Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Notices 50397 

Numbering System (‘‘U.N.S.’’) C2000. 

The orders do not cover products the 

chemical compositions of which are 

defined by other C.D.A. or U.N.S. series. 

In physical dimensions, the product 

covered by the orders has a solid 

rectangular cross section over 0.006 

inches (0.15 millimeters) through 0.188 

inches (4.8 millimeters) in finished 

thickness or gauge, regardless of width. 

Coiled, wound-on-reels (traverse 

wound), and cut-to-length products are 

included. The merchandise is currently 

classified under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) item numbers 7409.21.00 

and 7409.29.00. 

Although the HTSUS item numbers 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of the orders 

remains dispositive. 

Continuation of the Orders 

As a result of the determinations by 

the Department and the ITC that 

revocation of the AD orders would 

likely lead to continuation or recurrence 

of dumping and material injury to an 

industry in the United States, pursuant 

to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.218(a), the Department hereby 

orders the continuation of the AD orders 

on brass sheet and strip from France, 

Germany, Italy, and Japan. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

will continue to collect AD cash 

deposits at the rates in effect at the time 

of entry for all imports of subject 

merchandise. The effective date of 

continuation of these orders will be the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of continuation. 

Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, 

the Department intends to initiate the 

next five-year review of these orders not 

later than 30 days prior to the fifth 

anniversary of the effective date of 

continuation. 

These five-year sunset reviews and 

this notice are in accordance with 

section 751(c) of the Act and published 

pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act, 

and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). 

Dated: October 24, 2017. 

Gary Taverman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

performing the non-exclusive functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23642 Filed 10–30–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF797 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) is 

scheduling a public meeting of its 

Herring Advisory Panel to consider 

actions affecting New England fisheries 

in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 

Recommendations from this group will 

be brought to the full Council for formal 

consideration and action, if appropriate. 

DATES: This meeting will be held on 

Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Holiday Inn, 700 Myles Standish 

Blvd., Taunton, MA 02780; telephone: 

(508) 823–0430. 

Council Address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda 

The Advisory Panel will review 

analyses prepared for Herring 

Amendment 8 Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) specific to the 

range of alternatives developed to 

address potential localized depletion 

and user conflicts in the herring fishery. 

The panel may identify preferred 

alternatives for the Committee to 

consider the following day. The panel is 

not scheduled to discuss the other 

measures under consideration in 

Amendment 8, Acceptable Biological 

Catch (ABC) control rule alternatives. 

The Council reviewed the ABC control 

rule alternatives at the September 2017 

meeting and declined to select a 

preferred alternative, but approved that 

portion of Amendment 8 to proceed for 

submission and public comment. They 

will discuss recommendations for the 

Committee to consider for Herring 

Research Set-Aside research priorities 

for fishing years 2019–21 and discuss 

any challenges the program has had in 

recent years. They will discuss other 

business, as necessary. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during these meetings. Action 

will be restricted to those issues 

specifically listed in this notice and any 

issues arising after publication of this 

notice that require emergency action 

under section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act, provided the public has 

been notified of the Council’s intent to 

take final action to address the 

emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. This meeting 

will be recorded. Consistent with 16 

U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is 

available upon request. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at 

(978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to 

the meeting date. 

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

Dated: October 25, 2017. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23592 Filed 10–30–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF540 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Biorka 

Island Dock Replacement Project 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; 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 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

to incidentally harass, by Level A and 

Level B harassment, marine mammals 

during construction activities associated 

with the Biorka dock replacement 

project in Symonds Bay, AK. 

DATES: This Authorization is applicable 

from May 1, 2018, through April 30, 

2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Guan, Office of Protected 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
50398 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Notices 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the applications 

and supporting documents, as well as a 

list of the references cited in this 

document, may be obtained online at: 

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

incidental/construction.htm. In case of 

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated 

to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and either 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, a notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

An Incidental Take Authorization 

(ITA) shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to environmental 

consequences on the human 

environment. This action is consistent 

with categories of activities identified in 

CE B4 of the Companion Manual for 

NOAA Administrative Order 216–6A, 

which do not individually or 

cumulatively have the potential for 

significant impacts on the quality of the 

human environment and for which we 

have not identified any extraordinary 

circumstances that would preclude this 

categorical exclusion. Accordingly, 

NMFS has determined that the issuance 

of the IHA qualifies to be categorically 

excluded from further NEPA review and 

a Categorical Exclusion memo was 

signed in October 2017. 

Summary of Request 

On March 31, 2017, NMFS received a 

request from the FAA for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to pile 

driving and removal and down the hole 

(DTH) drilling in association with the 

Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project 

(Project) in Symonds Bay, Alaska. The 

FAA’s request is for take of five species 

by Level A and Level B harassment. 

Neither the FAA nor NMFS expect 

mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

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

completed within 70 days starting May 

1, 2018. We expect the in-water 

construction work to occur between 

May 1, 2018 through September 30, 

2018; however, this IHA is valid for one 

year, from May 1, 2018, through April 

30, 2019. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

The FAA is constructing a 

replacement dock on Biorka Island in 

Symonds Bay near Sitka, Alaska. The 

purpose of the Project is to improve and 

maintain the sole point of access to 

Biorka Island and the navigational and 

weather facilities located on the island. 

The existing dock has deteriorated and 

reached the end of its useful life. 

Regular and repetitive heavy surging 

seas, along with constant use have 

destroyed the face of the existing 

floating marine dock, and have broken 

cleats making it difficult to tie a vessel 

to the existing dock. In its present 

condition, small vessels cannot use the 

dock to provide supplies to facilities on 

the island. The existing barge landing 

area is reinforced seasonally by adding 

fill to the landing at the shoreline, 

which is periodically washed away by 

storms and wave action. The Project 

would reconstruct the deteriorated 

existing dock and construct an 

improved barge landing area. A detailed 

description of the planned dock 

replacement project is provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (82 FR 41229; August 30, 2017). 

Since that time, no changes have been 

made to the planned activities. 

Therefore, a detailed description is not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for the 

description of the specific activity. 

Table 1 provides a summary of the six 

methods of construction (‘‘scenarios’’) 

used in the modeling of the zone of 

influence (ZOI)s for the Biorka Project. 

The ZOIs effectively represent the 

mitigation zone that would be 

established around each pile to prevent 

Level A harassment to marine 

mammals, while providing estimates of 

the areas within which Level B 

harassment might occur. 

TABLE 1—PILE DRIVING MODELING SCENARIOS FOR THE BIORKA PROJECT

Scenario Description 

Piles 

installed 

per day 

Vibratory DTH Impact 

Shift 

Hrs per (hr) 

pile 

Total 

hours 

per 

day 

Hours 

per pile 

Total 

hours 

per day 

Hours 

per pile 

Total 

strikes 

per day 

S1 .................. Removal of existing piles 

and installation/removal of 

temporary piles 1.

21 0.33 6.93 NA2 NA2 6.93 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Notices 50399 

TABLE 1—PILE DRIVING MODELING SCENARIOS FOR THE BIORKA PROJECT—Continued 

Scenario Description 

Piles 

installed 

per day 

Vibratory DTH Impact 

Shift 

Hrs per (hr) 

pile 

Total 

hours 

per 

day 

Hours 

per pile 

Total 

hours 

per day 

Hours 

per pile 

Total 

strikes 

per day 

S2 .................. Installation of 18-inch pipe 

piles (dock and dolphin).

3 ................ 0.99 2 6 0.17 15 7.49 

S3 .................. Installation of 18-inch pipe 

piles (barge landing).

4 ................ 1.32 NA 0.33 2720 2.65 

S4 .................. Installation of 30-inch pipe 

piles (dolphins).

2 ................ 0.66 2 4 0.17 10 4.99 

S5 .................. Installation of H piles (dock 

wave barrier).

8 ................ 2.64 NA2 0.33 5440 5.31 

S6 .................. Installation of sheet piles 

(dock wave barrier and 

barge landing).

12 ................ 3.96 NA2 0.25 6120 6.96 

1Existing piles to be removed include 3 24-in concrete piles, 14 8-in steel piles, 8 10-in steel piles, 14 12.75-in steel piles, and 7 14- to 8-in 

timber piles. 2 NA indicates when a pile driving method was not required in a given scenario. 

Comment and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue 

an IHA to the FAA was published in the 

Federal Register on August 30, 2017 (82 

FR 41229). That notice described, in 

detail, the FAA’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 

comments from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission). 

Comment 1: The Commission has 

concerns regarding the appropriateness 

of the manner in which NMFS has 

estimated Level A harassment zones. 

The Commission recommends that 

NMFS consult with both internal and 

external scientists and acousticians to 

determine the appropriate accumulation 

time that action proponents should use 

to determine the extent of the Level A 

harassment zones based on the 

associated permanent threshold shift 

(PTS) cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) thresholds for the various types 

of sound sources, including stationary 

sound sources, when simple area x 

density methods are employed. 

Estimated swimming speeds of various 

species and behavior patterns (including 

residency patterns) should be 

considered, and multiple scenarios 

should be evaluated using animat 

modeling. 

Response: NMFS will take the 

Commission’s recommendation into 

consideration and will consult with 

internal scientists on this issue in the 

future; however it does not change our 

isopleths or the number of takes for this 

specific action. We also welcome the 

Commission and its Committee of 

Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals 

to provide guidance on this issue. 

Comment 2: The Commission is 

unsure why NMFS is not implementing 

consistent measures for action 

proponents that plan to conduct similar 

activities (e.g. shutdowns for vibratory 

driving and DTH drilling). The 

Commission recommends that NMFS (1) 

determine whether action proponents 

would be required to implement delay 

or shut-down procedures during use of 

vibratory and down-the-hole hammers 

and (2) require, or refrain from 

requiring, those measures consistently 

for all authorizations involving those 

activities. 

Response: NMFS has confirmed that 

the FAA will be required to implement 

shutdown and delay procedures during 

the use of all construction equipment, 

including vibratory driving and removal 

and DTH drilling. In the future, NMFS 

will ensure consistency across all 

authorizations in our mitigation 

requirements. 

Comment 3: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS share the 

rounding criteria with the Commission 

such that the matter of when rounding 

should occur in the take calculation can 

be resolved in the near future. 

Response: NMFS will share the 

rounding criteria with the Commission 

soon and looks forward to working with 

them in the future to resolve this issue. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

There are five marine mammal 

species that may transit through the 

waters nearby the Project area, and are 

likely to potentially be taken by the 

specified activity. These include the 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), 

harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), killer 

whale (Orcinus orca), and humpback 

whale (Megaptera noviaeangliae). 

Multiple additional marine mammal 

species may occasionally enter Sitka 

sound but are not expected to be present 

in the shallow nearshore waters of the 

action area. 

Sections 3 and 4 of the FAA’s 

application summarize available 

information regarding status and trends, 

distribution and habitat preferences, 

and behavior and life history of the 

potentially affected species. Additional 

information regarding population trends 

and threats may be found in NMFS’s 

Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; 

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

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

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

species/mammals/). 

Table 2 lists all species with expected 

occurrence in Symonds Bay and Sitka 

Sound and summarizes information 

related to the population or stock, 

including potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 

follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). 

PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’s 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
50400 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Notices 

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. 

A detailed description of the of the 

species likely to be affected by the 

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 

41229; August 30, 2017); since that 

time, we are not aware of any changes 

in the status of these species and stocks; 

therefore, detailed descriptions are not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for these 

descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS’ 

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

species/mammals/) for generalized 

species accounts. 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF BIORKA ISLAND

Species Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance (CV, 

Nmin, most recent abundance survey) 2PBR 3 Annual 

M/SI 4

Relative occurrence in 

Symonds Bay and Sitka 

Sound; season of occurrence 

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

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

Harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena).

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

1997).

Undet. 34 Common. 

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

Family Delphinidae (dolphins) 

Killer whale (Orcinus 

orca).

Eastern North Pacific 

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

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

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

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenopteridae 

Humpback whale 5

(Megaptera 

novaeangliae).

Central North Pacific 

stock.

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

2006).

83 24 Likely. 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

Steller sea lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus).

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

2014).

297 236 Common. 

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

2013).

1,645 108 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina).

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

2011).

155 77 Common. 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Yes (Y), No (N), Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a 

strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see footnote 3) or which is determined to be declining 

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

the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks, 

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

abundance estimate is presented; there may be more recent surveys that have not yet been incorporated into the estimate. 3Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP). 4These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g, 

commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or 

range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 5The humpback whales considered under the MMPA to be part of this stock could be from any of two different distinct population segment 

(DPS)s. In Alaska, it would be expected to primarily be whales from the Hawaii DPS but could also be whales from Mexico DPS. 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals and Their 

Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

construction activities for the Project 

have the potential to result in behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the action area. The Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 

FR 41229; August 30, 2017) included a 

discussion of the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals, therefore that information is 

not repeated here; please refer to that 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Notices 50401 

Federal Register notice for that 

information. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which 

informed NMFS’ consideration of both 

the ‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any 

act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level A 

and Level B harassment, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to vibratory and impact 

pile driving and removal and DTH 

drilling, and potential PTS for animals 

that may transit through the Level A 

zones (described below) undetected 

(Table 6). Based on the nature of the 

activity and the anticipated 

effectiveness of the mitigation measures 

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

in detail below in Mitigation Measures 

section), Level A harassment is not 

anticipated; however, a small number of 

takes by Level A harassment is 

authorized for most species as a 

precaution if animals go undetected 

before a shutdown is in place. 

As described previously, no mortality 

or serious injury is anticipated or 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

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

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the take estimate. 

The estimation of marine mammal 

takes typically uses the following 

calculation since site-specific density is 

unavailable: 

Level B exposure estimate = N (number 

of animals) in the area * Number of 

days of noise generating activities. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

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

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

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

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 decibels (dB) re 

1 micropascal (mPa) root mean square 

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

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 

(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. 

The FAA’s Project activities include 

the use of continuous (vibratory pile 

driving and DTH drilling) and 

impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, 

and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) are applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (NMFS 2016) 

identifies dual criteria to assess auditory 

injury (Level A harassment) to five 

different marine mammal groups (based 

on hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). The FAA’s Project activity 

includes the use of impulsive (impact 

pile driving) and non-impulsive 

(vibratory pile driving and DTH drilling) 

sources. 

These thresholds were developed by 

compiling and synthesizing the best 

available science and soliciting input 

multiple times from both the public and 

peer reviewers to inform the final 

product, and are provided in the table 

below. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the thresholds are described in NMFS 

2016 Technical Guidance, which may 

be accessed at: http://

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

guidelines.htm. 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

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

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

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

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

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

1 NMFS 2016 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
50402 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Notices 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds. 

Pile driving and removal and DTH 

drilling generates underwater noise that 

can potentially result in disturbance to 

marine mammals in the Project area. 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * log10(R1/R2), 

Where: 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement. 

This formula neglects loss due to 

scattering and absorption, which is 

assumed to be zero here. The degree to 

which underwater sound propagates 

away from a sound source is dependent 

on a variety of factors, most notably the 

water bathymetry and presence or 

absence of reflective or absorptive 

conditions including in-water structures 

and sediments. Spherical spreading 

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

or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB 

reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance from the source 

(20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading 

occurs in an environment in which 

sound propagation is bounded by the 

water surface and sea bottom, resulting 

in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for 

each doubling of distance from the 

source (10*log[range]). 

Underwater Sound—The intensity of 

pile driving and removal sounds is 

greatly influenced by factors such as the 

type of piles, hammers, and the physical 

environment in which the activity takes 

place. A number of studies, primarily on 

the west coast, have measured sound 

produced during underwater pile 

driving projects. These data are largely 

for impact driving of steel pipe piles 

and concrete piles as well as vibratory 

driving of steel pipe piles. 

JASCO Applied Sciences (JASCO) 

conducted acoustic modeling of pile 

installation and removal activities 

planned for the Project, which is 

included as Appendix A of the FAA’s 

application. To assess potential 

underwater noise exposure of marine 

mammals during construction activities, 

Quijano and Austin (2017) determined 

source levels for six different 

construction scenarios (see Table 1). 

The source levels are frequencydependent and suitable for modeling 

underwater acoustic propagation using 

JASCO’s Marine Operations Noise 

Model (MONM). The modeling 

predicted the extent of ensonification 

and the acoustic footprint from 

construction activities, taking into 

account the effects of pile driving 

equipment, bathymetry, sound speed 

profile, and seabed geoacoustic 

parameters. Auditory weighting was 

applied to the modeled sound fields to 

estimate received levels relative to 

hearing sensitivities of five marine 

mammal hearing groups following 

NMFS 2016 guidance. 

The results are based on currently 

adopted sound level thresholds for 

auditory injury (Level A) expressed as 

peak pressure level (PK) and 24-hr SEL, 

and behavioral disturbance (Level B) 

expressed as sound pressure level (SPL). 

Using these guidelines, Quijano and 

Austin (2017) calculated the maximum 

extent (distance and ensonified areas) of 

the Level A and Level B exposure zones 

for each marine mammal functional 

hearing group. This was calculated for 

both impact and vibratory pile driving 

of 18- and 30-inch (in) piles for each of 

the following six Project scenarios. 

The model required, as input, source 

sound levels in 1⁄3-octave bands between 

10 hertz (Hz) and 25 kilohertz (kHz). 

Source levels for sheet pile and H pile 

installation were obtained from 

literature, but the available 

measurements did not cover the full 

frequency spectrum of interest; data for 

vibratory installation of sheet and H 

piles were available to maximum 

frequencies of 4 kHz and 10 kHz, 

respectively. Modeling of the six 

construction scenarios at the Project site 

on Biorka Island followed three steps: 

1. Piles driven into the sediment by 

impact, vibratory, or downhole drilling 

were characterized as sound-radiating 

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

adjusting source levels found in the 

literature. The exact method to obtain 

the 1⁄3-octave-band levels depends on 

the pile geometry and pile driving 

equipment, and it is described on a 

case-by-case basis (see Appendix A of 

the FAA’s application); 

2. Underwater sound propagation was 

applied to predict how sound 

propagates from the pile into the water 

column as a function of range, depth, 

and azimuthal direction. Propagation 

depends on several conditions 

including the frequency content of the 

sound, the bathymetry, the sound speed 

in the water column, and sediment 

geoacoustics; and 

3. The propagated sound field was 

used to compute received levels over a 

grid of simulated receivers, from which 

distances to criteria thresholds and 

maps of ensonified areas were 

generated. 

Modeled results are presented as 

tables of distances at which SPLs or 

SELs fell below thresholds defined by 

criteria. For marine mammal injury, the 

Level A thresholds considered here 

follow the NMFS guidelines (NMFS 

2016). A detailed description of the 

modeling process is provided in 

Appendix A of the FAA’s IHA 

application. A list of modeling 

parameters, including pile driving 

duration for computation of SEL, are 

provided in Table 1. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Notices 50403 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

At-sea densities for marine mammal 

species have not been determined for 

marine mammals in Sitka Sound; 

therefore, all estimates here are 

determined by using observational data 

from biologists, peer-reviewed 

literature, and information obtained 

from personal communication with 

researchers and state and Federal 

biologists, and from local charter boat 

operators. 

Harbor Seals 

Harbor seals are expected to be in the 

Project area in low numbers (see 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity Section). 

We estimate that up to five harbor seals 

per day may be present in the Project 

area on all days of construction. 

Therefore, we authorize 350 takes by 

Level B harassment. Because the largest 

Level A ZOI for harbor seals is nearly 

1 kilometer (km) (Scenario 6), the FAA 

requests up to 13 harbor seal takes by 

Level A harassment. Level A harassment 

may occur if the animals enter the ZOI 

undetected on half of all days of 

construction in Scenario 6 and one time 

for each of the other five scenarios, and 

marine mammal observers (MMO) are 

not able to request a shutdown prior to 

the seals being exposed to potential 

Level A harassment. 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lion abundance in the 

Project area is dependent on prey 

availability. Prey species are uncommon 

during the Project window; therefore, 

sea lion abundance is expected to be 

low. The FAA estimates that five sea 

lions may be in the Project area every 

day (70 days) of construction, therefore, 

we estimate that 350 sea lions may be 

taken by Level B harassment. We 

estimate that these takes would be split 

equally between the east distinct 

population segment (DPS) and west DPS 

(175 each). The Level A zone is less 

than 10 m for all but Scenario 6, which 

is 80 m; however, to be conservative, the 

FAA is requesting a small group of 

Steller sea lions may be taken by Level 

A harassment. This would equate to six 

total animals if split equally by DPS (3 

each). 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICESEN31OC17.000</GPH>
50404 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Notices 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales are found in Sitka 

Bay seasonally. During mid-summer, 

tour boats generally see four to five 

whales per day, in the middle of Sitka 

Sound. Therefore, a count of 5 

humpback whales per day (70 days) was 

used to estimate takes per day on every 

day of construction for a total of 350 

takes by Level B harassment. All takes 

would be from the Central North Pacific 

stock under the MMPA. For ESA 

purposes, 93.9 percent would be from 

the Hawaii DPS (328 animals) and 6.1 

percent would be from the Mexico stock 

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

The maximum distance at which a 

humpback whale may be exposed to 

noise levels that exceed Level A 

thresholds is 1.4 km during Scenario 6. 

Even though the ensonified area extends 

outside of the entrance to Symonds Bay, 

a MMO stationed near the mouth of the 

bay at Hanus Point would be able to see 

a humpback whale outside Symonds 

Bay before it enters the Level A zone 

and could shut down the noise 

producing activity to avoid Level A 

take. In the unlikely event a whale 

would go undetected and enter the 

Level A zone, the FAA has requested 

three takes by Level A harassment for 

humpback whales. We estimate that all 

three humpback whales would be from 

the Hawaii DPS. 

Killer Whale 

Generally, transient killer whales 

follow the movements of Steller sea 

lions and harbor seals on which they 

prey. Given the low numbers of Steller 

sea lions in Sitka Sound during 

summer, it is consistent that transient 

killer whales would also be rare or 

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

whales were only observed on five or 

six days by the whale watching 

industry). Small groups of 5 to 6 

transient killer whales per day could be 

observed throughout the summer 

months; therefore, we estimate that a 

group of 6 animals could enter the 

Project area on 6 occasions during the 

construction window, for a total of 36 

takes by Level B harassment. No Level 

A takes of killer whales is authorized for 

this species. The maximum linear 

distance to the Level A threshold for 

killer whales is less than 250 meters (m) 

from the source and a MMO would be 

able to observe animals at this distance 

and shut down activities in time to 

avoid Level A take. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoise are expected to occur 

in the Project area in low numbers 

during the construction window. 

Sightings during this time period are 

infrequent; this species is not observed 

every day. The mean group size of 

harbor porpoise in Southeast Alaska 

was estimated to be between 2 to 3 

individuals (Dahlheim et al., 2009); 

therefore, we conservatively estimate 

that a group of three harbor porpoise 

may be present every other day of 

construction for a total of 105 takes by 

Level B harassment. The distances to 

Level A thresholds for harbor porpoise 

(HFC) are largest during impulse driving 

under Scenarios 3, 5, and 6 (see Table 

1), and extend beyond the entrance to 

Symonds Bay. The duration of 

Scenarios 3, 5, and 6 is expected to be 

30 days (see Table 1); therefore, we 

expect that a small group of three harbor 

porpoise may enter the Level A zone on 

half of the days of Scenarios 3, 5, and 

6 (15 days) for a total of 45 takes by 

Level A harassment. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

All estimates are conservative and 

include the following assumptions: 

• All pilings installed at each site 

would have an underwater noise 

disturbance equal to the piling that 

causes the greatest noise disturbance 

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

installed with the method that has the 

ZOI. The largest underwater disturbance 

(Level B) ZOI would be produced by 

DTH drilling; therefore take estimates 

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

threshold are not spherical and are 

truncated by land masses on either side 

of the Project area, which would 

dissipate sound pressure waves. 

• Exposures were based on an 

estimated total of 70 work days. Each 

activity ranges in number of days 

needed to be completed (Table 1). 

• All marine mammal individuals 

potentially available are assumed to be 

present within the relevant area, and 

thus incidentally taken; 

• An individual can only be taken 

once during a 24-hour period; and, 

• Exposures to sound levels at or 

above the relevant thresholds equate to 

take, as defined by the MMPA. 

Estimates of potential instances of 

take may be overestimates of the 

number of individuals taken. In the 

context of stationary activities such as 

pile driving and in areas where resident 

animals may be present, this number 

represents the number of total take that 

may accrue to a smaller number of 

individuals, with some number of 

animals being exposed more than once 

per individual. While pile driving and 

removal can occur any day throughout 

the in-water work window, and the 

analysis is conducted on a per day basis, 

only a fraction of that time (typically a 

matter of hours on any given day) is 

actually spent pile driving/removal. The 

potential effectiveness of mitigation 

measures in reducing the number of 

takes is typically not quantified in the 

take estimation process. For these 

reasons, these take estimates may be 

conservative. 

TABLE 5—CALCULATIONS FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE ESTIMATION

Species 

Takes 

authorized 

by Level A 

harassment 

Takes 

authorized 

by Level B 

harassment 

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

Harbor seal .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 350 

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

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

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

Harbor porpoise ....................................................................................................................................................... 45 105 

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, 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Notices 50405 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of such species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully balance two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat—which 

considers the nature of the potential 

adverse impact being mitigated 

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

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented; and the 

likelihood of effective implementation, 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

The ZOIs were used to develop 

mitigation measures for pile driving and 

removal activities at the Project area. 

The ZOIs effectively represent the 

mitigation zone that would be 

established around each pile to prevent 

Level A harassment to marine 

mammals, while providing estimates of 

the areas within which Level B 

harassment might occur. In addition to 

the specific measures described later in 

this section, the FAA would conduct 

briefings between construction 

supervisors and crews, marine mammal 

monitoring team, and staff prior to the 

start of all pile driving activity, and 

when new personnel join the work, in 

order to explain responsibilities, 

communication procedures, marine 

mammal monitoring protocol, and 

operational procedures. 

Monitoring and Shutdown for 

Construction Activities 

The following measures would apply 

to the FAA’s mitigation through 

shutdown and disturbance zones: 

Shutdown Zone—For all pile driving 

activities, the FAA will establish a 

shutdown zone intended to contain the 

area in which SPLs equal or exceed the 

auditory injury criteria for cetaceans 

and pinnipeds. The purpose of a 

shutdown zone is to define an area 

within which shutdown of activity 

would occur upon sighting of a marine 

mammal (or in anticipation of an animal 

entering the defined area), thus 

preventing injury of marine mammals 

(as described previously under Potential 

Effects of the Specified Activity on 

Marine Mammals, serious injury or 

death are unlikely outcomes even in the 

absence of mitigation measures). 

Modeled radial distances for shutdown 

zones are shown in Table 6. However, 

a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m will 

be established during all pile driving 

activities, regardless of the estimated 

zone; and 

Disturbance Zone—Disturbance zones 

are the areas in which SPLs equal or 

exceed 160 and 120 dB rms (for impulse 

and continuous sound, respectively). 

Disturbance zones provide utility for 

monitoring conducted for mitigation 

purposes (i.e., shutdown zone 

monitoring) by establishing monitoring 

protocols for areas adjacent to the 

shutdown zones. Monitoring of 

disturbance zones enables observers to 

be aware of and communicate the 

presence of marine mammals in the 

Project area but outside the shutdown 

zone and thus prepare for potential 

shutdowns of activity. However, the 

primary purpose of disturbance zone 

monitoring is for documenting instances 

of Level B harassment; disturbance zone 

monitoring is discussed in greater detail 

later (see Monitoring and Reporting 

Measures). Nominal radial distances for 

disturbance zones are shown in Table 6. 

Given the size of the disturbance zone 

for vibratory pile driving and DTH 

drilling, it is impossible to guarantee 

that all animals would be observed or to 

make comprehensive observations of 

fine-scale behavioral reactions to sound, 

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

what may be reasonably observed by 

visual observers stationed between 

Symonds Bay and Sitka Sound) would 

be observed. In order to document 

observed instances of harassment, 

monitors record all marine mammal 

observations, regardless of location. The 

observer’s location, as well as the 

location of the pile being driven, is 

known from a GPS. The location of the 

animal is estimated as a distance from 

the observer, which is then compared to 

the location from the pile. It may then 

be estimated whether the animal was 

exposed to sound levels constituting 

incidental harassment on the basis of 

predicted distances to relevant 

thresholds in post-processing of 

observational and acoustic data, and a 

precise accounting of observed 

incidences of harassment created. This 

information may then be used to 

extrapolate observed takes to reach an 

approximate understanding of actual 

total takes. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
50406 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Notices 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Monitoring Protocols—Monitoring 

would be conducted before, during, and 

after pile driving and vibratory removal 

activities. In addition, observers shall 

record all instances of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and shall document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from piles being driven. 

Observations made outside the 

shutdown zone will not result in 

shutdown; that pile segment would be 

completed without cessation, unless the 

animal approaches or enters the 

shutdown zone, at which point all pile 

driving activities would be halted. 

Monitoring will take place from 30 

minutes prior to initiation through 30 

minutes post-completion of pile driving 

and removal activities. Pile driving 

activities include the time to install or 

remove a single pile or series of piles, 

as long as the time elapsed between uses 

of the pile driving equipment is no more 

than 30 minutes. Please see Section 11 

of the FAA’s application 

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

incidental/construction.htm), for the 

FAA’s monitoring protocols. 

The following additional measures 

apply to visual monitoring: 

(1) Monitoring will be conducted by 

qualified observers, who will be placed 

at the best vantage point(s) practicable 

to monitor for marine mammals and 

implement shutdown/delay procedures 

when applicable by calling for the 

shutdown to the hammer operator. A 

minimum of two observers will be 

required for all pile driving/removal 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICESEN31OC17.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Notices 50407 

activities. MMO requirements for 

construction actions are as follows: 

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

construction personnel) are required; 

(b) At least one observer must have 

prior experience working as an observer; 

(c) Other observers (that do not have 

prior experience) may substitute 

education (undergraduate degree in 

biological science or related field) or 

training for experience; 

(d) Where a team of three or more 

observers are required, one observer 

should be designated as lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator. The lead 

observer must have prior experience 

working as an observer; and 

(e) NMFS will require submission and 

approval of observer resumes. 

(2) Qualified MMOs are trained 

biologists, and need the following 

additional minimum qualifications: 

(a) Visual acuity in both eyes 

(correction is permissible) sufficient for 

discernment of moving targets at the 

water’s surface with ability to estimate 

target size and distance; use of 

binoculars may be necessary to correctly 

identify the target; 

(b) Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

(c) Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

(d) Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

(e) Writing skills sufficient to prepare 

a report of observations including but 

not limited to the number and species 

of marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were suspended to avoid 

potential incidental injury from 

construction sound of marine mammals 

observed within a defined shutdown 

zone; and marine mammal behavior; 

and 

(f) Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

(3) Prior to the start of pile driving 

activity, the shutdown zone will be 

monitored for 30 minutes to ensure that 

it is clear of marine mammals. Pile 

driving will only commence once 

observers have declared the shutdown 

zone clear of marine mammals; animals 

will be allowed to remain in the 

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

own volition) and their behavior will be 

monitored and documented. The 

shutdown zone may only be declared 

clear, and pile driving started, when the 

entire shutdown zone is visible (i.e., 

when not obscured by dark, rain, fog, 

etc.). In addition, if such conditions 

should arise during impact pile driving 

that is already underway, the activity 

would be halted. 

(4) If a marine mammal approaches or 

enters the shutdown zone during the 

course of pile driving operations, 

activity will be halted and delayed until 

either (A) the animal has voluntarily left 

and been visually confirmed beyond the 

shutdown zone, (B) 15 minutes have 

passed without re-detection of small 

cetaceans and pinnipeds, or (C) 30 

minutes have passed without redetection of large cetaceans, whichever 

happens sooner. Monitoring will be 

conducted throughout the time required 

to drive a pile. 

(5) If a species for which 

authorization has not been granted, or a 

species for which authorization has 

been granted but the authorized takes 

are met, approaches or is observed 

within the Level B harassment zone, 

activities will shut down immediately 

using delay and shut-down procedures. 

Activities will not restart until the 

animals have been confirmed to have 

left the area. 

Soft Start 

The use of a soft start procedure is 

believed to provide additional 

protection to marine mammals by 

warning or providing a chance to leave 

the area prior to the hammer operating 

at full capacity, and typically involves 

a requirement to initiate sound from the 

hammer at reduced energy followed by 

a waiting period. This procedure is 

repeated two additional times. It is 

difficult to specify the reduction in 

energy for any given hammer because of 

variation across drivers and, for impact 

hammers, the actual number of strikes at 

reduced energy will vary because 

operating the hammer at less than full 

power results in ‘‘bouncing’’ of the 

hammer as it strikes the pile, resulting 

in multiple ‘‘strikes.’’ For impact 

driving, we require an initial set of three 

strikes from the impact hammer at 

reduced energy, followed by a 30- 

second waiting period, then 2 

subsequent 3 strike sets. Soft start will 

be required at the beginning of each 

day’s impact pile driving work and at 

any time following a cessation of impact 

pile driving of 30 minutes or longer. 

Noise Attenuating Devices 

The FAA will use cushions during 

impact pile driving. 

Timing Restrictions 

The FAA will only conduct 

construction activities during daytime 

hours. Construction will also be 

restricted to the months of May through 

September to avoid overlap with times 

when marine mammals have higher 

densities in the Project area. 

We have carefully evaluated the 

FAA’s mitigation measures and 

considered their effectiveness in past 

implementation to determine whether 

they are likely to effect the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

marine mammal species and stocks and 

their habitat. 

Any mitigation measure(s) we 

prescribe should be able to accomplish, 

have a reasonable likelihood of 

accomplishing (based on current 

science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed below: 

(1) Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may 

contribute to this goal); 

(2) A reduction in the number (total 

number or number at biologically 

important time or location) of 

individual marine mammals exposed to 

stimuli expected to result in incidental 

take (this goal may contribute to 1, 

above, or to reducing takes by 

behavioral harassment only); 

(3) A reduction in the number (total 

number or number at biologically 

important time or location) of times any 

individual marine mammal would be 

exposed to stimuli expected to result in 

incidental take (this goal may contribute 

to 1, above, or to reducing takes by 

behavioral harassment only); 

(4) A reduction in the intensity of 

exposure to stimuli expected to result in 

incidental take (this goal may contribute 

to 1, above, or to reducing the severity 

of behavioral harassment only); 

(5) Avoidance or minimization of 

adverse effects to marine mammal 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

the prey base, blockage or limitation of 

passage to or from biologically 

important areas, permanent destruction 

of habitat, or temporary disturbance of 

habitat during a biologically important 

time; and 

(6) For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation, an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation. 

Based on our evaluation of the FAA’s 

measures, as well as any other potential 

measures considered by NMFS, NMFS 

has determined that the mitigation 

measures provide the means of effecting 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
50408 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Notices 

the least practicable impact on marine 

mammal species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting Measures 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the action area. Effective 

reporting is critical to both compliance 

and ensuring that the most value is 

obtained from the required monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species in action area (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) population, 

species, or stock; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Marine Mammal Observations 

The FAA will collect sighting data 

and behavioral responses to 

construction for marine mammal 

species observed in the region of 

activity during the period of activity. All 

MMOs will be trained in marine 

mammal identification and behaviors 

and are required to have no other 

construction-related tasks while 

conducting monitoring. A minimum of 

two MMOs will be required for all pile 

driving/removal activities. The FAA 

will monitor the shutdown zone and 

disturbance zone before, during, and 

after pile driving, with observers located 

at the best practicable vantage points. 

Based on our requirements, the FAA 

would implement the following 

procedures for pile driving and removal: 

• MMOs would be located at the best 

vantage point(s) in order to properly see 

the entire shutdown zone and as much 

of the disturbance zone as possible; 

• During all observation periods, 

observers will use binoculars and the 

naked eye to search continuously for 

marine mammals; 

• If the shutdown zones are obscured 

by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile 

driving at that location will not be 

initiated until that zone is visible. 

Should such conditions arise while 

driving, removal, or drilling is 

underway, the activity would be halted; 

and 

• The shutdown and disturbance 

zones around the pile will be monitored 

for the presence of marine mammals 

before, during, and after any pile driving 

or removal activity. 

Data Collection 

We require that observers use 

approved data forms. Among other 

pieces of information, the FAA will 

record detailed information about any 

implementation of shutdowns, 

including the distance of animals to the 

pile and description of specific actions 

that ensued and resulting behavior of 

the animal, if any. In addition, the FAA 

will attempt to distinguish between the 

number of individual animals taken and 

the number of incidences of take. We 

require that, at a minimum, the 

following information be collected on 

the sighting forms: 

• Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period; 

• Weather parameters (e.g., percent 

cover, visibility); 

• Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tide state); 

• Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

sex and age class of marine mammals; 

• Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 

including bearing and direction of 

travel, and if possible, the correlation to 

SPLs; 

• Distance from pile driving or 

removal activities to marine mammals 

and distance from the marine mammals 

to the observation point; 

• Description of implementation of 

mitigation measures (e.g., shutdown or 

delay); 

• Locations of all marine mammal 

observations; and 

• Other human activity in the area. 

Sound Source Verification 

The SSV will establish source levels 

for impact pile driving, vibratory pile 

driving, and DTH drilling. The FAA will 

provide all monitoring data to NMFS. 

The reports would include the following 

information: 

1. Size and type of piles; 

2. A detailed description of the noise 

attenuation device, including design 

specifications; 

3. The impact hammer energy rating 

used to drive the piles, and the make 

and model of the hammer and the 

output energy; 

4. The physical characteristics of the 

bottom substrate into which the piles 

were driven; 

5. The depth of water into which the 

pile was driven; 

6. The depth into the substrate into 

which the pile was driven; 

7. A description of the sound 

monitoring equipment; 

8. The distance between hydrophones 

and pile; 

9. The depth of the hydrophones and 

depth of water at hydrophone locations; 

10. The distance from the pile to the 

water’s edge; 

11. The total number of strikes to 

drive each pile and for all piles driven 

during a 24-hour period; 

12. The results of the hydroacoustic 

monitoring; 

13. Source levels for peak and RMS 

SPLs and single strike SEL at 10 m from 

the pile, and RMS pulse duration that 

contains 90 percent of pulse energy. 

14. The distance at which peak, 

cumulative SEL, and RMS values 

exceed the respective threshold values; 

15. For vibratory pile driving, SEL 

based on 30 second averaging of sound 

intensity; 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Notices 50409 

16. The spectragraphs for each pile 

type; and 

17. A description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior in the 

immediate area and, if possible, 

correlation to underwater sound levels 

occurring at that time. 

A minimum of two piles of the 18-in 

and two piles of the 30-in piles for each 

construction type (i.e. impact and 

vibratory pile driving and DTH drilling) 

will be monitored. Piles chosen to be 

monitored will be representative of the 

different sizes and range of typical water 

depths at the project location where 

piles will be driven with an impact or 

vibratory hammer. 

One bottom-mounted hydrophone 

will be placed at the nearest distance, 

approximately 10 meters, from each pile 

being monitored. An additional 

hydrophone will be placed at mid-water 

depth at a distance of 100 to 200 m from 

the pile to provide two sound-level 

readings during ambient and pile 

driving conditions. A third hydrophone 

may be deployed at a greater distance 

(e.g., 1–2 km or further) for the purpose 

of better defining the long-distance 

sound propagation. Underwater sound 

levels will be continuously monitored 

during the entire duration of each pile 

being driven. Sound levels will be 

measured in dB re: 1 mPa. 

Reporting 

A draft report will be submitted to 

NMFS within 90 days of the completion 

of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 

days prior to the requested date of 

issuance of any future IHA for projects 

at the same location, whichever comes 

first. The report will include marine 

mammal observations pre-activity, 

during-activity, and post-activity during 

pile driving and removal days, and will 

also provide descriptions of any 

behavioral responses to construction 

activities by marine mammals and a 

complete description of all mitigation 

shutdowns and the results of those 

actions and an extrapolated total take 

estimate based on the number of marine 

mammals observed during the course of 

construction. A final report must be 

submitted within 30 days following 

resolution of comments on the draft 

report. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determinations 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). To avoid 

repetition, because the expected impacts 

to marine mammals of the affected 

species and stocks are similar (and we 

have no information to suggest 

otherwise), our discussion here applies 

to each of them. 

Pile driving and removal activities 

associated with the dock replacement 

Project, as outlined previously, have the 

potential to disturb or displace marine 

mammals. Specifically, the specified 

activities may result in take, in the form 

of Level A and Level B harassment (PTS 

and behavioral disturbance), from 

underwater sounds generated from pile 

driving and removal. Potential takes 

could occur if individuals of these 

species are present in the ensonified 

zone when pile driving and removal 

occurs. Most of the Level A takes are 

precautionary as marine mammals are 

not expected to enter and stay in the 

Level A ensonified area for the duration 

needed to incur PTS. However, if all 

authorized takes be Level A harassment 

were to occur, they would be of small 

numbers compared to the stock sizes 

and would not adversely affect the stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. Additionally, 

the FAA’s mitigation measures, 

including a shutdown of construction 

activities if animals enter the Level A 

zone, further reduces the chance for PTS 

in marine mammals. Therefore, the 

effects to marine mammals are expected 

to be negligible. 

No temporary threshold shift (TTS), 

serious injury, or mortality is 

anticipated given the nature of the 

activities and measures designed to 

minimize the possibility of injury to 

marine mammals. The potential for 

these outcomes is minimized through 

the construction method and the 

implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures. Specifically, 

vibratory and impact hammers and 

drilling will be the primary methods of 

installation. Impact pile driving 

produces short, sharp pulses with 

higher peak levels and much sharper 

rise time to reach those peaks. If impact 

driving is necessary, implementation of 

soft start and shutdown zones 

significantly reduces any possibility of 

injury. Given sufficient ‘‘notice’’ 

through use of soft start (for impact 

driving), marine mammals are expected 

to move away from a sound source that 

is annoying prior to it becoming 

potentially injurious, however, as noted 

previously a small number of potential 

takes by PTS are authorized and have 

been analyzed. The FAA will use a 

minimum of two MMOs stationed 

strategically to increase detectability of 

marine mammals, enabling a high rate 

of success in implementation of 

shutdowns to avoid injury. 

The FAA’s Project activities are 

localized and of relatively short 

duration (a maximum of 70 days for pile 

driving and removal). The entire Project 

area is limited to Symonds Bay and into 

Sitka Sound for some scenarios. These 

localized and short-term noise 

exposures may cause short-term 

behavioral modifications in harbor 

seals, Steller sea lions, harbor porpoises, 

killer whales, and humpback whales. 

Moreover, the mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

reduce the likelihood of injury. 

Additionally, no important feeding and/ 

or reproductive areas for marine 

mammals of any of these species/stocks 

are known to be within the ensonified 

area during the construction window. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment, on the basis of 

reports in the literature as well as 

monitoring from other similar activities, 

will likely be limited to reactions such 

as increased swimming speeds, 

increased surfacing time, or decreased 

foraging (if such activity were occurring) 

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

2014). Significant behavioral 

modifications that could potentially 

lead to effects on growth, survival, or 

reproduction are not expected to occur 

given the short duration and small scale 

of the project activities. Most likely, 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
50410 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Notices 

individuals will simply move away 

from the sound source and be 

temporarily displaced from the areas of 

pile driving and drilling, although even 

this reaction has been observed 

primarily only in association with 

impact pile driving. Thus, even repeated 

Level B harassment of some small 

subset of the overall stock is unlikely to 

result in any significant realized 

decrease in fitness for the affected 

individuals, and thus would not result 

in any adverse impact to the stock as a 

whole. Non-auditory physiological 

effects and masking are not expected to 

occur from the FAA’s Project activities. 

The Project also is not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitat. The 

Project activities would not modify 

existing marine mammal habitat for a 

significant amount of time. The 

activities may cause some fish to leave 

the area of disturbance, thus temporarily 

impacting marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities in a limited portion of the 

foraging range. However, because of the 

short duration of the activities and the 

relatively small area of the habitat that 

may be affected, and the decreased 

potential of prey species to be in the 

Project area during the construction 

work window, the impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term negative 

consequences. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stocks through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• Level B harassment may consist of, 

at worst, temporary modifications in 

behavior (e.g. temporary avoidance of 

habitat or changes in behavior); 

• The lack of important feeding, 

pupping, or other areas in the action 

area during the construction window; 

• Mitigation is expected to minimize 

the likelihood and severity of the level 

of harassment; and 

• The small percentage of the species/ 

stock that may be affected by Project 

activities (<15 percent for all species/ 

stocks). 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the FAA’s 

construction activities will have a 

negligible impact on the affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

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

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers and so, 

in practice, where estimated numbers 

are available, NMFS compares the 

number of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

Table 7 details the number of 

instances that animals could be exposed 

to received noise levels that could cause 

Level A and Level B harassment for the 

planned work at the Project site relative 

to the total stock abundance. The 

numbers of animals authorized to be 

taken for each species or stock is 

considered small relative to the relevant 

species or stock size even if each 

estimated instance of take occurred to a 

new individual. The total percent of the 

population (if each instance was a 

separate individual) for which take is 

requested is less than 15 percent for 

each stock (Table 7). For pinnipeds, 

especially harbor seals occurring in the 

vicinity of the Project area, there will 

almost certainly be some overlap in 

individuals present day-to-day, and the 

number of individuals taken is expected 

to be notably lower. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the Project activities 

(including the mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS finds that small numbers of 

marine mammals will be taken relative 

to the population size of the affected 

species or stocks. 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE OF STOCK THAT MAY BE EXPOSED TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT

Species Authorized 

Level A takes 

Authorized 

Level B takes 

Stock(s) 

abundance 

estimate 1

Percentage of 

total stock 

(percent) 

Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina): 

Sitka/Chatham stock ................................................................................. 13 350 14,855 2.44 

Steller sea lion (Eumatopias jubatus): 

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

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

Killer whale (Orcinus orca): 

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

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

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

Humpback whale (Megaptera noviaengliae): 

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

Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena): 

Southeast Alaska Stock ........................................................................... 45 105 11,146 1.34 

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

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must 

find that the specified activity will not 

have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ 

on the subsistence uses of the affected 

marine mammal species or stocks by 

Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as: an impact resulting from the 

specified activity: (1) That is likely to 

reduce the availability of the species to 

a level insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Notices 50411 

hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing 

subsistence users; or (iii) Placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; 

and (2) That cannot be sufficiently 

mitigated by other measures to increase 

the availability of marine mammals to 

allow subsistence needs to be met. 

Harbor seals and Steller sea lions are 

subsistence harvested in Alaska. During 

2012, the estimated subsistence take of 

harbor seals in southeast Alaska was 

595 seals with 49 of these taken near 

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

lowest number of seals taken since 1992 

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

the decline in subsistence hunting 

pressure over the years as well as a 

decrease in efficiency per hunter (Wolf 

et al., 2013). 

The peak hunting season in southeast 

Alaska occurs during the month of 

November and again over the March to 

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

This corresponds to times when seals 

are aggregated in shoal areas as they 

prey on forage species such as herring, 

making them easier to find and hunt. 

The Project is in an area where 

subsistence hunting for harbor seals or 

sea lions could occur (Wolfe et al., 

2013), but the location is not preferred 

for hunting. There is little to no hunting 

documented in the vicinity and there 

are no harvest quotas for non-listed 

marine mammals. For these reasons and 

the fact that Project activities would 

occur outside of the primary subsistence 

hunting seasons, there would be no 

impact on subsistence activities or on 

the availability of marine mammals for 

subsistence use. 

To satisfy requirements under Section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, R&M Consultants, Inc. 

reached out to the Sitka Tribe of Alaska, 

Central Council of the Tlingit and 

Haida, and Sealaska regarding cultural 

resources in 2016. No issues or concerns 

with the Project were raised during this 

effort. 

Based on the description of the 

specified activity, the measures 

described to minimize adverse effects 

on the availability of marine mammals 

for subsistence purposes, and the 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS has determined that there will 

not be an unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from the FAA’s 

activities. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the Alaska Regional Office, 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

NMFS is authorizing take of two DPSs 

(i.e., western DPS of Steller sea lions 

and Mexico DPS of humpback whales), 

which are listed under the ESA. The 

Permit and Conservation Division 

requested initiation of Section 7 

consultation with the Alaska Region for 

the issuance of this IHA. The NMFS 

Alaska Regional Office Protected 

Resources Division issued a Biological 

Opinion in October, 2017 under section 

7 of the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA 

to the FAA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of 

the MMPA by the NMFS Permits and 

Conservation Division. The Biological 

Opinion concluded that the proposed 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of western DPS 

Steller sea lions or Mexico DPS of 

humpback whales, and is not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify western 

DPS Steller sea lion critical habitat. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to the FAA 

for the potential harassment of small 

numbers of five marine mammal species 

incidental to the Biorka Island dock 

replacement project in Sitka, AK, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: October 25, 2017. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23563 Filed 10–30–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF803 

Western Pacific Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will 

hold its 172nd meeting by 

teleconference and webinar to discuss 

and make recommendations on fishery 

management issues in the Western 

Pacific Region. 

DATES: The Council will meet on 

November 15, 2017, between 2 p.m. and 

5 p.m. (Hawaii Standard Time (HST)); 1 

and 4 p.m. (American Samoa Standard 

Time (ASST)); and November 16, 2017, 

between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. (Marianas 

Standard Time (MST)). All times listed 

are local island times. For specific time 

and agenda, see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held by 

teleconference and webinar. The 

teleconference numbers are: U.S. tollfree: 1 (888) 482–3560, International 

Access: +1 (647) 723–3959, and Access 

Code: 5228220. The webinar can be 

accessed at: https://wprfmc.webex.com/ 

join/info.wpcouncilnoaa.gov. 

The following venues will also be 

host sites for the teleconference: Council 

Conference Room, 1164 Bishop Street, 

Suite 1400, Honolulu, Hawaii; Land 

Grant Conference Room, American 

Samoa Community College, Agriculture, 

Community and Natural Resources, 

Mapusaga Road, Malaeimi Village, 

American Samoa; Guam Hilton Resort 

and SPA, 202 Hilton Road, Tumon Bay, 

Guam; Department of Land and Natural 

Resources Conference Room, Santa 

Remedio Drive, Lower Base, Saipan, 

MP. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; 

telephone: (808) 522–8220. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public 

comment opportunity will be provided 

in the agenda. The order in which 

agenda items are addressed may change. 

The meeting will run as late as 

necessary to complete scheduled 

business. Written comments must be 

received by November 10, 2017. 

Background documents will be available 

from, and written comments should be 

sent to, Kitty M. Simonds, Executive 

Director; Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 1164 Bishop 

Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813; 

phone: (808) 522–8220 or fax: (808) 

522–8226. 

Schedule and Agenda for the 172nd 

Council Meeting 

2 p.m.–5 p.m., Wednesday, November 

15 (HST); 1 p.m.–4 p.m., Wednesday, 

November 15, 2016 (ASST); 10 a.m.– 

1 p.m., Thursday, November 16, 2016 

(MST) 

1. Welcome and Introductions 

2. Review and Approval of the 172nd 

Agenda 

3. Modifying the Swordfish Trip Limit 

in the American Samoa Longline 

Fishery (Final Action) 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES