Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 48987 

C. Review of Non-Fishing Impacts to 

EFH 

D. Coordination on Non-Fishing 

Issues 

3. Aquaculture Management 

4. Public Comment 

5. Other Business 

6. Discussion and Recommendations 

7. Training on Climate and Fisheries 

A. Reason for Training 

I. Annual Stock Assessment and 

Fishery Evaluation Report 

II. Fishing community outreach 

B. Overview of Indicators 

C. Climate variability: Oceanic nino 

index, pacific decadal oscillation 

I. Overview and questions 

II. Small group discussions 

III. Plenary report out and discussion 

D. Heat: Sea Surface Temperature, 

Degree Heating Week 

E. Ocean acidification: Oceanic pH 

F. Catchability: Sea level, sea surface 

height, wave energy and related 

factors (rough seas, winds, 

turbidity) 

G. Discussion on scope of climate 

indicators being monitored 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, 

(808) 522–8220 (voice) or (808) 522– 

8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the 

meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: October 18, 2017. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22905 Filed 10–20–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF370 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Sand Point 

City Dock Replacement Project in Sand 

Point, Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

Alaska Department of Transportation 

and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) to 

incidentally harass, by Level A and 

Level B harassment, marine mammals 

during construction activities associated 

with the Sand Point City Dock 

Replacement Project in Sand Point, 

Alaska. 

DATES: This Authorization is valid from 

August 1, 2018 through July 31, 2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob 

Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. An electronic 

copy of ADOT&PF’s application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: 

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

incidental/construction.htm. In case of 

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, 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 (i.e., the issuance of an 

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in CE 

B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

determined that the issuance of the IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review and signed a 

Categorical Exclusion memo in 

September 2017. 

Summary of Request 

On September 16, 2016, NMFS 

received an application from ADOT&PF 

for the taking of marine mammals 

incidental to replacing the city dock in 

Sand Point, Alaska. On April 11, 2017, 

ADOT&PF submitted a revised 

application that NMFS determined was 

adequate and complete. ADOT&PF 

proposed to conduct in-water activities 

that may incidentally take, by Level A 

and Level B harassment, nine species of 

marine mammals. Proposed activities 

included as part of the Sand Point City 

Dock Replacement Project with 

potential to affect marine mammals 

include impact hammer pile driving and 

vibratory pile driving and removal. 

Neither ADOT&PF nor NMFS expect 

mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

Description of Specified Activities 

Overview 

We provided a description of the 

proposed action in our Federal Register 

notice announcing the proposed 

authorization (82 FR 31400; July 6, 

2017; 31400–31402). Please refer to that 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
48988 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 

document; we provide only summary 

information here. 

ADOT&PF plans to construct a new 

dock in Sand Point, Alaska. Impact and 

vibratory driving of piles and vibratory 

pile removal is expected to take place 

over a total of approximately 32 working 

days within a 5-month window from 

August 1, 2018 through December 31, 

2018. However, due to the potential for 

unexpected delays, up to 40 working 

days may be required. The new dock 

would be supported by approximately 

52 round, 30-inch-diameter, 100-footlong permanent steel pipe piles. Fender 

piles installed at the dock face would 

consist of 8 round, 24-inch-diameter, 

80-foot-long permanent steel pipe piles. 

The single mooring dolphin would 

consist of 3 round, 24-inch-diameter, 

120-foot-long permanent battered steel 

pipe piles. This equates to a total of 63 

permanent piles. Up to 90 temporary 

piles would be installed and removed 

during construction of the dock and 

would be either H-piles or pipe piles 

with a diameter of less than 24 inches. 

Table 1 provides detailed information 

regarding pile size and type as well as 

effort required for installation and 

removal. 

TABLE 1—PILE DETAILS AND ESTIMATED EFFORT REQUIRED FOR PILE INSTALLATION

Pile type Diameter Number 

of piles 

Maximum 

piles per 

day 

Hours 

per day 

Estimated 

minutes 

per pile 

Anticipated 

days of 

effort 1

Vibratory Installation or Removal 

Permanent support pile ......................... 30′′ .................... 52 4 3 45 13 

Permanent dolphin pile ......................... 24′′ .................... 3 2 1 30 2 

Permanent fender pile .......................... 24′′ .................... 8 4 2 30 2 

Installation, temporary support pile ....... <24′′ or H-pile ... 90 6 1.5 15 15 

Removal, temporary support pile .......... <24′′ or H-pile ... 90 6 1.5 15 15 

Impact Installation 

Permanent support pile ......................... 30′′ .................... 52 4 1.667 25 13 

Permanent dolphin pile ......................... 24′′ .................... 3 2 0.33 10 2 

Permanent fender pile .......................... 24′′ .................... 8 4 0.20 3 2 

1Vibratory and impact driving of each permanent pile will occur on the same day. Installation and removal of each temporary piles will occur 

on the same day. 

Dates and Duration 

In-water pile driving and extraction 

activities are expected to take place over 

a total of approximately 32 working 

days within a 5-month window from 

August 1, 2018 through December 31, 

2018. The issued IHA will be valid for 

a period of one year in case there are 

delays. Table 2 illustrates the 

anticipated number of days required for 

installation and removal of various pile 

types. Pile driving and removal may 

occur for up to 4.5 hours per day. Total 

driving time for the planned project 

would consist of approximately 22 

hours of impact driving and 85 hours of 

vibratory driving and removal. 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF DAYS REQUIRED FOR PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL

Activity Number 

of piles 

Days 

required 

Support pile installation ........................................................................................................................................... 52 13 

Temporary pile installation and removal ................................................................................................................. 90 15 

Dolphin pile installation ............................................................................................................................................ 3 2 

Fender pile installation ............................................................................................................................................. 8 2 

Total Days ........................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 32 

Total Days with 25% contingency .................................................................................................................... ........................ 40 

Specified Geographic Region 

The Sand Point city dock is located in 

the city of Sand Point, Alaska, on the 

northwest side of Popof Island, in the 

western Gulf of Alaska. Sand Point is 

the largest community in the Shumagin 

Islands. See Figure 1–1 and 1–2 in 

ADOT&PF’s Application. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue 

an IHA to ADOT&PF was published in 

the Federal Register on July 6, 2017 (82 

FR 31400). That notice described, in 

detail, ADOT&PF’s activity, the marine 

mammal species that may be affected by 

the activity, and the anticipated effects 

on marine mammals. During the 30-day 

public comment period, NMFS received 

only one set of comments, from the 

Marine Mammal Commission 

(Commission); the Commission’s 

recommendations and our responses are 

provided here, and the comments have 

been posted online at: 

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

incidental/construction.htm. Please see 

the Commission’s letter for background 

and rationale regarding the 

recommendations, which are listed 

below. 

Comment: The Commission expressed 

interest in NMFS’s policy associated 

with the rounding of numbers to derive 

take estimates. 

Response: We thank the Commission 

for their interest in the matter. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

We have reviewed the applicants’ 

species information—which 

summarizes available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 48989 

and habitat preferences, behavior and 

life history, and auditory capabilities of 

the potentially affected species—for 

accuracy and completeness and refer the 

reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the 

application, as well as to NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports 

(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/). A 

detailed description of the species likely 

to be affected by the dock replacement 

project, including brief introductions to 

the species and relevant stocks as well 

as available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

information regarding local occurrence, 

were provided in the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 

31400; July 6, 2017; 31402–31408) since 

that time, we are not aware of any 

changes in the status of these species 

and stocks; therefore, detailed 

descriptions are not provided here. 

Please refer to that Federal Register 

notice for these descriptions. Please also 

refer to NMFS’ Web site 

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

mammals/) for generalized species 

accounts. 

Table 3 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence near Sand Point 

and summarizes information related to 

the population or stock, including 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. For taxonomy, we follow 

Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR, 

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, is 

considered in concert with known 

sources of ongoing anthropogenic 

mortality to assess the population-level 

effects of the anticipated mortality from 

a specific project (as described in 

NMFS’s SARs). While no mortality is 

anticipated or authorized here, PBR and 

annual serious injury and mortality are 

included here as gross indicators of the 

status of the species and other threats. 

For status of species, we provide 

information regarding U.S. regulatory 

status under the MMPA and ESA. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study area. NMFS’s stock abundance 

estimates for most species represent the 

total estimate of individuals within the 

geographic area, if known, that 

comprises that stock. 

All values presented in Table 3 are 

the most recent available at the time of 

publication and are available in the 

2016 SARs (Muto et al., 2016) online at: 

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

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE PROJECT AREA

Species Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR 3 Annual 

M/SI 4

Relative 

occurrence 

near Sand 

Point 

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

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

Dall’s porpoise .............................. Alaska .......................................... -; N 83,400 (0.097; n/a; 1993) ............ Undet 38 Rare. 

Harbor porpoise ............................ Gulf of Alaska .............................. -; Y 25,987 (0.214; n/a; 1998) ............ Undet 72 Common. 

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

Family Delphinidae (dolphins) 

Killer whale ................................... Eastern North Pacific Alaska 

Resident.

-; N 2,347 (n/a; 2,347; 2012) .............. 24 1 Uncommon. 

Eastern North Pacific Gulf of AK, 

Aleutian Islands, and Bering 

Sea Transient.

-; N 587 (n/a; 587; 2012) .................... 5.9 1 Uncommon. 

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

Family Balaenopteridae 

Humpback whale .......................... Central North Pacific ................... n/a/D; 5 Y 10,103 (0.300; 7,890; 2006) ........ 83 24 Uncommon. 

Western North Pacific ................. n/a/D; 5 Y 1,107 (0.300; 865; 2006) ............. 3 2.6 Uncommon. 

Fin whale ...................................... Northeast Pacific ......................... E/D; Y 1,368 (n/a, 1,036; 2010) .............. 2.1 0.6 Rare. 

Minke whale ................................. Alaska .......................................... -; N ...................................................... ................ 0 Rare. 

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

Family Eschrichtiidae 

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

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

Steller sea lion .............................. wDPS ........................................... E/D; S 50,983 (n/a; 50,983; 2015) .......... 306 236 Very common. 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor seal ................................... (Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait ............ -; N 27,386 (n/a; 25,651, 2011) .......... 770 234 Occasional. 

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 CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks of pinnipeds, abundance 

estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from knowledge of the specie’s (or similar species’) life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV. In these cases, the minimum abundance may represent actual counts 

of all animals ashore. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
48990 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 

3Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine 

mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP). 4These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated 

mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 5The newly defined DPSs do not currently align with the stocks defined under the MMPA. On September 8, 2016, NMFS published a final decision which changed 

the status of humpback whales under the ESA (81 FR 62259). The decision recognized the existence of 14 DPSs based on distinct breeding areas in tropical and 

temperate waters. Five of the 14 DPSs were classified under the ESA (4 endangered and 1 threatened), while the other 9 DPSs were delisted. Humpback whales 

found in the Shumagin Islands are predominantly members of the Hawaii DPS, which are not listed under the ESA. However, based on a comprehensive photo-identification study, members of both the Western North Pacific DPS (ESA-listed as endangered) and Mexico DPS (ESA-listed as threatened) are known to occur in the 

Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

construction activities for the project 

have the potential to result in injury and 

behavioral harassment of marine 

mammals in the vicinity of the project 

area. The Federal Register notice for the 

proposed IHA (82 FR 31400; July 6, 

2017; 31408–31409) included a 

discussion of the potential effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals. The main impact associated 

with the ADOT&PF project would be 

temporarily elevated sound levels and 

the associated direct effects on marine 

mammals. The project would not result 

in permanent impacts to habitats used 

directly by marine mammals but may 

have potential short-term impacts to 

food sources such as forage fish, and 

minor impacts to the immediate 

substrate resulting in a temporary, 

localized increase in turbidity. These 

potential effects are discussed in detail 

in the Federal Register notice for the 

proposed IHA (82 FR 31400; July 6, 

2017; 31410–31414), therefore that 

information is not repeated here; please 

refer to that Federal Register notice for 

that information. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through the IHA, which 

informed both NMFS’ consideration of 

whether the number of takes is ‘‘small’’ 

and the negligible impact 

determination. 

Harassment is the only means of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

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). Level A 

and Level B harassment is expected to 

occur and is authorized in the numbers 

identified below. 

Take has been authorized by Level B 

harassment in the form of behavioral 

disturbance for harbor porpoise, Dall’s 

porpoise, killer whale, humpback 

whale, fin whale, gray whale, minke 

whale, Steller sea lion, and harbor seal 

near the project area that may result 

from impact and vibratory pile driving 

activities. Level A harassment in the 

form of PTS resulting from impact 

driving has also been authorized for 

small numbers of harbor porpoise, 

humpback whale, and harbor seal. 

Take estimates are generally based on 

average marine mammal density in the 

project area multiplied by the area size 

of ensonified zones within which 

received noise levels exceed certain 

thresholds (i.e., Level A and/or Level B 

harassment) from specific activities, 

then multiplied by the total number of 

days such activities would occur. If 

density information is not available, 

local observational data were used 

instead. 

In order to estimate the potential 

incidents of take that may occur 

incidental to the specified activity, we 

must first estimate the extent of the 

sound field that may be produced by the 

activity and then consider the sound 

field in combination with information 

about marine mammal density or 

abundance in the project area. We first 

provide information on applicable 

sound thresholds for determining effects 

to marine mammals before describing 

the information used in estimating the 

sound fields, the available marine 

mammal density or abundance 

information, and the method of 

estimating potential incidents of take. 

Sound Thresholds 

We use the following generic sound 

exposure thresholds (Table 4) to 

determine when an activity that 

produces sound might result in impacts 

to a marine mammal such that a take by 

behavioral harassment (Level B) might 

occur. 

TABLE 4—UNDERWATER LEVEL B THRESHOLD DECIBEL LEVELS FOR MARINE MAMMALS

Criterion Criterion definition Threshold 1

Level B harassment .................................. Behavioral disruption for impulse noise (e.g., impact pile driving) ........................... 160 dB RMS. 

Level B harassment .................................. Behavioral disruption for non-pulse noise (e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) ........ 120 dB RMS. 

1All decibel levels referenced to 1 micropascal (re: 1 μPa). Note all thresholds are based off root mean square (RMS) levels. 

We use NMFS’ acoustic criteria 

(NMFS 2016a, 81 FR 51694; August 4, 

2016), which establishes sound 

exposure thresholds to determine when 

an activity that produces sound might 

result in impacts to a marine mammal 

such that a take by auditory injury, i.e., 

PTS, (Level A harassment) might occur. 

The specific methodology is presented 

in Appendix D of the Technical 

Guidance for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Guidance), available 

at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

acoustics/guidelines.htm and the 

accompanying User Spreadsheet. The 

Guidance provides updated PTS onset 

thresholds using the cumulative SEL 

(SELcum) metric, which incorporates 

marine mammal auditory weighting 

functions, to identify the received 

levels, or acoustic thresholds, at which 

individual marine mammals are 

predicted to experience changes in their 

hearing sensitivity for acute, incidental 

exposure to all underwater 

anthropogenic sound sources. The 

Guidance (Appendix D) and its 

companion User Spreadsheet provide 

alternative methodology for 

incorporating these more complex 

thresholds and associated weighting 

functions. 

The User Spreadsheet accounts for 

effective hearing ranges using Weighting 

Factor Adjustments (WFAs), and 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 48991 

ADOT&PF’s application uses the 

recommended values for vibratory and 

impact driving therein. The acoustic 

thresholds are presented using dual 

metrics of SELcum and peak sound level 

(PK) as shown in Table 5. In the case of 

the duel metric acoustic thresholds (Lpk

and LE) for impulsive sound, the larger 

of the two isopleths for calculating PTS 

onset is used. The method uses 

estimates of sound exposure level and 

duration of the activity to calculate the 

threshold distances at which a marine 

mammal exposed to those values would 

experience PTS. Differences in hearing 

abilities among marine mammals are 

accounted for by use of weighting factor 

adjustments for the five functional 

hearing groups (NMFS 2016). Note that 

for all planned pile driving activities at 

Sand Point, the User Spreadsheet 

indicated that the Level A isopleths 

generated using the SELcum were the 

largest. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF PTS ONSET ACOUSTIC THRESHOLDS

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds 1

(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. 

1 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. 

Distance to Sound Thresholds 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

proposed project. Marine mammals are 

expected to be affected via sound 

generated by the primary components of 

the project (i.e., impact pile driving, 

vibratory pile driving, and vibratory pile 

removal). Vibratory hammers produce 

constant sound when operating, and 

produce vibrations that liquefy the 

sediment surrounding the pile, allowing 

it to penetrate to the required seating 

depth. An impact hammer would then 

generally be used to place the pile at its 

intended depth. The actual durations of 

each installation method vary 

depending on the type and size of the 

pile. An impact hammer is a steel 

device that works like a piston, 

producing a series of independent 

strikes to drive the pile. Impact 

hammering typically generates the 

loudest noise associated with pile 

installation. Factors that could 

potentially minimize the potential 

impacts of pile installation associated 

with the project include: 

• The relatively shallow waters in the 

project area (Taylor et al., 2008); 

• Land forms around Sand Point that 

would block the noise from spreading; 

and 

• Vessel traffic and other commercial 

and industrial activities in the project 

area that contribute to elevated 

background noise levels. 

Sound would likely dissipate 

relatively rapidly in the shallow waters 

over soft seafloors in the project area. 

Additionally, portions of Popof Island 

and Unga Island would block much of 

the noise from propagating to its full 

extent through the marine environment. 

In order to calculate distances to the 

Level A and Level B sound thresholds 

for piles of various sizes being used in 

this project, NMFS used acoustic 

monitoring data from other locations. 

Note that piles of differing sizes have 

different sound source levels. 

Empirical data from recent ADOT&PF 

sound source verification (SSV) studies 

at Kake, Ketchikan, and Auke Bay, were 

used to estimate sound source levels 

(SSLs) for vibratory and impact 

installation of 30-inch steel pipe piles 

(MacGillivray et al., 2016, Warner and 

Austin 2016b, Denes et al., 2016a, 

respectively). Construction sites in 

Alaska were generally assumed to best 

represent the environmental conditions 

found in Sand Point and represent the 

nearest available source level data for 

30-inch steel piles. Similarities among 

the sites include island chains and 

groups of islands adjacent to continental 

landmasses; deeply incised marine 

channels and fjords; local water depths 

of 20–40 meters; Gulf of Alaska marine 

water influences; and numerous 

freshwater inputs. However, the use of 

data from Alaska sites was not 

appropriate in all instances. Details are 

described below. 

To derive source levels for vibratory 

driving of 30-in piles, NMFS used 

summary data from Auke Bay and 

Ketchikan as described in a 

comprehensive summary report by 

Denes et al., (2016b). During the two 

studies, three 30-inch steel piles were 

installed at each location via both 

impact and vibratory driving. For each 

pile, the mean recorded SPL in dB re 1 

mPa was reported for the locations 

monitoring hydrophones (Denes et al., 

2016; Warner and Austin 2016b). The 

vibratory data were then derived to a 10- 

meter standard distance. The average of 

the mean source levels from both Auke 

Bay and Ketchikan locations was then 

calculated for each measurement (rms 

and peak SPL, as well as sound 

exposure level [SEL]) (Denes et al., 

2016b). ADOT&PF also considered data 

from a study in Kake (MacGillivray et 

al., 2016). However, conditions at Kake 

include an organic mud substrate which 

would likely absorb sound and decrease 

source level values for vibratory driving. 

NMFS believes that these conditions 

resulted in anomalous source level 

measurements for vibratory pile driving 

that would not be expected at locations 

with dissimilar substrates. NMFS will 

continue to evaluate use of these data on 

a case-specific basis, however, for these 

reasons vibratory data from that study 

was not included in this analysis. 

Results are shown in Table 6. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
48992 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 

For vibratory driving of 24-inch steel 

dolphin and fender piles, data from 

three projects (two projects in 

Washington and one in California) were 

reviewed. The Washington marine 

projects at the Washington State Ferries 

Friday Harbor Terminal (WSDOT, 2010) 

and Naval Base Kitsap, Bangor 

waterfront (Navy 2012), only measured 

one pile each, but reported similar 

sound levels of 162 dB RMS and 159 dB 

RMS (range 157 dB to 160 dB), 

respectively. Because only two piles 

were measured in Washington, the 

California project was also included in 

the analysis. The California project was 

located in a coastal bay and reported a 

‘‘typical’’ value of 160 dB RMS with a 

range 158 to 178 dB RMS for two piles 

where vibratory levels were measured. 

Caltrans summarized the project’s RMS 

level as 170 dB RMS, although most 

levels observed were nominally 160 dB. 

Although the data set is limited to these 

projects, close agreement of the levels 

(average project values from 159 to 162 

dB at 10 meters) resulted in NMFS 

selecting a source level of 161 dB RMS. 

Note that a fourth project at NBK, 

Bangor drove 16-inch hollow steel piles, 

with measured levels similar to those 

for the 24-inch piles. Therefore, NMFS 

elected to use the same 161 dB RMS as 

a source level for vibratory driving of 

18-inch steel piles. NMFS believes it 

appropriate to use source levels from 

the next largest pile size when data are 

lacking for specific pile sizes, as is the 

case with the18-inch piles under 

consideration. 

ADOT&PF suggested a source level of 

142 dB RMS for vibratory driving of 

steel H-piles. However, NMFS found 

this data to be inconsistent with other 

reported values and opted to use a value 

of 150 dB which was derived from 

summary data pertaining to vibratory 

driving of 12-inch H piles (Caltrans 

2015). 

In the application, ADOT&PF derived 

source levels for impact driving of 30- 

inch steel piles by averaging the 

individual mean values associated with 

impact driving of the same size and type 

from Auke Bay, Kake, and Ketchikan 

(Denes et al., 2016a; MacGillivray et al., 

2016; Warner and Austin 2016b; Denes 

et al., 2016b). Impact driving values at 

Kake did not seem to be influenced by 

substrate conditions in the way 

vibratory driving measurements are 

believed to have been and, therefore, 

Kake data was included. The average of 

the mean source levels from these three 

sites was then calculated for each metric 

(rms, SEL, and peak). Results are shown 

in Table 6. 

For the 24-inch impact pile driving, 

NMFS used data from a Navy (2015) 

study of proxy sound source values for 

use at Puget Sound military 

installations. The Navy study 

recommended a value of 193 dB RMS 

which was derived from data generated 

by impact driving of 24-inch steel piles 

at the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal 

Preservation Project and the Friday 

Harbor Restoration Ferry Terminal 

Project. NMFS found this estimated 

source level to be appropriate. 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATES OF MEAN UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS (DECIBELS) GENERATED DURING VIBRATORY AND IMPACT

PILE INSTALLATION AND VIBRATORY PILE REMOVAL

Method and pile type Sound level at 10 meters Literature source 

Vibratory hammer dB re 1 μPa rms 

30-inch steel piles ........ 165.6 Derived from Denes et al. 2016a (Auke); Warner and Austin 2016b (Ketchikan). 

24-inch steel piles ........ 161 WSDOT 2010; Caltrans 2012; Navy 2012. 

18-inch steel piles ........ 161 WSDOT 2010; Caltrans 2012; Navy 2012. 

Steel H-piles ................ 150 Caltrans 2015. 

Impact hammer dB rms dB SEL dB peak 

30-inch steel piles ........ 193.6 179.3 207.1 Derived from Denes et al. 2016a; Warner and Austin 2016b, MacGillivray et al., 

2016. 

24-inch steel piles ........ 193 181 210 Navy 2015. 

The formula below is used to 

calculate underwater sound 

propagation. Transmission loss (TL) is 

the decrease in acoustic intensity as an 

acoustic pressure wave propagates out 

from a source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * log10 (R1/R2) 

Where: 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical 

spreading equals 15 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement. 

NMFS typically recommends a 

default practical spreading loss of 15 dB 

per tenfold increase in distance. 

ADOT&PF analyzed the available 

underwater acoustic data utilizing the 

practical spreading loss model. 

Pulse duration from the SSV studies 

described above are unknown. All 

necessary parameters were available for 

the SELcum (cumulative Single Strike 

Equivalent) method for calculating 

isopleths. Therefore, this method was 

selected. To account for potential 

variations in daily productivity during 

impact installation, isopleths were 

calculated for different numbers of piles 

that could be installed each day (Table 

7). Should the contractor expect to 

install fewer piles in a day than the 

maximum anticipated, a smaller Level A 

shutdown zone would be employed to 

monitor take. 

To derive Level A harassment 

isopleths associated with the impact 

driving of 30-inch piles, ADOT&PF 

utilized a single strike SEL of 179.3 dB 

and assumed 1000 strikes per pile for 1 

to 4 piles per day. For 24-inch dolphin 

piles, ADOT&PF used a single strike 

SEL of 181 dB and assumed 400 strikes 

at a rate of 1 or 2 piles per day. For 24- 

inch fender piles, ADOT&PF used the 

same single strike SEL of 181 dB and 

assumed 120 strikes per pile and 1 to 4 

pile installations per day. To calculate 

Level A harassment isopleths associated 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 48993 

with the vibratory driving of 30-inch 

piles, ADOT&PF utilized a source level 

(RMS SPL) of 165.6 dB and assumed 3 

hours of driving per day. For 24-inch 

dolphin and fender piles, ADOT&PF 

used a source level of 161 dB and 

assumed up to 2 hours of driving per 

day. For installation and/or removal of 

piles less than 24-inches in diameter, 

ADOT&PF assumed use of 18-inch piles 

and used the same source level of 161 

dB for up to 3 hours per day. If H-piles 

are used, a source level of 150 dB was 

utilized. Practical spreading was used in 

all instances. Results are shown in Table 

7. Isopleths for Level B harassment 

associated with impact (160 dB) and 

vibratory harassment (120 dB) were also 

calculated and are included in Table 7. 

TABLE 7—PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL ACTIVITIES AND CALCULATED DISTANCES TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS 1

Activity 

Estimated duration Level A harassment zone (meters) 

(based on new technical guidance) 

Level B harassment 

zone (meters) 2

Hours per day Days of 

effort 

Cetaceans Pinnipeds Cetaceans 

and pinnipeds 

LF MF HF PW OW (120 dB) 

Vibratory Installation 30′′ .............. 3 13 28.8 2.6 42.6 17.5 1.2 10,970 (10,964) 

Vibratory Installation 24′′ Dolphin 2 2 6.8 0.6 10.1 4.2 0.3 5,420 (5,412) 

Vibratory Installation 24′′ Fender 2 2 10.8 1 16 6.6 0.5 ................................

Vibratory Installation and/or removal <24′′ (18′′).3 15 14.2 1.3 21 8.6 0.6 ................................

Vibratory Installation and/or removal < 24′′ (H-piles).3 15 2.6 0.2 3.9 1.6 0.1 1,000 

Activity Piles per 

day 

Strikes 

per pile 

Days of 

effort 

Cetaceans Pinnipeds Cetaceans 

and pinnipeds 

LF MF HF PW OW (160 dB) 

Impact Installation 30′′ ................. 4 1,000 13 1,426 51 1,699 763 56 1,740 (1,738) 

3 .............. 18 1,177 42 1,402 630 46 ................................

2 .............. 26 898 32 1,070 481 35 ................................

1 .............. 52 566 20 674 303 22 ................................

Impact Installation 24′′ Dolphin .... 2 400 2 633 23 754 339 25 1,590 (1,585) 

1 .............. 3 399 14 475 213 16 ................................

Impact Installation 24′′ Fender ..... 4 120 2 450 16 537 241 18 ................................

3 .............. 3 372 13 443 199 15 ................................

2 .............. 4 284 10 338 152 11 ................................

1 .............. 8 179 6 213 96 7 ................................

1To account for potential variations in daily productivity during impact installation, isopleths were calculated for different numbers of piles that 

could be installed each day (Therefore, should the contractor expect to install fewer piles in a day than the maximum anticipated, a smaller Level 

A shutdown zone would be required to avoid take.) 2 Mitigation zones have been rounded up to the nearest 10 m. Number in parenthesis is distance used in calculation of take estimates. 

Note that the actual area ensonified by 

pile driving activities is significantly 

constrained by local topography relative 

to the total threshold radius. The actual 

ensonified area was determined using a 

straight line-of-sight projection from the 

anticipated pile driving locations. The 

corresponding areas of the Level A and 

Level B ensonified zones for impact 

driving and vibratory installation/ 

removal are shown in Table 8. 

TABLE 8—CALCULATED AREAS (km2) ENSONIFIED WITHIN LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS IN EXCESS

OF 100-METER DISTANCE DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL ACTIVITIES

Activity 

Estimated duration Level A harassment zone (km2) 

(based on new technical guidance) 

Level B harassment 

zone (km2) (based 

on practical spreading loss model) 

Hours per day Days of 

effort 

Cetaceans Pinnipeds 

Cetaceans 

and pinnipeds 

(120 dB) 

LF MF HF PW OW 

Vibratory Installation 30′′ .............. 3 13 NA NA NA NA NA 24.42 

Vibratory Installation 24′′ Dolphin 2 2 NA NA NA NA NA 17.19 

Vibratory Installation 24′′ Fender 2 2 NA NA NA NA NA ................................

Vibratory Installation and/or removal <24′′ (18′′).3 15 NA NA NA NA NA ................................

Vibratory Installation and/or removal < 24′′ (H-piles).3 15 NA NA NA NA NA 1.47 

Activity Piles per 

day 

Strikes 

per pile 

Days of 

effort 

Cetaceans Pinnipeds Cetaceans 

and pinnipeds 

LF MF HF PW OW (160 dB) 

Impact Installation 30′′ ................. 4 1,000 13 2.84 NA 3.91 0.91 NA 4.08 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
48994 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 

Activity Piles per 

day 

Strikes 

per pile 

Days of 

effort 

Cetaceans Pinnipeds Cetaceans 

and pinnipeds 

LF MF HF PW OW (160 dB) 

3 .............. 18 1.98 NA 2.75 0.66 NA ................................

2 .............. 26 1.21 NA 1.66 0.41 NA ................................

1 .............. 52 0.55 NA 0.74 0.18 NA ................................

Impact Installation 24′′ Dolphin .... 2 400 2 0.67 NA 0.89 0.22 NA 3.45 

1 .............. 3 0.29 NA 0.40 0.09 NA ................................

Impact Installation 24′′ Fender ..... 4 120 2 0.36 NA 0.50 0.11 NA ................................

3 .............. 3 0.26 NA 0.35 0.08 NA ................................

2 .............. 4 0.16 NA 0.22 0.04 NA ................................

1 .............. 8 0.06 NA 0.09 0.02 NA ................................

Potential exposures to impact and 

vibratory pile driving noise for each 

threshold were estimated using local 

marine mammal density datasets where 

available and local observational data. 

Dall’s Porpoise 

There currently is no information on 

the presence or abundance of Dall’s 

porpoises in the Shumagin Islands. No 

sightings of Dall’s porpoises have been 

documented in Humboldt Harbor and 

they are not expected to occur there 

(HDR 2017). However, individuals may 

occur in the deeper waters north of 

Popof Island or in Popof Strait, west of 

the Sand Point Airport. These porpoises 

have been sighted infrequently on 

research cruises heading in and out of 

Sand Point in deeper local waters 

(Speckman, Pers. Comm.). Dall’s 

porpoise are non-migratory; therefore, 

exposure estimates are not dependent 

on season. Exposure of Dall’s porpoise 

to noise from impact hammer pile 

installation is unlikely, as they are not 

expected to occur within the 1,738 

meter Level B harassment zone. 

Similarly, we do not anticipate Dall’s 

porpoise would be exposed to noise in 

excess of the Level A harassment 

threshold, which would be located at a 

maximum distance of 1,699 meters. It is 

possible, however, that they would 

occur in the larger Level B zone 

associated with vibratory driving of 30- 

inch (up to 10,970 meters) and 24-inch 

piles (up to 5,420 meters). Over the 

course of 40 days in which vibratory 

driving will be employed, NMFS 

conservatively anticipates no more than 

one observation of a Dall’s porpoise pod 

in these Level B vibratory harassment 

zones. With an average pod size of 3.7 

(Wade et al., 2003), NMFS has 

authorized take of four Dall’s porpoises 

during the pile driving activities. No 

Level A take is authorized for Dall’s 

porpoises. 

Harbor Porpoise 

There are no reports of harbor 

porpoises or harbor porpoise densities 

in the Shumagin Islands. It is reasonable 

to assume that they would occur in the 

vicinity of Popof and Unga Islands given 

that they are common in the Gulf of 

Alaska and their preferred habitat 

consists of coastal waters of 100 meters 

or less (Hobbs and Waite 2010). Based 

on the known range of the Gulf of 

Alaska stock, only six sightings of 

singles or pairs during 110 days of 

monitoring of the Kodiak Ferry 

Terminal and Dock Improvements 

project, and occasional sightings during 

monitoring of projects at other locations 

on Kodiak Island, it is assumed that 

harbor porpoises could be present on an 

intermittent basis. 

Harbor porpoises are non-migratory; 

therefore, exposure estimates are not 

dependent on season. NMFS 

conservatively estimates harbor 

porpoise could be exposed to 

construction-related in-water noise on 

two out of every three construction 

days. Harbor porpoises in this area have 

a mean group size of 1.82 (Watwood and 

Buonantony, 2012). Therefore, NMFS 

authorizes the take of 49 harbor 

porpoises as shown below. 

Sighting every 0.667 days * 40 days 

of exposure * 1.82 group size = 49 

(48.55 rounded up). 

During impact installation of piles, 

the Level A harassment isopleth for 

harbor porpoises extends up to 1,699 

meters when a maximum of four 30- 

inch piles are installed on the same day. 

Given that harbor porpoises prefer nearshore waters, we anticipate that it is 

possible for up to one-third of the 

harbor porpoise sighting to occur in a 

Level A harassment zone. Therefore, of 

the 49 authorized takes, 16 will occur 

within a Level A harassment isopleth 

and 33 will occur within a Level B 

harassment isopleth. 

Killer Whale 

Line transect surveys conducted in 

the Shumagin Islands between 2001 and 

2003 did not record any resident killer 

whales, but did record a relatively high 

abundance of transient killer whales 

(Zerbini et al., 2007). The same study 

estimated a density of approximately 

0.002 killer whales per square kilometer 

(km2) in the Shumagin Islands (Zerbini 

et al., 2007). The population trend of the 

transient stock of killer whales in 

Alaska has remained stable since the 

1980s (Muto et al., 2016a). Anecdotal 

observations indicate that killer whales 

are not often seen in the vicinity of Sand 

Point, including Popof Strait (HDR 

2017). Killer whales are expected to be 

uncommon in the project area and are 

not expected to enter into Humboldt 

Harbor. However, NMFS used the 

density estimate of 0.002 per km2 to 

determine the number of killer whales 

potentially observed within the project 

area. Given the low probability of 

occurrence within the project area, 

using the available density estimates as 

an indication of exposure is a 

conservative approach to estimate 

potential killer whale exposure to pile 

driving noise. Vibratory installation of 

30-inch piles will occur on 13 days 

while vibratory installation of 24-inch 

dolphin piles, 24-inch fender piles, and 

temporary 18-inch or h-piles will occur 

on a total of 19 days. NMFS assumed 

that 18-inch piles would be installed 

instead of h-piles and that 18-inch piles 

have the same source level and isopleth 

as 24-in piles. NMFS also added a 25 

percent contingency factor to account 

for unanticipated delays. Therefore, 

there would be up to 16.25 days of 

vibratory installation of 30-inch piles 

and 23.75 days of 24-inch piles. At a 

density of 0.002 whales/km2, NMFS 

anticipates approximately 0.79 killer 

whales (i.e., 0.002 whales/km2 * 24.42 

km2 30-inch vibratory harassment zone 

* 16.25 days) would be exposed to Level 

B harassment associated with 30-inch 

vibratory driving while 0.82 killer 

whales (i.e., 0.002 whales/km2 * 17.19 

km2 24-inch vibratory harassment zone 

* 23.75 days) would be exposed to Level 

B harassment from 24-inch vibratory 

driving over 40 days. Over the 40 day 

construction period, 2 killer whales 

(1.61 rounded up) would be exposed to 

Level B harassment. 

However, killer whales generally 

travel in pods, or groups of individuals. 

The average pod size for transient killer 

whales is four individuals (Zerbini et 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 48995 

al., 2007) and 5–50 for resident killer 

whales (Heise et al., 2003). A 

monitoring report associated with 

issuance of an IHA for Kodiak Ferry 

Terminal and Dock Improvements 

Project recorded four killer whale pod 

observations during 110 days of 

monitoring with the largest pod size 

consisting of seven individuals. NMFS 

will, therefore, assume that there will be 

sightings of two pods with an average 

group size of seven over the course of 

the 40-day construction period resulting 

in 14 authorized Level B killer whale 

takes. These killer whales would likely 

be transients, but could also be 

residents, so take is authorized for both 

stocks. No Level A take is authorized for 

killer whales since the injury zone is 

smaller than the 100 meter shutdown 

zone. 

Humpback Whale 

Surveys from 2001 to 2004 estimated 

humpback whale abundance in the 

Shumagin Islands at between 410 and 

593 individuals during the summer 

feeding season (July–August; Witteveen 

et al., 2004; Zerbini et al., 2006). Annual 

vessel-based, photo-identification 

surveys in the Shumagin Islands from 

1999 to 2015 identified 654 unique 

individual humpback whales between 

June and September (Witteveen and 

Wynne 2016). Humpback whale 

abundance in the Shumagin Islands 

increased 6 percent per year between 

1987 and 2003 (Zerbini et al., 2006). 

Between 2001 and 2003, summer line 

transect surveys in the Shumagin 

Islands estimated the humpback whale 

density at 0.02 whales per km2 (Zerbini 

et al., 2006). Given an approximate 

population increase of 6 percent each 

year since the early 2000’s (Muto et al., 

2016b), we conservatively estimate the 

current density of humpback whales as 

about 0.04 whale per km2 (0.02 whale/ 

km2 * (6% increase/year * 13 years)). 

Exposure of humpback whales to 

Level A and Level B harassment noise 

levels is possible in August and, to a 

lesser extent, in September. Exposure is 

unlikely between October and December 

because humpback whale abundance is 

low during late fall and winter. 

Humpback whales, when present, are 

unlikely to enter Humboldt Harbor or 

approach the City of Sand Point, but 

would instead transit through Popof 

Strait or feed in the deeper waters off 

the airport, between Popof and Unga 

islands (HDR 2017). Harassment from 

pile installation is possible in waters 

between Popof and Unga islands, 

including Popof Strait. Because we do 

not know exactly when construction 

might occur, we will use the updated 

summer density estimate (and our only 

density estimate) of 0.04 whales/km2 to 

estimate exposure. 

At a density of 0.04 whales/km2, 

NMFS anticipates approximately 15.87 

humpback whales (i.e., 0.04 whales/km2

* 24.42 km2 30-inch vibratory 

harassment zone * 16.25 days) would be 

exposed to harassment on days when 

30-inch vibratory driving would occur. 

Additionally, 16.33 whales (i.e., 0.04 

whales/km2 * 17.19 km2 24-inch 

vibratory harassment zone * 23.75 days) 

would be exposed to harassment on 

days in which 24-inch piles are driven 

for a total of 32 (32.2 rounded down) 

whale takes over 40 days. 

A subset of the 32 humpback whales 

potentially exposed to harassment noise 

levels may enter the Level A harassment 

zone, which extends 1,426 meters 

assuming an optimal productivity of 

driving four 30-inch piles per day; 633 

meters when driving two 24-inch 

dolphins; and 450 meters when driving 

four 24-inch fenders. NMFS has again 

added a 25 percent contingency and 

will assume 16.25 days of 30-inch 

impact pile driving, 2.5 days of 24-inch 

dolphin installation and 2.5 days of 24- 

inch fender installation. Note that when 

estimating Level A take, NMFS 

conservatively defaulted to the Level A 

isopleth and corresponding area 

associated with maximum number of 

piles that can be driven each day for 

each pile size. We anticipate 

approximately 1.84 humpback whales 

(e.g., 0.04 whales/km2 * 2.84 km2 Level 

A harassment zone * 16.25 days) would 

be exposed to Level A harassment 

during 30-inch impact pile driving; 

approximately 0.07 humpback whales 

(e.g., 0.04 whales/km2 * 0.67 km2 Level 

A harassment zone * 2.5 days) would be 

exposed to Level A harassment during 

24-inch dolphin installation; and 

approximately 0.04 humpback whales 

(e.g., 0.04 whales/km2 * 0.36 km2 Level 

A harassment zone * 2.5 days) would be 

exposed to Level A harassment during 

24-inch fender installation. Therefore, a 

total of 2 (1.95 rounded up) humpback 

whales could be exposed to Level A 

harassment. Therefore, NMFS is 

authorizing 30 Level B and 2 Level A 

humpback whale takes. 

Humpback whales found in the 

Shumagin Islands are predominantly 

members of the Hawaii DPS, which are 

not listed under the ESA. However, 

based on a comprehensive photoidentification study, members of both 

the Western North Pacific DPS (ESAlisted as endangered) and Mexico DPS 

(ESA-listed as threatened) are known to 

occur in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian 

Islands. Members of different DPSs are 

known to intermix on feeding grounds; 

therefore, all waters off the coast of 

Alaska should be considered to have 

ESA-listed humpback whales. 

According to Wade et al. (2016), the 

probability of encountering a humpback 

whale from the Western North Pacific 

DPS in the Gulf of Alaska is 0.5 percent 

(CV [coefficient of variation]=0.001). 

The probability of encountering a 

humpback whale from the Mexico DPS 

is 10.5 percent (CV=0.16). The 

remaining 89 percent (CV=0.01) of 

individuals in the Gulf of Alaska are 

likely members of the Hawaii DPS 

(Wade et al., 2016). Therefore, it is 

estimated that 28 humpback whales 

would be from the Hawaii DPS, three 

humpback whales would be from the 

threatened Mexico DPS, and 1 

humpback whale would be from the 

endangered Western North Pacific DPS. 

Given the small number of anticipated 

Level A takes, NMFS will assume that 

both authorized Level A takes represent 

members of the Hawaii DPS. 

Fin Whale 

Vessel-based line-transect surveys of 

coastal waters between Resurrection Bay 

and the central Aleutian Islands were 

completed in July and August from 2001 

to 2003 (Zerbini et al., 2006). Large 

concentrations of fin whales were found 

in the Semidi Islands, located midway 

between the Shumagin Islands and 

Kodiak Island just south of the Alaska 

Peninsula. The abundance of fin whales 

in the Shumagin Islands ranged from a 

low estimate of 604 in 2003 to a high 

estimate of 1,113 in 2002. The estimated 

density of fin whales in the Shumagin 

Islands was 0.007 whales per km2 and 

this is the density estimate assumed for 

the project area. Fin whale density in 

the Shumagin Islands at other times of 

the year is unknown, and they are 

uncommon in Humboldt Harbor or 

Popof Strait (HDR 2017). At a density of 

0.007 whales/km2, NMFS anticipates 

approximately 2.77 fin whales (i.e., 

0.007 whales/km2 * 24.42 km2 30-inch 

vibratory harassment zone * 16.25 days) 

would be exposed to Level B 

harassment on days when 30-inch 

vibratory driving would occur. 

Additionally, 2.86 whales (i.e., 0.007 

whales/km2 * 17.19 km2 24-inch 

vibratory harassment zone * 23.75 days) 

would be exposed to Level B 

harassment on days in which 24-inch 

piles are driven for a total of 6 (5.63 

rounded up) Level B takes of fin whales 

over 40 days. Therefore, NMFS is 

authorizing 6 Level B fin whale takes. 

Fin whales are typically found in deep, 

offshore waters so no Level A take is 

authorized for this species. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
48996 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 

Minke Whale 

There are no population estimates for 

minke whales in Alaska; however, 

nearshore aerial surveys of the western 

Gulf of Alaska took place between 2001 

and 2003. These surveys estimated the 

minke whale population in that area at 

approximately 1,233 individuals 

(Zerbini et al., 2006). Conservatively, 

minke whales could be exposed to 

construction-related noise levels year 

round. Surveys indicate a density of 

0.001 minke whales per km2 south of 

the Alaska Peninsula (including the 

Shumagin Islands). At a density of 0.001 

whales/km2, NMFS anticipates 

approximately 0.40 minke whales (i.e., 

0.001 whales/km2 * 24.42 km2 30-inch 

vibratory harassment zone * 16.25 days) 

would be exposed to Level B 

harassment on days when 30-inch 

vibratory driving would occur. 

Additionally, 0.41 whales (i.e., 0.001 

whales/km2 * 17.19 km2 24-inch 

vibratory harassment zone * 23.75 days) 

would be exposed to Level B 

harassment on days in which 24-inch 

piles are driven for a total of 1 (0.81 

rounded up) level B take of minke 

whales over 40 construction days. With 

a pod size of two or three (NMFS 2015), 

NMFS authorizes the take of three 

minke whales during the 40-day 

construction period. No Level A take is 

authorized due to low abundance near 

the project area. 

Gray Whale 

Gray whales could potentially migrate 

through the area between March 

through May and November through 

January. Gray whale presence near Sand 

Point and in Humboldt Harbor is rare 

and unlikely to occur during the 

construction period. As such, exposure 

of gray whales to noise from impact 

hammer pile installation is unlikely, as 

they are not expected to occur within 

the 1,426 meter harassment zone. 

Harassment from vibratory pile 

installation is possible in the deeper 

water north of Popof Strait. Because 

there are no density estimates for the 

area and the rarity of gray whales within 

the project area, NMFS conservatively 

estimates that gray whales will not be 

observed more than one time during the 

construction period. Multiplying the 

one potential observation by the average 

pod size of 2.4 (Rugh et al., 2005), 

NMFS authorizes the take of two gray 

whales by Level B harassment level over 

the course of the construction period. 

No Level A take is authorized for gray 

whales. 

Steller Sea Lion 

The number of unique individuals 

used to calculate take was based on 

information reported by the nearby 

seafood processing facility. It is 

estimated that about 12 unique 

individual sea lions likely occur in 

Humboldt Harbor each day during the 

pollock fishing seasons (HDR 2017). It is 

assumed that Steller sea lions may be 

present every day, and that take will 

include multiple harassments of the 

same individual(s) both within and 

among days. It is also assumed that 12 

unique individual sea lions occur in 

Humboldt Harbor each day and could 

potentially be exposed to Level B 

harassment over 40 days of 

construction. Given that the project area 

is located within the aquatic zones (i.e., 

designated critical habitat) of two 

designated major haulouts (Sea Lion 

Rocks and The Whaleback), sea lions 

could commonly enter into the Level B 

ensonified zone outside of the 

Humboldt Harbor. As such, it assumed 

that an additional 12 animals per day 

may occur in the Level B harassment 

zone outside of Humboldt Harbor. Total 

exposures is calculated using the 

following equation: 

24 sea lions per day * 40 days of 

exposure = 960 potential exposures 

Therefore, we authorize the Level B 

take of 960 Steller sea lions. No Level 

A take is anticipated as the Level A 

isopleths are smaller than the 100 meter 

shutdown zone. 

Harbor Seal 

Anecdotal observations indicate that 

harbor seals are uncommon in 

Humboldt Harbor proper (HDR 2017). 

However, they are expected to occur 

occasionally in the project area. The 

Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock 

Improvements Project on Kodiak Island 

recorded 13 single sightings of harbor 

seals during 110 days of monitoring. 

Although the harbor seal stock is 

different at Kodiak (South Kodiak stock) 

and the project sites are somewhat 

dissimilar, NMFS used this information 

to conservatively estimate that one 

harbor seal could be present near Sand 

Point on any given day. An aerial 

haulout survey in 2011 estimated that 

15 harbor seals occupy the survey unit 

along the south coast of Popof Island 

(London et al., 2015) and anecdotal 

observations indicate that harbor seals 

are known to occur intermittently near 

the airport (HDR 2017). NMFS 

conservatively estimates that one animal 

per day will be observed near the harbor 

while another animal will occur near 

the airport or elsewhere within an 

ensonified zone. Therefore, NMFS 

estimates that up to two harbor seals 

may be taken each day during the 40- 

day pile installation period for a total of 

80 authorized takes. 

During impact installation of 30-inch 

piles, the Level A harassment isopleth 

for harbor seals extends out to a 

maximum distance of 763 meters on 

days when four piles are driven; out to 

339 meters when two 24-inch dolphins 

are installed on the same day; and out 

to 241 meters when four fenders are 

installed on a single day. Harbor seals 

often act curious toward on-shore 

activities and are known to approach 

humans, lifting their heads from the 

water to look around. Given that harbor 

seals are likely to be found in the nearshore environment, we are authorizing 

limited Level A take since the impact 

pile driving injury zones can extend 

well beyond the 100 meter shutdown 

zone. We anticipate that up to one-third 

of harbor seal takes would be by Level 

A harassment resulting in 27 authorized 

Level A and 53 authorized Level B takes 

of harbor seals. 

Mitigation Measures 

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 may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully balance two 

primary factors: (1) The manner in 

which, and the degree to which, the 

successful implementation of the 

measure(s) is expected to reduce 

impacts to marine mammals, marine 

mammal species or stocks, and their 

habitat which considers the nature of 

the potential adverse impact being 

mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), as 

well as the likelihood that the measure 

will be effective if implemented; and the 

likelihood of effective implementation, 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 48997 

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. 

In addition to the measures described 

later in this section, ADOT&PF will 

employ the following standard 

mitigation measures: 

(a) Conduct briefings between 

construction supervisors and crews, and 

marine mammal monitoring team, prior 

to the start of all pile driving activity, 

and when new personnel join the work, 

in order to explain responsibilities, 

communication procedures, marine 

mammal monitoring protocol, and 

operational procedures, and; 

(b) For in-water heavy machinery 

work other than pile driving (e.g., 

standard barges, tug boats), if a marine 

mammal comes within 10 m, operations 

shall cease and vessels shall reduce 

speed to the minimum level required to 

maintain steerage and safe working 

conditions. This type of work could 

include the following activities: (1) 

Movement of the barge to the pile 

location; or (2) positioning of the pile on 

the substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing 

the pile). 

(c) Work will only occur during 

daylight hours, when visual monitoring 

of marine mammals can be conducted. 

The following measures would apply 

to ADOT&PFs mitigation requirements: 

Establishment of Shutdown Zone— 

For all pile driving activities, ADOT&PF 

will establish a shutdown zone. The 

purpose of a shutdown zone is generally 

to define an area within which 

shutdown of activity would occur upon 

sighting of a marine mammal (or in 

anticipation of an animal entering the 

defined area). In this case, shutdown 

zones are intended to contain areas in 

which SPLs equal or exceed acoustic 

injury criteria for some authorized 

species, based on NMFS’ new acoustic 

technical guidance published in the 

Federal Register on August 4, 2016 (81 

FR 51693). The shutdown zones vary for 

specific species. A conservative 

shutdown zone of 100 meters will be 

monitored during all pile driving 

activities to prevent Level A exposure to 

most species. During vibratory 

installation of piles of all sizes and 

impact installation of 24-inch piles, 

piles under 24 inches, and H-piles, a 

100-meter shutdown zone would 

prevent Level A take to marine 

mammals. A 100-meter shutdown zone 

would also be sufficient to prevent 

Level A take of mid-frequency cetaceans 

and otariid pinnipeds (i.e., Steller sea 

lions) during impact installation of 30- 

inch and 24-inch piles. Note that Level 

A take is not authorized for the lowfrequency species of fin whale, gray 

whale and minke whale, mid-frequency 

killer whale and high-frequency Dall’s 

porpoise since estimated take numbers 

are low. In the unlikely occurrence that 

animals of these species are observed 

approaching their respective Level A 

zones, pile driving operations will shut 

down. If an animal for which take is 

authorized is unexpectedly sighted 

within the 100-meter shutdown zone 

during impact or vibratory driving, 

operations shall immediately cease. The 

animal will be counted as a Level B take 

assuming it is outside of the Level A 

take zone as delineated in Table 7. 

Establishment of Level A Take Zone— 

ADOT&PF will establish Level A take 

zones which are areas beyond the 

shutdown zones where animals may be 

exposed to sound levels that could 

result in PTS. During impact installation 

of 30-inch and 24-inch piles, a 100- 

meter shutdown zone would not be 

sufficient to prevent Level A take of 

low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., humpback 

whales), high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., 

harbor porpoises), or phocid pinnipeds 

(i.e., harbor seals). For this reason, Level 

A take for small numbers of humpback 

whales, harbor porpoises, and harbor 

seals is authorized. 

To account for potential variations in 

daily productivity during impact 

installation, isopleths were calculated 

for different numbers of piles that could 

be installed each day. Therefore, should 

the contractor expect to install fewer 

piles in a day than the maximum 

anticipated, a smaller Level A shutdown 

zone reflecting the number of piles 

driven would be required to avoid take. 

Furthermore, if the first pile is driven 

and no marine mammals have been 

observed within the radius of 

corresponding Level A zone, then the 

Level A radius for the next pile shall be 

decreased to next largest Level A radius. 

This pattern shall continue unless an 

animal is observed within the most 

recent shutdown zone radius, at which 

that specific shutdown radius shall 

remain in effect for the rest of the 

workday. Additionally, if piles of 

different sizes are installed in a single 

day, the size of the monitored Level A 

zone for all installed piles will default 

to the isopleth corresponding to the 

largest pile being driven that day. Level 

A zones will be rounded up to the 

nearest 10 m and are depicted in Table 

9. 

TABLE 9—LEVEL A ZONE ISOPLETHS DURING IMPACT DRIVING1

Activity 

Piles 

installed 

per day 

Isopleths (m) 

LF 

(Humpback 

whales) 

MF 

HF 

(Harbor 

porpoises) 

PW 

(Harbor seals) OW 

Impact Installation 30′′ ............................. 4 1,430 (1,426) 60 (51) 1,700 (1,699) 770 (763) 60 (56) 

3 1,180 (1,177) 50 (42) 1,410 (1,402) 630 (630) 50 (46) 

2 900 (898) 40 (32) 1,070 (1,070) 490 (481) 40 (35) 

1 570 (566) 20 (20) 680 (674) 310 (303) 30 (22) 

Impact Installation 24′′ Dolphin ................ 2 640 (633) 30 (23) 760 (754) 340 (339) 30 (25) 

1 400 (399) 20 (14) 480 (475) 220 (213) 20 (16) 

Impact Installation 24′′ Fender ................. 4 450 (450) 20 (16) 540 (537) 250 (241) 20 (18) 

3 380 (372) 20 (20) 450 (443) 200 (199) 20 (15) 

2 290 (284) 10 (10) 340 (338) 160 (152) 20 (11) 

1 180 (179) 10 (6) 220 (213) 100 (96) 10 (7) 

1 Mitigation zones have been rounded up to the nearest 10 m. Number in parenthesis is distance used in calculation of take estimates where 

applicable. 

Establishment of Disturbance Zones— 

ADOT&PF will establish Level B 

disturbance zones or zones of influence 

(ZOI) which are areas where SPLs equal 

or exceed 160 dB rms for impact driving 

and 120 dB rms during vibratory 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
48998 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 

driving. Disturbance zones provide 

utility for monitoring by establishing 

monitoring protocols for areas adjacent 

to the shutdown zones. Monitoring of 

disturbance zones enables observers to 

be aware of and communicate the 

presence of marine mammals in the 

project area and outside the shutdown 

zone and thus prepare for potential 

shutdowns of activity. The Level B zone 

isopleths will be rounded up to the 

nearest 10 m and are depicted in Table 

10. 

TABLE 10—LEVEL B ZONE ISOPLETHS

DURING IMPACT AND VIBRATORY

DRIVING

Activity 

Level B 

Harassment 

Zone (meters) 

Vibratory Installation 30′′ ...... 10,970 

Vibratory Installation 24′′ Dolphin ................................... 5,420 

Vibratory Installation 24′′ 

Fender ............................... 5,420 

Vibratory Installation and/or 

removal <24′′ (18′′ piles) ... 5,420 

Vibratory Installation and/or 

removal <24′′ (H-piles) ...... 1,000 

Impact Installation 30′′ .......... 1,740 

Impact Installation 24′′ Dolphin ................................... 1,590 

Impact Installation 24′′ Fender ....................................... 1,590 

1 Mitigation zones have been rounded up to 

the nearest 10 m. Number in parenthesis is 

distance used in calculation of take estimates 

where applicable. 

Soft Start—The use of a soft-start 

procedure is believed to provide 

additional protection to marine 

mammals by providing warning and/or 

giving marine mammals a chance to 

leave the area prior to the hammer 

operating at full capacity. For impact 

pile driving, contractors will be required 

to provide an initial set of strikes from 

the hammer at 40 percent energy, each 

strike followed by no less than a 30- 

second waiting period. This procedure 

will be conducted a total of three times 

before impact pile driving begins. Soft 

Start is not required during vibratory 

pile driving and removal activities. 

Pre-Activity Monitoring—Prior to the 

start of daily in-water construction 

activity, or whenever a break in pile 

driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, 

the observer will observe the shutdown 

and monitoring zones for a period of 30 

minutes. The shutdown zone will be 

cleared when a marine mammal has not 

been observed within zone for that 30- 

minute period. If a marine mammal is 

observed within the shutdown zone, a 

soft-start cannot proceed until the 

animal has left the zone or has not been 

observed for 30 minutes for medium 

and large-sized odontocetes and 

mysticetes and 15 minutes for small 

cetaceans and pinnipeds. If the Level B 

harassment zone has been observed for 

30 minutes and non-permitted species 

are not present within the zone, soft 

start procedures can commence and 

work can continue even if visibility 

becomes impaired within the Level B 

zone. If the Level B zone is not visible 

while work continues, exposures will be 

recorded at the estimated exposure rate 

for each permitted species. If work 

ceases for more than 30 minutes, the 

pre-activity monitoring of both zones 

must recommence. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has determined that the planned 

mitigation measures provide the means 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

and their habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance. 

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 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 action area (e.g., 

presence, abundance, distribution, 

density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

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 Marine Mammal Observation 

Monitoring will be conducted by 

qualified marine mammal observers 

(MMOs), who are trained biologists, 

with the following minimum 

qualifications: 

• Independent observers (i.e., not 

construction personnel) are required; 

• 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; 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates 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; 

• 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; and 

• NMFS will require submission and 

approval of observer CVs. 

In order to effectively monitor the pile 

driving monitoring zones, two MMOs 

will be positioned at the best practical 

vantage point(s). The monitoring 

position may vary based on pile driving 

activities and the locations of the piles 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 48999 

and driving equipment. The monitoring 

location(s) will be identified with the 

following characteristics: (1) 

Unobstructed view of pile being driven; 

(2) Unobstructed view of all water 

within the Level A (if applicable) and 

Level B harassment zones for pile being 

driven, although it is understood that 

monitoring may be impaired at longer 

distances; and (3) Safe distance from 

pile driving activities in the 

construction area. If necessary, 

observations may occur from two 

locations simultaneously. Potential 

observation locations include the 

existing City Dock, the airport, the fish 

processing facility, or the quarry hillside 

located south of the project site. 

Observers will be on site and actively 

observing the shutdown and 

disturbance zones during all pile 

driving and extraction activities. 

Observers will use their naked eye with 

the aid of binoculars, big-eye binoculars 

or spotting scope to search continuously 

for marine mammals during all pile 

driving and extraction activities. 

The following additional measures 

apply to visual monitoring: 

• If waters exceed a sea-state which 

restricts the observers’ ability to make 

observations within 100 m of the pile 

driving activity (e.g., excessive wind or 

fog), pile installation and removal will 

cease. Pile driving will not be initiated 

until the entire shutdown zone is 

visible; 

• If a marine mammal authorized for 

Level A take is present within the Level 

A harassment zone, a Level A take 

would be recorded. If Level A take 

reaches the authorized limit, then pile 

installation would be stopped as these 

species approach the Level A 

harassment area to avoid additional take 

of these species; 

• If a marine mammal authorized for 

Level B take is present in the Level B 

harassment zone, pile driving activities 

or soft-start may begin and a Level B 

take would be recorded. Pile driving 

activities may occur when these species 

are in the Level B harassment zone, 

whether they entered the Level B zone 

from the Level A zone (if relevant), 

shutdown zone or from outside the 

project area. If Level B take reaches the 

authorized limit, then pile installation 

would be stopped as these species 

approach to avoid additional take of 

these species; 

• If any marine mammal species for 

which take is not authorized or if a 

species for which authorization has 

been granted but the number of 

authorized takes has been met enters or 

approaches the ZOI all activities shall 

be shut down until the animal is seen 

leaving the ZOI or it has not been seen 

in the shutdown zone for 30 minutes for 

medium and large-sized odontocetes 

and mysticetes and 15 minutes for small 

cetaceans and pinnipeds; 

• If any marine mammal species not 

authorized for take are encountered 

during activities and are likely to be 

exposed to Level B harassment, then 

ADOT&PF must stop pile driving 

activities and report observations to 

NMFS’ Office of Protected Resources; 

• When a marine mammal is 

observed, its location will be 

determined using a rangefinder to verify 

distance and a GPS or compass to verify 

heading; 

• The MMOs will record any 

authorized cetacean or pinniped present 

in the relevant injury zone. The Level A 

zones are shown in Table 9; 

• The MMOs will record any 

authorized cetacean or pinniped present 

in the relevant disturbance zone. The 

Level B zones are shown in Table 10; 

• Ongoing in-water pile installation 

may be continued during periods when 

conditions such as high sea state, rain, 

glare, or other conditions prevent 

effective marine mammal monitoring of 

the entire Level B harassment zone. 

MMOs would continue to monitor the 

visible portion of the Level B 

harassment zone throughout the 

duration of driving activities; and 

• At the end of the pile driving day, 

post-construction monitoring shall be 

conducted for 30 minutes beyond the 

cessation of pile driving. 

Data Collection 

Observers are required to use data 

forms approved by NMFS. Among other 

pieces of information, ADOT&PF will 

record detailed information about any 

implementation of shutdowns, 

including the distance of animals to the 

pile and description of specific actions 

that ensued and resulting behavior of 

the animal, if any. In addition, the 

ADOT&PF will attempt to distinguish 

between the number of individual 

animals taken and the number of 

incidents of take. At a minimum, the 

following information will be collected 

on the sighting forms: 

• Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period; 

• Detailed information about any 

implementation of shutdowns, 

including the distance of animals to the 

pile and description of specific actions 

that ensued and resulting behavior of 

the animal, if any; 

• 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. 

Reporting 

ADOT&PF will notify NMFS prior to 

the initiation of the pile driving 

activities and will provide NMFS with 

a draft monitoring report within 90 days 

of the conclusion of the construction 

work. This report will detail the 

monitoring protocol, summarize the 

data recorded during monitoring, and 

estimate the number of marine 

mammals that may have been harassed, 

including the total number extrapolated 

from observed animals across the 

entirety of relevant monitoring zones. If 

no comments are received from NMFS 

within 30 days of submission of the 

draft final report, the draft final report 

will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

must be submitted within 30 days after 

receipt of comments. 

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 the authorized 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, etc.), as well as 

effects on habitat, the status of the 

affected stocks, and the likely 

effectiveness of the mitigation. 

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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
49000 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 

incorporated into these analyses 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 humancaused mortality, or ambient noise 

levels). 

To avoid repetition, the discussion of 

our analyses applies to all the species 

listed in Table 3. There is little 

information about the nature of severity 

of the impacts or the size, status, or 

structure of any species or stock that 

would lead to a different analysis for 

this activity. 

Pile driving and extraction activities 

associated with the Sand Point City 

Dock Replacement Project, as outlined 

previously, have the potential to injure, 

disturb or displace marine mammals. 

Specifically, Level A harassment 

(injury) in the form of PTS may occur 

to a limited numbers of three marine 

mammal species while a total of nine 

species could experience Level B 

harassment (behavioral disturbance). 

Potential takes could occur if 

individuals of these species are present 

in Level A or Level B ensonified zones 

when pile driving or removal is under 

way. 

No mortality is anticipated to result 

from this activity. Limited take of three 

species of marine mammal by Level A 

harassment (injury) is authorized due to 

potential auditory injury (PTS) that 

cannot reasonably be prevented through 

mitigation. The marine mammals 

authorized for Level A take (27 harbor 

seals, 16 harbor porpoises, and 2 

humpback whales) are estimated to 

experience PTS if they remain within 

the outer limits of a Level A harassment 

zone during the entire time that impact 

pile driving would occur during a single 

day. Marine mammal species, however, 

are known to avoid areas where noise 

levels are high (Richardson et al.,1995). 

Animals would likely move away from 

the sound source and exit the Level A 

zone. Because of the proximity to the 

source in which the animals would have 

to approach, and the longer time in 

which they would need to remain in a 

farther proximity from the sound source 

within a Level A zone, we believe the 

likelihood of marine mammals 

experiencing PTS is low but 

acknowledge it could occur. Although 

NMFS is authorizing limited take by 

PTS, the anticipated takes reflect the 

onset of PTS, which would be relatively 

mild, rather than severe PTS which 

would be expected to have more impact 

on an animal’s overall fitness. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment, on the basis of 

reports in the literature as well as 

monitoring from other similar activities, 

will likely be limited to reactions such 

as increased swimming speeds, 

increased surfacing time, or decreased 

foraging (if such activity were occurring) 

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

2014). Most likely, individuals will 

simply move away from the sound 

source and be temporarily displaced 

from the areas of pile driving, although 

even this reaction has been observed 

primarily only in association with 

impact pile driving. In response to 

vibratory driving, pinnipeds (which 

may become somewhat habituated to 

human activity in industrial or urban 

waterways) have been observed to orient 

towards and sometimes move towards 

the sound. The pile driving and 

extraction activities analyzed here are 

similar to, or less impactful than, 

numerous construction activities 

conducted in similar locations in 

Alaska, which have taken place with no 

reported serious injuries or mortality to 

marine mammals, and no known longterm adverse consequences from 

behavioral harassment. Repeated 

exposures of individuals to levels of 

sound that may cause Level B 

harassment are unlikely to result in 

hearing impairment or to significantly 

disrupt foraging behavior. Thus, even 

repeated Level B harassment of some 

small subset of the overall stock is 

unlikely to result in any significant 

realized decrease in fitness for the 

affected individuals, and would not 

result in any adverse impact to the stock 

as a whole. 

ADOT&PF’s planned activities are 

localized and of relatively short 

duration. The entire project area is 

limited to the Sand Point dock area and 

its immediate surroundings. 

Specifically, the use of impact driving 

will be limited to approximately 22 

hours over the course of up to 40 days 

of construction. Total vibratory pile 

driving time is estimated at 

approximately 85 hours over the same 

period. While impact driving does have 

the potential to cause injury to marine 

mammals, mitigation in the form of a 

100 m shutdown zone should limit 

exposure to potentially injurious sound. 

The project is not expected to have 

significant adverse effects on marine 

mammal habitat. No important marine 

mammal reproductive areas, such as 

rookeries, are known to exist within the 

ensonified areas. The project is located 

within the aquatic zones (i.e., 

designated critical habitat) of two major 

Steller sea lion haul outs, and the Level 

B underwater harassment zone 

associated with the planned project 

overlaps with a third. The closest major 

haulout is approximately 27 km distant. 

The project activities are limited in time 

and would not modify existing marine 

mammal habitat. EFH near the project 

area has been designated for a number 

of species. While the activities may 

cause some fish to leave the area of 

disturbance, temporarily impacting 

marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities, this would encompass a 

relatively small area of habitat leaving 

large areas of existing fish and marine 

mammal foraging habitat unaffected. As 

such, the impacts to marine mammal 

habitat are not expected to cause 

significant or long-term negative 

consequences. 

In summary, this negligible impact 

analysis is founded on the following 

factors: (1) The possibility of serious 

injury or mortality to authorized species 

may reasonably be considered 

discountable; (2) the likelihood that PTS 

could occur in a limited number of 

animals is low, but acknowledged; (3) 

the anticipated incidences of Level B 

harassment consist of, at worst, 

temporary modifications in behavior or 

potential temporary threshold shift 

(TTS); (4) the limited temporal and 

spatial impacts on marine mammals or 

their habitat; (5) the absence of any 

major haul outs or rookeries near the 

project area; and (6) the presumed 

efficacy of the planned mitigation 

measures in reducing the effects of the 

specified activity to the level of effecting 

the least practicable impact upon the 

affected species. In combination, we 

believe that these factors, as well as the 

available body of evidence from other 

similar activities, demonstrate that the 

potential effects of the specified activity 

will have only short-term effects on 

individuals. The specified activity is not 

expected to impact rates of recruitment 

or survival and will therefore not result 

in population-level impacts. 

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 

planned monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS finds that the total 

marine mammal take from ADOT&PF’s 

Sand Point City Dock Replacement 

Project will have a negligible impact on 

all affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 49001 

appropriate estimation of the relevant 

species or stock size in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Table 11 presents the number of 

animals that could be exposed to 

received noise levels that could cause 

Level A and Level B harassment for the 

planned work at the Sand Point Dock 

Replacement Project. Our analysis 

shows that between <0.01 percent and 

2.89 percent of the populations of 

affected stocks could be taken by 

harassment. Therefore, the numbers of 

animals authorized to be taken for all 

species would be considered small 

relative to the relevant stocks or 

populations even if each estimated 

taking occurred to a new individual—an 

extremely unlikely scenario. For 

pinnipeds, especially Steller sea lions, 

occurring in the vicinity of the project 

site, there will almost certainly be some 

overlap in individuals present day-today, and these takes are likely to occur 

only within some small portion of the 

overall regional stock. Table 11. 

Summary of the estimated numbers of 

marine mammals potentially exposed to 

Level A and Level B harassment noise 

levels. 

TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY EXPOSED TO LEVEL A AND

LEVEL B HARASSMENT NOISE LEVELS

Species (DPS/stock) 

Estimated 

number of 

individuals 

potentially 

exposed to 

the Level A 

harassment 

threshold 

Estimated 

number of 

individuals 

potentially 

exposed to 

the Level B 

harassment 

threshold 

DPS/Stock abundance 

(DPS/Stock) 

Percent of population 

exposed to Level A 

or Level B thresholds 

Steller sea lion ............................................................

(wDPS) ........................................................................

0 960 50,983 .............................. 1.88. 

Harbor seal (Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait) ...................... 27 53 27,386 .............................. 0.29. 

Harbor porpoise (Gulf of Alaska) ................................ 16 33 31,046 .............................. 0.16. 

Dall’s porpoise (Alaska) .............................................. 0 4 83,400 .............................. <0.01. 

Killer whale (Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and 

Bering Sea transient or Alaska resident).

0 14 587 (transient) ..................

2,347 (resident) ................

2.38 (transient). 

0.6 (resident) 

Humpback whale 1 (Central North Pacific/Western 

North Pacific).

2 30 10,103 (Central NP) .........

1,107 (Western NP) .........

0.32. 

2.89. 

Fin whale (Northeast Pacific) ...................................... 0 6 1,368 2 .............................. 0.44. 

Gray whale (Eastern North Pacific) ............................ 0 2 20,990 .............................. <0.01. 

Minke whale (Alaska) .................................................. 0 3 2,020 3 .............................. <0.01. 

Total ..................................................................... 45 1,105 N/A ................................... N/A. 

1The Hawaii DPS is estimated to account for approximately 89 percent of all humpback whales in the Gulf of Alaska, whereas the Mexico and 

Western North Pacific DPSs account for approximately 10.5% and 0.5%, respectively (Wade et al., 2016; NMFS 2016). Therefore, an estimated 

28 animals from Hawaii DPS; 3 from Mexico DPS: and 1 from Western North Pacific DPS. 2Based on 2010 survey of animals north and west of Kenai Peninsula in U.S. waters and is likely an underestimate (Muto et al., 2016b). 3Based on 2010 survey on Eastern Bering Sea shelf. Considered provisional and not representative of abundance of entire stock (Muto et al., 

2016a). 

N/A: Not Applicable. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the planned activity (including 

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 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. The 

planned project is not known to occur 

in a subsistence hunting area. It is a 

developed area with regular marine 

vessel traffic. Additionally, ADOT&PF 

has spoken with local officials about 

concerns regarding impacts to 

subsistence uses and none were 

expressed. Therefore, NMFS has 

determined that the total taking of 

affected species or stocks would not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the availability of such species or stocks 

for taking for subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Issuance of an MMPA authorization 

requires compliance with the ESA. 

There are four DPSs of three marine 

mammal species that are listed under 

the ESA with confirmed or possible 

occurrence in the study area: The WNP 

DPS and Mexico DPS of humpback 

whale; the western DPS of Steller sea 

lion; and fin whale. The NMFS Alaska 

Regional Office (AKR) Protected 

Resources Division issued a Biological 

Opinion in September 2017 under 

section 7 of the ESA, on the issuance of 

an IHA to ADOT&PF under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the NMFS 

Permits and Conservation Division. The 

biological opinion concluded that while 

the issuance of the authorization may 

adversely affect members of these listed 

species it is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any listed marine 

mammal species or destroy or modify 

any critical habitat. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to 

ADOT&PF for the potential harassment 

of small numbers of nine marine 

mammal species incidental to the Sand 

Point City Dock Replacement Project in 

Sand Point, Alaska, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring and reporting. 

Dated: October 17, 2017. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22881 Filed 10–20–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES