires 6 temporary 30-in steel piles to 

act as a template for installing the 

permanent piles, 2 permanent 30-in 

steel batter piles (piles driven at an 

angle with the vertical to resist a lateral 

force) to act as the ‘‘legs’’ of the dolphin, 

and a single 48-in vertical steel piles 

which would constitute the center of the 

dolphin structure. CBS will use a 

vibratory and diesel impact hammer to 

install piles. The existing old timber 

piles associated with the old dock will 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 47719 

be removed by the vibratory hammer if 

they cannot be pulled out mechanically. 

The 12 temporary piles used for the 

template will also be removed following 

dock completion. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA was published in the Federal 

Register on July 26, 2017 (82 FR 34632). 

During the 30-day public comment 

period, NMFS received comments from 

the Marine Mammal Commission 

(Commission) and the National Park 

Service (NPS). All comments specific to 

the CBS’s application that address the 

statutory and regulatory requirements or 

findings NMFS must make to issue an 

IHA are addressed here. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

recommended distances to NMFS 

harassment isopleths from impact pile 

driving be recalculated using proxy 

single strike sound exposure levels 

(SELs) to estimate pile driving source 

levels and resulting distances to NMFS 

Level A harassment isopleths. 

NMFS Response: NMFS uses dual 

exposure criteria to estimate the impact 

distance from noise sources: 

Instantaneous peak sound pressure level 

(SPL) and 24-hour cumulative sound 

exposure level (SEL) that is specific to 

each of the five marine mammal hearing 

groups. Computation of cumulative SEL 

for impact pile driving can be easily 

obtained if a single strike SEL, the 

number of strikes required to install one 

pile, and the total number of piles to be 

installed in a given day are known. In 

their application, CBS used sound 

pressure levels (SPLs) measured during 

pile driving projects elsewhere in 

southeast Alaska as a proxy for 

estimated source levels during the GPIP 

project. These SPL source levels were 

considered using a 100 millisecond (ms) 

pulse duration which is the nominal 

time integration period that contains 

90% of the pulse acoustic energy when 

measured at approximately 10 m from 

the pile. The use of root mean square 

(rms) SPL with 100 msec default pulse 

duration can either lead to under- or 

over-estimates of the impact zone (Guan 

et al., 2017). Although both processes 

are acceptable to NMFS to estimate 

threshold distances, NFMS recognizes a 

more straightforward way to determine 

cumulative SEL values is to use singlestrike SELs, when known. Therefore, 

NMFS calculated estimated distances to 

impact pile driving harassment 

thresholds using median SEL values 

from two reports measuring pile driving 

noise in southeast Alaska. For 30-in 

piles, the source level NMFS used is 

180.7 decibel (dB) SEL assuming that 

the measurements from Ketchikan most 

closely resembles those in Sawmill Cove 

(see Table 72 in Denes et al., 2016). For 

48-in piles, Austin et al. (2016) reports 

a median value of 186.7 dB SEL for a 

diesel hammer without a sound 

attenuation device with measurements 

taken 11 meters from the pile. Using the 

SEL metric method resulted in 

decreased Level A harassment zones for 

impact pile driving from the proposed 

IHA notice. NMFS adjusted the Level A 

harassment zones (Table 3) and 

mitigation zones (Table 5) accordingly. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

questioned select mitigation measures 

proposed by CBS in their application 

and NMFS’ proposed IHA notice. 

Specifically, they inquired why NMFS 

included a soft-start be implemented for 

vibratory pile driving and why the shutdown zone for otariids was smaller than 

for mid-frequency cetaceans when the 

Level A harassment isopleth for midfrequency cetaceans is slightly (4.4 m) 

larger. The Commission also requested 

more information on the pile softening 

material CBS proposed to use between 

the pile and impact hammer. The 

Commission stated it is incumbent on 

NMFS to evaluate the appropriateness 

and necessity of various mitigation 

measures. 

NMFS Response: The applicant 

voluntarily proposed a soft-start to 

vibratory pile driving and the shutdown zones. The shut-down zones fully 

encompass the very small (less than 50 

m) Level A harassment zones for both 

otariids and mid-frequency cetaceans 

and would be effective at eliminating 

the potential for Level A harassment. 

NMFS notes the Commission did not 

specify a mitigation recommendation 

(e.g., reduce both shut-down zones, 

increase both shut-down zones, etc.) 

and did not address the change to 

harassment isopleth distances based on 

using SEL source levels. In the final 

IHA, NMFS has reduced the shut-down 

zone for otariids and mid-frequency 

cetaceans to fully encompass the revised 

Level A harassment zone for both 

hearing groups. In addition, NMFS has 

increased the shut-down zone for lowfrequency cetaceans to 380 m and 1,100 

m for 30-in and 48-in piles, respectively, 

during impact pile driving to fully 

encompass the revised Level A 

harassment zones for this hearing group, 

avoiding all Level A take of humpback 

whales. NMFS also confirmed the 

softening material is a type of pile 

cushion. Finally, with respect to duties, 

section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

requires NMFS to prescribe means of 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on marine mammals. Here, the 

applicant has determined that the 

vibratory ramp-up mitigation measure is 

practicable. However, NMFS has not 

included the vibratory ramp-up measure 

in the requirements of the IHA. 

Comment 3: The Commission 

requested the following mitigation 

measure be included: Using delay and 

shut-down procedures, if a species for 

which authorization has not been 

granted or if a species for which 

authorization has been granted but the 

authorized takes are met, approaches or 

is observed within the Level A and/or 

B harassment zone. 

NMFS Response: NMFS has included 

this measure to provide clarity to the 

applicant that they are not authorized to 

take marine mammals beyond those 

identified in the IHA. 

Comment 4: The NPS provided 

information regarding the abundance of 

humpback whales present in the action 

area and their habitat use during the 

time when pile operations would occur 

(October–December). NPS expressed 

concern that many humpback whales 

are foraging intensely either in 

preparation for migrating or for overwintering in Sitka Sound and that pile 

driving noise could adversely affect this 

behavior. The NPS recommended the 

work window be shifted outside of this 

time period. 

NMFS Response: NMFS consulted 

with a local researcher who has been 

conducting marine mammal surveys in 

the action area since 2001 and provided 

the humpback whale abundance and 

behavior data informing CBS’s 

application. NMFS understands that 

whales start entering Sitka Sound 

around September with November 

marking the beginning of high habitat 

use (pers. comm. J. Straley, August 25, 

2017). Furthermore, whale abundance 

can vary year to year with high 

concentrations some years and low 

concentrations in other years. NMFS 

then consulted with CBS who identified 

that the majority of work will be 

conducted in the month of October, 

prior to peak humpback whale foraging 

periods. However, because equipment 

and weather delays cannot be 

scheduled, NMFS is not requiring the 

applicant be completed by the end of 

October. Despite the potentially high 

concentration of humpback whales in 

the action area, the duration of pile 

activity is relatively short and pile 

driving would not occur on consecutive 

days. Finally, NMFS has included a new 

measure requiring CBS shut-down 

impact pile driving work should a 

humpback whale enter within the Level 

A harassment zone, avoiding Level A 

take of this species. 

Comment 5: The NPS identified that 

California sea lions, sea otters and 

silver-haired bats are known to be 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47720 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 

present in the action area and NMFS 

should consider these species. 

NMFS Response: Although not 

common in the action area, NMFS has 

included take authorization for 

California sea lions in the final IHA. Sea 

otters and silver-haired bats are not 

under NMFS’ jurisdiction and the 

authorization to take marine mammals 

under NMFS’ jurisdiction does not 

affect these species. 

Comment 6: NPS recommended a 

mitigation measure be included that 

requires pile driving to only proceed 

when the Protected Species Observers 

(PSOs) give a ‘‘notice to proceed.’’ 

NMFS Response: The IHA is 

conditioned such that pile driving delay 

and shut-down procedures be 

implemented for a variety of reasons, 

including, but not limited to, a marine 

mammal is within a designated shutdown zone or an animal would be taken 

in a manner not authorized if pile 

driving proceeded. The delay and shutdown measures would be triggered by a 

notice from both the land-based and 

boat-based PSO. NMFS has also 

included a measure that pile driving 

shall not begin until the PSO gives the 

recommended ‘‘notice to proceed’’. 

Comment 7: NPS recommended that 

indirect and cumulative impacts under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) be considered, as the 

installation of the new dock would 

increase medium- and large-vessel 

traffic in and out of Silver Bay. 

NMFS Response: NMFS determined 

that the issuance of this IHA qualified 

for a Categorical Exclusion (CE); a CE is 

one way to meet the requirements and 

objectives of NEPA and efficiently 

complete the environmental review 

process for proposed actions that 

normally do not require a resourceintensive analysis. The CE category 

associated with the issuance of ITAs is 

CE B4, which is ‘‘Issuance of incidental 

harassment authorizations under section 

101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for 

the incidental, but not intentional, take 

by harassment of marine mammals 

during specified activities and for which 

no serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated.’’ The scope of a CE 

determination is limited to the decision 

NMFS is responsible for, which is to 

consider authorizing ‘‘take’’ of marine 

mammals incidental to a specified 

activity. NMFS is not authorizing, 

funding or directing any other aspect of 

the applicant’s activity and issuing a 

given IHA does not give NMFS the 

authority to authorize the applicant’s 

activity under other laws or regulations. 

With respect to increased vessel 

traffic, the project would not 

significantly increase vessel traffic. 

Historically Sawmill Cove was used by 

the Alaska Pulp Corporation and 

outbound pulp shipments were frequent 

during the corporation’s operations from 

1959 to 1993. There are no identified 

manufacturing or processing activities 

that would achieve historic levels of use 

at the GPIP dock. Further, an assessment 

determined that Sitka’s inbound and 

outbound cargo needs are being met at 

this time through a combination of 

private and public docks, and, given a 

flat population projection through 2035, 

no major changes in cargo shipments are 

expected (Northern Economics 2009). 

CBS does not have leases in place for 

use of the new GPIP dock. However, in 

the near future, the dock will likely be 

used to berth vessels associated with the 

existing commercial fishing industry but 

a net increase in vessels is not expected. 

In addition, moorings are part of the 

project; therefore, vessels may remain 

within Sawmill Cover instead of 

transiting to Sitka to dock overnight. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

There are seven marine mammal 

species known to occur in the vicinity 

of the project area which may be 

subjected to take. These are the 

humpback whale, killer whale, Steller 

sea lion, harbor porpoise, harbor seal, 

California sea lion, and sea otter 

(Enhydra lutris nereis). The sea otter is 

under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS); 

therefore, this species is also not 

considered further in this document. 

NMFS notes the California sea lion was 

not included in the proposed IHA 

Federal Register notice (82 FR 34632; 

July 27, 2017) but has since been 

incorporated based on public comment. 

We have reviewed CBS’s species 

descriptions, including life history 

information, for accuracy and 

completeness and refer the reader to 

Section 3 and 4 of CBS’s application as 

well as the proposed incidental 

harassment authorization published in 

the Federal Register (82 FR 34632; July 

27, 2017) instead of reprinting the 

information here. Please also refer to 

NMFS’ Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/species/mammals) for generalized 

species accounts which provide 

information regarding the biology and 

behavior of the marine resources that 

occur in the vicinity of the project area. 

We provided additional information for 

the potentially affected stocks, 

including details of stock-wide status, 

trends, and threats, in our Federal 

Register notice of proposed 

authorization (82 FR 34632). 

Table 1 lists marine mammal stocks 

that could occur in the vicinity of the 

dock project and summarizes key 

information regarding stock status and 

abundance. Please see NMFS’ Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR), available at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, for more 

detailed accounts of these stocks’ status 

and abundance. 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS EXPECTED TO OCCUR WITHIN SITKA SOUND

Common name Scientific name MMPA stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance Nbest, 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

Occurrence 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) Frequent ..... 83 21 

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

Family Delphinidae 

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

2012) 4.

Infrequent ... 23.4 1 

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

Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian 

Islands, Bering Sea 

Transient.

-, N 587 (N/A, 587, 2012) 4 .... .................... 5.9 0.6 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 47721 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS EXPECTED TO OCCUR WITHIN SITKA SOUND—Continued 

Common name Scientific name MMPA stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance Nbest, 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

Occurrence PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

West Coast Transient ..... -, N 243 (N/A, 243, 2009) 4 .... .................... 2.4 1 

Family Phocoenidae 

Harbor porpoise .............. Phocoena phocoena ...... Southeast Alaska ........... -, Y 975 (0.10, 896, 2012) 5 ... Infrequent ... 5 8.9 5 34 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

Steller sea lion ................ Eumetopias jubatus ........ Western U.S. .................. E, D; Y 49,497 (N/A, 49,497, 

2014).

Common ..... 297 233 

Eastern U.S. ................... -, D, Y 60,131–74,448 (N/A, 

36,551, 2013).

.................... 1,645 92.3 

California sea lion 6 ......... Zalophus californianus ... U.S. stock ....................... -, N 296,750 (N/A, 153,337, 

2008).

Infrequent ... 9,200 62 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor seal ..................... Phoca vitulina richardii ... Sitka/Chatham Straight .. -, N 14,855 (-, 13,212, 2011) Common ..... 555 77 

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

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

as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: 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). 4 N is based on counts of individual animals identified from photo-identification catalogs. 

5 In the SAR for harbor porpoise (NMFS 2017), 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 calculated PBR is considered unreliable for the entire stock because it 

is based on estimates from surveys of only a portion (the inside waters of Southeast Alaska) of the range of this stock as currently designated. The Annual M/SI is for 

the entire stock, including coastal waters. 6The California sea lion was added to the final IHA based on anecdotal evidence provided in public comment. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The Federal Register notice of 

proposed authorization (82 FR 834632; 

July 26, 2017) provides a general 

background on sound relevant to the 

specified activity as well as a detailed 

description of marine mammal hearing 

and of the potential effects of these 

construction activities on marine 

mammals, and is not repeated here. 

The Federal Register notice of 

proposed authorization (82 FR 834632; 

July 26, 2017) also provides a 

description of the potential effects of the 

construction activities on marine 

mammal habitat, and is not repeated 

here. In summary, pile driving and 

removal will occur at an existing dock 

facility and will not have a measurable 

adverse impact on marine mammal 

habitat. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized 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 are primarily Level 

B harassment, as pile driving and 

removal has the potential to result in 

disruption of behavioral patterns and 

TTS for individual marine mammals. 

There is also some potential for auditory 

injury (Level A harassment) to result for 

high frequency species and harbor seals 

(phocids) due to larger predicted 

auditory injury zones. Auditory injury is 

unlikely to occur for all other hearing 

groups due to small zones or 

implementing shut-down mitigation. 

The mitigation and monitoring 

measures are expected to minimize the 

severity of such taking to the extent 

practicable. No mortality or serious 

injury is anticipated from the activity or 

authorized in the IHA. Below we 

describe how the take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

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

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the 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 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

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

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47722 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 

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

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

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

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 

(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. CBS’s 

activity includes the use of continuous 

(vibratory pile driving and removal) and 

impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, 

and therefore the 120 dB and 160 dB re 

1 mPa (rms) are applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 

2016) identifies dual criteria to assess 

auditory injury (Level A harassment) to 

five different marine mammal groups 

(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result 

of exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). CBS’s activity includes the 

use of impulsive (impact pile driving) 

and non-impulsive (vibratory pile 

driving and removal) sources. 

These thresholds were developed by 

compiling and synthesizing the best 

available science and soliciting input 

multiple times from both the public and 

peer reviewers to inform the final 

product, and are provided in Table 2. 

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. 

Distances to Level A and Level B 

thresholds were calculated based on 

various source levels for a given activity 

and pile type (e.g., impact hammering 

48 in pile, vibratory removal of timber 

piles) and, for Level A harassment, 

accounted for the maximum duration of 

that activity per day using the 

spreadsheet tool developed by NMFS. 

Because we used a single strike SEL to 

calculate Level A harassment distances 

from impact pile driving instead of SPL 

as contained in the proposed IHA, we 

provide the calculation inputs here. For 

impact pile driving 30-in piles, the 

following inputs were used in the 

guidance spreadsheet: 182.1 dB SEL 

source level, 400 strikes per pile, 1 pile 

per day, a practical spreading loss 

constant (15 log R), and 10 m for 

distance of single-strike SEL 

measurement. For impact pile driving 

48-in piles, we used a single-strike SEL 

value of 187.9 dB, 400 strikes per pile, 

1 pile per day, a practical spreading loss 

constant (15 log R), and 11 m for 

distance of single-strike SEL 

measurement. The inputs and resulting 

isopleths for vibratory pile driving did 

not change from the proposed IHA 

stage. The Level B harassment distances 

also did not change. Table 3 contains all 

calculated distances to Level A and B 

harassment thresholds. 

TABLE 3—DISTANCES TO NMFS LEVEL A AND B ACOUSTIC THRESHOLDS

Activity Source level 

Distance (m) to Level A and Level B thresholds 

Level A3

Low- Level B 

frequency 

cetaceans 

Midfrequency 

cetaceans 

Highfrequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid Otariid 

Vibratory Hammer 

12 and 16-inch wood removal (5 

hours per day).

155 SPL ........... 8.0 0.7 11.8 4.8 0.3 2,154 

30-inch steel temporary installation 

(3 hours per day).

166 SPL ........... 30.6 2.7 45.3 18.6 1.3 4 11,659 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 47723 

TABLE 3—DISTANCES TO NMFS LEVEL A AND B ACOUSTIC THRESHOLDS—Continued 

Activity Source level 

Distance (m) to Level A and Level B thresholds 

Level A3

Low- Level B 

frequency 

cetaceans 

Midfrequency 

cetaceans 

Highfrequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid Otariid 

30-inch steel temporary removal (1 

hour per day).

166 SPL ........... 14.7 1.3 21.8 8.9 0.6 4 11,659 

30-inch steel permanent installation 

(2 hours per day).

166 SPL ........... 23.4 2.1 34.5 14.2 1.0 4 11,659 

48-inch steel permanent installation 

(2 hours per day).

168.2 SPL ........ 32.7 2.9 48.4 19.9 1.4 4 16,343 

Impact Hammer 

30-inch steel permanent installation 

(10 minutes per day).

180.7 SEL 1/196 

SPL 2.

380.9 13.5 453.7 203.8 14.8 2,512 

48-inch steel permanent installation 

(10 minutes per day).

186.7 SEL 1/ 

198.6 SPL 2.

1,052.4 37.4 1,253.5 563.2 41.0 3,744 

1Single strike sound exposure levels (SELs) are median measured source levels from the Port of Anchorage test pile project for 48-in piles 

(Austin et al. 2016) and Alaska Department of Transportation hydroacoustic studies for 30-in piles (Denes et al. 2016, Table 72). 2SPL rms values were used to calculate distances to Level B harassment isopleths. 

3The values provided here represent the distances at which an animal may incur PTS if that animal remained at that distance for the entire 

duration of the activity. For example, a humpback whale (low frequency cetacean) would have to remain 8 meters from timber piles being removed for 5 hours for PTS to occur. 4These represent calculated distances based on practical spreading model; however, land at the end of Silver Bay obstructs underwater 

sound transmission at approximately 9,500 m from the source. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section, we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group structure of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

Data on marine mammals in the 

project area is limited. Land-based 

surveys conducted at Sitka’s Whale Park 

occurred from September through May, 

annually, from 1994 to 2000 (Straley 

and Pendell, 2017). From 2000 to 2016, 

Straley also collected marine mammal 

data from small vessels throughout the 

year. There are no density data 

available; therefore, probability of 

occurrence based on group sightings 

and typical group sizes were used in 

take calculations (Table 4). 

TABLE 4—MARINE MAMMAL DATA FROM LAND-BASED SURVEYS AT SITKA’S WHALE PARK FROM SEPTEMBER THROUGH

MAY, ANNUALLY, FROM 1994–2000 

Species Months sighted 

Average count per 

month 

(Oct, Nov, Dec) 

Typical 

group size 

Max group 

size 

Humpback whale .......................................... September–April ........................................... 50, 116, 101 .............. 2–4 unknown. 

Killer whale .................................................... October–March ............................................. 12, 12, 4 .................... 4–8 8. 

Harbor porpoise ............................................ September, March, April .............................. 7, 0, 0 ........................ 5 8. 

Steller sea lion .............................................. September–April ........................................... 10, 12, 107 ................ 1–2 100. 

Harbor seal ................................................... September–April ........................................... 1, 1, 0 ........................ 1–2 2. 

California sea lion 2 ....................................... n/a ................................................................. n/a ............................. 1–2 2. 

1Only months when the project would occur are included here. For full counts, please see section 4 in CBS’s application. 

2There are no documented sightings of California sea lions in research reports; however, anecdotal evidence suggests this species, while not 

common, is possible within the project area. 

Because density data are not available 

for Sitka Sound, we used group sighting 

data as an indicator of how often marine 

mammals may be present during the 16 

days of pile driving/removing activity in 

consideration of the Level B harassment 

zones. We also considered typical group 

size to determine how many animals 

may be present on any given day. For 

all species, we used the following 

equation to estimate the number of 

animals, by species, potentially taken 

from exposure to pile driving and 

removing noise: Estimated Take = 

Number of animals × number of days 

animals are expected during pile 

activity by type (Table 5). 

The Sitka Whale Park surveys found 

humpback whale groups may include 

up to four individuals (Straley and 

Pendell 2017). Based on sighting 

frequency, this species is present more 

often during winter months when the 

project would occur and we 

conservatively estimate that a group of 

4 humpback whales may occur within 

the Level B harassment zone on any of 

the 16 days of pile activities. Therefore, 

we have authorized 64 Level B takes of 

humpback whales. Due to the decreased 

Level A harassment isopleth from the 

proposed IHA stage, CBS will shutdown impact pile driving if a humpback 

whale comes within the established 

shut-down zone; therefore, no Level A 

take for this species is anticipated or 

authorized (see Mitigation section). 

For killer whales, it is assumed eight 

killer whales could be present within 

the Level B harassment zone on any two 

days of pile activity; therefore, we have 

authorized 16 takes. No Level A take is 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47724 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 

anticipated or authorized due to shut 

down mitigation measures (see 

Mitigation section). 

Harbor porpoise typically travel in 

groups of five and we anticipate a group 

could enter the Level A zone on two of 

the six days of impact pile driving and 

a group could be present within the 

Level B harassment zone on two days of 

the project. Therefore, we have 

authorized ten Level A takes (five 

animals × two days) and ten Level B 

takes (five animals × two days) of harbor 

porpoise. 

Steller sea lions are common in the 

area during the work with one to ten 

animals present on any given day of 

work. We assume that on any day of the 

16 days of pile driving, 14 Steller sea 

lions could be within the Level B 

harassment zone on each day of pile 

driving. Therefore, over the course of 16 

days of pile driving, we have authorized 

224 sea lions may be taken (14 animals 

× 16 days); however, this is likely 

representative of the number of 

exposures, not individuals taken. No 

Level A takes of Steller sea lions are 

anticipated or authorized from impact 

pile driving due to the small harassment 

zone and mitigation shut down 

measures (see Mitigation section). 

Harbor seals are found in the action 

area throughout the year but in low 

numbers. Group size is typically one to 

two animals. It is anticipated that two 

harbor seals could be present within the 

Level A zone every other day of the six 

days of impact pile driving. It is also 

assumed that a group of 2 harbor seals 

could be encountered in the Level B 

harassment zone during the 16 days of 

pile driving. Therefore, we have 

authorized 6 Level A takes (2 animals × 

3 days) and 32 Level B takes (2 animals 

× 16 days) of harbor seals. 

For harbor seals and Steller sea lions, 

the number of animals potentially 

present likely reflects the same 

individuals occurring over multiple 

days; therefore the number of takes 

likely represents exposures versus 

individuals. For all cetacean species, it 

is likely the calculated takes do reflect 

the number of individuals exposed 

because they would be expected to be 

transiting through the action area, not 

lingering like pinnipeds. 

NMFS has also included 16 Level B 

takes of California sea lions in the IHA. 

No Level A takes are authorized because 

the shut-down zone established for 

Steller sea lions would apply and 

California sea lions are in the same 

hearing group as Steller sea lions 

meaning the distance to Level A 

harassment is the same. As described 

above, no research reports include 

sightings of California sea lions and they 

were not included in the notice of the 

proposed IHA. However, during the 

public comment period, the NPS 

identified that California sea lions, 

while not common, could potentially be 

in the project area while pile activities 

will occur. Therefore, NMFS has 

authorized 16 Level B takes which is 

one half the amount of harbor seal takes, 

another species which may occur in the 

project area but is less likely to occur 

than Steller sea lions. Similar to 

humpback and other pinnipeds, this 

amount of take represents exposures 

and not necessarily the number of 

individuals exposed given California sea 

lions may linger in the action area. 

TABLE 5—AUTHORIZED TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS, BY STOCK, INCIDENTAL TO PILE REMOVAL AND PILE DRIVING

Species Stock 

(Nbest) Level A Level B Percent of stock 

Humpback whale .................................................. Hawaii DPS (11,398) ............................................ 0 60 0.5 

Mexico DPS (3,264) ............................................. 0 4 0.12 

Killer whale ........................................................... Alaska Resident (2,347) ....................................... 0 16 1 0.67 

Northern Resident (261) ....................................... .................... .................... 1 6.1 

Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea 

(587).

.................... .................... 1 2.7 

West Coast Transient (243) ................................. .................... .................... 1 6.6 

Harbor porpoise .................................................... Southeast Alaska (975) ........................................ 10 10 1.0 

Steller sea lion ...................................................... Western U.S. (36,551) ......................................... 0 5 0.01 

Eastern U.S. (49,497) .......................................... 0 219 0.5 

Harbor seal ........................................................... Sitka/Chatham Straight (14,855) .......................... 6 32 0.3 

California sea lion ................................................. U.S. Stock (296,750) ............................................ 0 16 0.01 

1 Under the MMPA, humpback whales are considered a single stock; however, we have divided them here to account for DPSs listed under 

the ESA. 2These percentages assume all 16 takes comes from any given stock. 

3Of the 224 exposed Steller sea lions, we expect approximately 2 percent to be from the endangered WDPS (∼3 takes) and the remainder to 

be from the EDPS based on recent observations of branded animals in the Sitka Alaska area (Jemison, 2017). 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

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

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to such 

activity, ‘‘and other means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking’’ for 

certain subsistence uses. 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 can 

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—which considers the nature of 

the potential adverse impact being 

mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), as 

well as the likelihood that the measure 

will be effective if implemented; and the 

likelihood of effective implementation, 

and; (2) the practicability of the 

measures for applicant implementation, 

which 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 47725 

The following mitigation measures, 

designed to minimize noise exposure, 

are included in the IHA: 

• CBS shall not begin pile driving or 

removal until a PSO has given a notice 

to proceed. 

• CBS shall first attempt to direct pull 

old, abandoned piles that would 

minimize noise input into the marine 

environment; if those efforts prove to be 

ineffective, they may proceed with a 

vibratory hammer. 

• CBS shall operate the vibratory 

hammer at a reduced energy setting (30 

to 50 percent of its rated energy). 

• CBS shall use a pile cushion during 

impact hammering. 

• CBS shall use a ‘‘soft start’’ 

technique when impact pile driving. 

CBS shall provide an initial set of three 

strikes from the impact hammer at 40 

percent energy, followed by a one 

minute waiting period, then two 

subsequent 3-strike sets. If any marine 

mammal is sighted within a shut-down 

zone during the 30 minute survey prior 

to pile driving, or during the soft start, 

CBS shall delay pile-driving until the 

animal is confirmed to have moved 

outside and on a path away from the 

area or if 15 minutes (for pinnipeds or 

small cetaceans) or 30 minutes (for large 

cetaceans) have elapsed since the last 

sighting of the marine mammal within 

the shut-downzone. This soft-start shall 

be applied prior to beginning pile 

driving activities each day or when pile 

driving hammers have been idle for 

more than 30 minutes. 

• CBS 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. CBS shall also 

use the minimum impact hammer 

energy needed to safely install the piles. 

• CBS 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. 

• CBS shall implement the shut-down 

zones identified in Table 6 to minimize 

harassment. 

TABLE 6—PILE DRIVING SHUT DOWN ZONES DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE LEVEL A TAKE

Source 

Shut-down zones in meters 

Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

(humpback 

whales) 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

(killer whale) 

Highfrequency 

cetaceans 

(harbor 

porpoise) 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

(harbor seal) 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

(steller and 

california sea 

lion) 

Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal 

All ......................................................................................... 10 m 

Impact Pile Driving 

30-inch steel (installation) .................................................... 1 380 1 25 200 150 1 25 

48-inch steel (installation) .................................................... 1 1,100 1 50 200 150 1 50 

1 Indicates a shut-down zone that encompasses the entire Level A zone; therefore, no Level A take of species within these hearing groups are 

authorized. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

included measures, NMFS has 

determined that the 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. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking.’’ The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 

indicate that requests for authorizations 

must include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present in the action 

area. Effective reporting is critical to 

both 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. 

Monitoring Protocols—Monitoring 

shall be conducted before, during, and 

after pile driving and removal activities. 

Monitoring will initiate 30 minutes 

prior to pile driving and removal 

through 30 minutes post-completion of 

pile activities. Pile driving activities 

include the time to install or remove a 

single pile or series of piles, as long as 

the time elapsed between uses of the 

pile driving equipment is no more than 

one hour. 

One land-based protected species 

observer (PSO) shall be present during 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47726 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 

all pile activity. A secondary boat-based 

PSO shall be on watch during all pile 

activity other than timber pile removal. 

The land-based PSO shall be located at 

the GPIP construction site and will be 

able to view the area across Silver Bay 

to the west and east of Sugarloaf Point 

and monitor the mouth of Silver Bay to 

determine whether marine mammals 

enter the action area from East Channel 

of Sitka Sound (the entrance monitoring 

zone). The PSO shall have no other 

primary duties than watching for and 

reporting on events related to marine 

mammals. The PSO shall scan the 

monitoring zone for the presence of 

listed species for 30 minutes before any 

pile driving or removal activities take 

place. Each day prior to commencing inwater work the PSO shall conduct a 

radio check with the construction 

foreman or superintendent. The PSO 

shall brief the foreman or supervisor as 

to the shut-down procedures if any 

marine mammals are observed likely to 

enter or within a shut-down zone, and 

shall have the foreman brief the crew, 

requesting that the crew notify the PSO 

when a marine mammal is spotted. To 

reduce fatigue, the PSO shall work in 

shifts lasting no longer than 4 hours 

with at least a 1-hour break between 

shifts, and shall not perform duties as 

an PSO for more than 12 hours in a 

24-hr period. The PSO shall continue 

monitoring each day for 15 minutes 

after all in-water pile driving/removal is 

completed. 

No less than 30 minutes prior to any 

pile driving or removal (other than 

timber pile removal), the boat-based 

PSO shall begin monitoring the Level A 

and B harassment zones. A boat-based 

PSO is not required during timber pile 

removal due to limited harassment 

zones. This PSO shall transit to the head 

of Silver Bay to ensure that there are no 

marine mammals for which take is not 

authorized or to document species for 

which take is authorized. The boatbased PSO shall communicate with the 

construction foreman or superintendent 

once the area is determined to be clear 

and pile driving activities can begin. 

The boat-based PSO shall then transit 

back to the construction site and spend 

the rest of the pile driving time 

monitoring the area from the boat (see 

Figure 3 in CBS’s application). 

If any marine mammals are present 

within a shut-down zone, pile driving 

and removal activities shall not begin 

until the animal(s) has left the shutdown zone or no marine mammals have 

been observed in the shut-down zone 

for 15 minutes (for pinnipeds) or 30 

minutes (for cetaceans). The boat-based 

PSO shall remain near the mouth of 

Sawmill Cove for the duration of pile 

driving to monitor for any animals 

approaching the area. 

The following measures also apply to 

visual monitoring: 

(1) Monitoring shall be conducted by 

independent (i.e., not construction 

personnel) qualified observers, who 

shall 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 shut-down 

to the hammer operator. At least one 

observer must have prior experience 

working as an observer. Other observers 

may substitute education 

(undergraduate degree in biological 

science or related field) or training for 

experience. In addition, all PSOs must 

have: 

(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 shut-down 

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. 

In addition, CBS must submit to 

NMFS OPR the curriculum vitae (CV) of 

all observers prior to monitoring. 

Reporting 

The IHA requires CBS to submit a 

draft report to NMFS within ninety 

calendar days of the completion of 

marine mammal monitoring. A final 

report shall be prepared and submitted 

within thirty days following resolution 

of any comments on the draft report 

from NMFS. The report will contain, 

among other things, information on 

monitoring results, mitigation measure 

implementation, and number of 

animals, by species, taken. The CBS will 

also immediately report injured or dead 

marine mammals to NMFS and, if the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by the IHA (e.g., serious 

injury or mortality), CBS will 

immediately cease pile activities and 

report the incident to NMFS. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as ‘‘an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

Pile driving and removal would result 

in the harassment of marine mammals 

within the designated harassment zones 

due to increased noise levels during 16 

days. Six days of work are dedicated to 

removing 280 old piles, which would 

emit low levels of noise into the aquatic 

environment if removed via a vibratory 

hammer. Vibratory pile driving, which 

also has relatively low source levels, 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Notices 47727 

would occur for only 2 hours per day 

and there would be at least one day in 

between pile driving activity when 

installing the permanent piles. Impact 

pile driving would result in the loudest 

sound levels; however, CBS would 

install only 6 piles with an impact 

hammer (4 30-in and 2 48-in piles) to 

proof the pile after driving it with a 

vibratory hammer. Proofing a pile is 

relatively short-term activity with 400 

strikes occurring over 10 minutes per 

pile. Considering this and the fact only 

one pile would be installed per day, if 

PTS occurs, it is likely slight PTS (e.g., 

PTS onset). Due to the brief duration of 

expected exposure, any Level B 

harassment would be temporary and 

any behavioral changes as a result are 

expected to be minor. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized. 

• The number of piles in the design 

has been reduced to the lowest amount 

practicable (other designs required more 

piles); therefore, the amount of pile 

activity is minimal at 16 days over the 

course of 3 months. 

• The majority of pile driving is 

scheduled to occur in October prior to 

peak humpback whale habitat use. 

• Shut-down zone mitigation 

designed to avoid Level A harassment of 

low frequency cetaceans and otariids 

will occur during impact pile driving. 

• Extremely limited impact pile 

driving would occur (ten minutes per 

day for six non-consecutive days). 

• The project and ensonified areas 

include a cove and dead-end bay (Silver 

Bay) with no significant marine 

mammal habitat. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the specified activity 

will have a negligible impact on all 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of marine mammals may be authorized 

to be incidentally taken 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, 

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. 

NMFS has authorized a very small 

amount of Level A takes of marine 

mammals. Level B takes are more 

numerous and still only constitute 

between 0.01 and 6.6 percent of a given 

stock (Table 5). For pinnipeds, the 

number of takes likely represents 

repeated exposures of a smaller number 

of animals; therefore, the percent of 

stock taken is likely even smaller. 

Finally, the area where these takes may 

occur represents a negligible area with 

respect to each stock’s range; therefore, 

it is unlikely a larger percentage of a 

stock’s population would move through 

the action area. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the specified activity 

(including the mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS finds that small numbers of 

marine mammals will be taken relative 

to the population size of the affected 

species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

Alaska Natives have traditionally 

harvested subsistence resources, 

including sea lions and harbor seals. In 

2012 (the most recent year for which 

information is available), the 

community of Sitka had an estimated 

subsistence take of 49 harbor seals and 

1 Steller sea lion (Wolf et al. 2013). CBS 

contacted the Alaska Harbor Seal 

Commission, the Alaska Sea Otter and 

Steller Sea Lion Commission, and the 

Sitka Tribe of Alaska and these 

organizations expressed no concerns 

about the project. Therefore, NMFS has 

determined that the total taking of 

affected species or stocks will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of such species or stocks for 

taking for subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the Alaska Regional Office, 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

There are two marine mammal 

species under NMFS’ jurisdiction that 

are listed as endangered or threatened 

under the ESA with confirmed or 

possible occurrence in the action area: 

the wDPS of Steller sea lions and the 

humpback whale Mexico DPS. NMFS 

issued a Biological Opinion concluding 

that the issuance of the IHA is likely to 

adversely affect, but is not likely to 

jeopardize, the continued existence of 

the threatened and endangered species 

under NMFS’ jurisdiction and is not 

likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

The Biological Opinion for this action is 

available on NMFS’ Web site (http://

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

incidental/construction.htm). 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to CBS 

authorizing the take of small numbers of 

six marine mammal species incidental 

to the GPIP dock modification project, 

Sawmill Cove, Alaska, containing the 

previously discussed mitigation, 

monitoring and reporting requirements. 

Dated: October 6, 2017. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22153 Filed 10–12–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM 

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR 

SEVERELY DISABLED 

Procurement List; Deletions 

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled. 

ACTION: Deletions from the procurement 

list. 

SUMMARY: This action deletes products 

and services from the Procurement List 

previously furnished by nonprofit 

agencies employing persons who are 

blind or have other severe disabilities. 

DATES: Date deleted from the 

Procurement List: November 12, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase 

From People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 

715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202–4149. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603– 

7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email 

CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES