50628 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices 

information provided in the ADDRESSES

section. NIST will then provide each 

interested party with a letter of interest 

template, which the party must 

complete and submit to NIST. Each 

party’s letter of interest must include 

the following information: 

1. Whether the LTS to be tested is 

commercially available now or at an 

advanced productization stages so that 

it would be commercially available by 

the end of 2018. 

2. Market the indoor LTS is targeting. 

3. Given that large buildings will be 

used for testing, whether the number of 

units available to install in these 

buildings is sufficient for the system to 

go through a suite of tests, one building 

at a time. (As a point of information, the 

largest building to be used for testing 

covers 100,000 square feet of space.) 

4. The willingness and ability to send 

an adequate number of staff members to 

install and uninstall the indoor LTS in 

test buildings and operate the 

equipment to administer the tests under 

NIST supervision for a period of about 

3 days. If for any reason a LTS runs into 

technical problems and cannot complete 

the tests in each building in the allotted 

time slot, NIST has designated the last 

two days of the week as ‘‘make-up 

days’’, where tests that were not 

completed in their allotted time slots 

can be redone. NIST will not be 

responsible for shipping equipment to 

NIST and back to your company. 

5. Willingness to provide all data form 

T&E activities to the NIST Consortium 

Manager for purposes of this project. 

6. A statement regarding whether the 

LTS requires deployment of equipment 

inside/outside a building in order to be 

tested; please specify the types of 

equipment that need to be deployed and 

how many per every 10,000 square feet 

of space. 

7. If the LTS uses RF technology, 

please specify the frequency band(s) and 

power levels the LTS uses. 

8. Whether the installation, 

uninstallation, or operation of the LTS 

is likely to cause damage of any type to 

the buildings or furnishing during 

testing. 

Letters of interest may be submitted to 

the LTS Testing Consortium Manager 

electronically using the email address 

provided in the ADDRESSES section. 

Letters of interest must include the 

name of the organization and the name 

and contact information for an official 

representing the organization. Letters of 

interest must not include any 

confidential information. NIST will not 

treat any information provided in the 

letters of interest as confidential or 

proprietary. NIST will review the letters 

of interest from each organization 

received prior to the closing date 

provided in the DATES section. 

Eligibility will be determined based on 

the information provided by the 

organization in response to the above 

request for specific information. NIST 

will notify an applicant in writing of its 

eligibility to participate in the LTS 

Testing Consortium. To participate, the 

eligible applicant will be required to 

sign a Cooperative Research and 

Development Agreement (CRADA) with 

NIST. Each participant’s CRADA will 

have identical terms and conditions that 

are consistent with the requirements of 

Title 15, United States Code, Chapter 

63, Section 3710a (Cooperative Research 

and Development Agreements). NIST 

does not guarantee participation or any 

other collaboration to any organization 

submitting a Letter of Interest. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 3710a. 

Kevin Kimball, 

Chief of Staff. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23807 Filed 10–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF574 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to U.S. 101/ 

Chehalis River Bridge—Scour Repair 

in Washington State 

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 we have issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to 

Washington State Department of 

Transportation (WSDOT) to take small 

numbers of marine mammals, by 

harassment, incidental to U.S. 101/ 

Chehalis River Bridge—Scour Repair in 

Washington State. 

DATES: This authorization is valid from 

July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Guan, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as the 

issued IHA, 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 

Issuance of an MMPA 101(a)(5)(D) 

authorization requires compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act. 

NMFS determined the issuance of the 

proposed IHA is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in CE 

B4 (issuance of incidental harassment 

authorizations under section 

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

which no serious injury or mortality is 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices 50629 

anticipated) of the Companion Manual 

for NAO 216–6A and we have not 

identified any extraordinary 

circumstances listed in Chapter 4 of the 

Companion Manual for NAO 216–6A 

that would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. 

Summary of Request 

NMFS received a request from 

WSDOT for an IHA to take marine 

mammals incidental to U.S. 101/ 

Chehalis River Bridge—Scour Repair in 

the State of Washington. WSDOT’s 

request was for harassment only and 

NMFS concurs that serious injury or 

mortality is not expected to result from 

this activity. Therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

In November 2016, WSDOT submitted 

a request to NMFS requesting an IHA for 

the possible harassment of small 

numbers of marine mammal species 

incidental to U.S. 101/Chehalis River 

Bridge-Scour Repair in Washington 

State, between July 16 to September 30, 

2018. WSDOT subsequently updated its 

project scope and submitted a revised 

IHA application on July 5, 2017. NMFS 

determined the IHA application was 

complete on July 14, 2017. NMFS issued 

an IHA to WSDOT to take by Level B 

harassment of the following marine 

mammal species: Harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina); California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus); Steller sea lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus); gray whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus); and harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

WSDOT is proposing to repair an area 

of scour associated with Pier 14 of the 

U.S. 101 Chehalis River Bridge (Figures 

1–3 and 1–4 in the IHA application). 

The bridge foundation at Pier 14 is 

‘‘scour critical’’ due to the bridge 

foundation being unstable for calculated 

scour depths. The southwest quadrant 

of Pier 14 is undermined by scour void 

as much as 8 feet deep, and some of the 

untreated timber pilings have been 

directly exposed to river/estuary water 

since 2008. Marine borers may weaken 

enough pilings to require more 

extensive pier repair if this project is not 

built in the near future. In addition, the 

footing and seal are exposed at the other 

three quadrants of Pier 14. 

The purpose of the U.S. 101/Chehalis 

River Bridge Project is to make the 

bridge foundation stable for calculated 

scour depths, protect the foundation 

from further scour by removing debris, 

filling the scour void under Pier 14 with 

cementitious material (to protect the 

pilings from marine borers), and filling 

the scour hole and protecting the pier 

with scour resistant material. 

Dates and Duration 

Due to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) in-water 

work timing restrictions to protect ESAlisted salmonids, planned WSDOT inwater construction is limited each year 

to July 16 through February 15. For this 

project, in-water construction is 

planned to take place between July 16 

to September 30, 2018. The total worstcase time for pile installation and 

removal is 50 hours over 12 days (Table 

1). 

Specified Geographic Region 

The U.S. 101 Chehalis River Bridge is 

located in the City of Aberdeen, Grays 

Harbor County, Washington (Figure 1–1 

in the IHA application). The bridge is 

located in Township 17 North, Range 9 

West, Section 9, where the Chehalis 

River enters Grays Harbor. Land use in 

the Aberdeen area is a mix of 

residential, commercial, industrial, and 

open space and/or undeveloped lands 

(Figure 1–2 in the IHA application). 

Detailed Description of In-Water Pile 

Driving Associated With the U.S. 101 

Chehalis River Bridge Repair Project 

The proposed project involves noise 

production that may affect marine 

mammals: Vibratory hammer driving 

and removal. Details of the pile driving 

and pile removal activities are provided 

in the Federal Register notice (82 FR 

37426; August 10, 2017) for the 

proposed IHA and is summarized in 

Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF IN-WATER PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL DURATIONS

Method Pile type Pile size 

(inch) Pile No. 

Duration 

(min) 

per pile 

Duration 

(days) 

Vibratory driving ................................ Steel H pile ...................................... 12 6 30 1 

Vibratory driving ................................ Sheet pile ......................................... ........................ 44 30 5 

Vibratory removal .............................. Steel H pile ...................................... 12 6 30 1 

Vibratory removal .............................. Sheet pile ......................................... ........................ 44 30 5 

Total ........................................... .......................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 12 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA was published in the Federal 

Register on August 10, 2017 (82 FR 

37426). During the 30-day public 

comment period, NMFS received a 

comment letter from the Marine 

Mammal Commission (Commission). No 

other comments were received. Specific 

comments and responses are provided 

below. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS (1) determine 

whether action proponents would be 

required to implement delay or shutdown procedures for vibratory pile 

driving and removal and (2) include 

standard mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures consistently for all 

authorizations involving those actions. 

Response: As stated in the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 

FR 37426, August 10, 2017), WSDOT is 

required to implement delay and 

shutdown measures if a marine mammal 

is detected to approach the exclusion 

zone. The language is further clarified 

that after a shutdown measure, the 

construction cannot be resumed until 

the animal is seen leaving the exclusion 

zone, or 30 minutes have passed since 

the last sight of the animal within the 

zone. These measures are consistent 

with all authorizations involving inwater pile driving. 

Comment 2: The Commission states 

that the method NMFS used to estimate 

the numbers of takes during the 

proposed activities, which summed 

fractions of takes for each species across 

project days, does not account for and 

negates the intent of NMFS’s 24-hour 

reset policy. The Commission states that 

it noted NMFS developed criteria 

associated with rounding and 

recommend that NMFS share these with 

the Commission. 

Response: While for certain projects 

NMFS has rounded to the whole 

number for daily takes, for projects like 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
50630 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices 

this one, when the objective of take 

estimation is to provide more accurate 

assessments of potential impacts to 

marine mammals for the entire project, 

rounding in the middle of a calculation 

would introduce large errors into the 

process. In addition, while NMFS uses 

a 24-hour reset for its take calculation to 

ensure that individual animals are not 

counted as a take more than once per 

day, that fact does not make the 

calculation and subsequent rounding of 

take across the entire activity period 

inherently incorrect. There is no need 

for daily (24-hour) rounding in this case 

because there is no daily limit of takes, 

as long as total authorized takes of 

marine mammal are not exceeded. 

NMFS is working on general guidance 

for take calculation and will share it 

with the Commission in the near future. 

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 

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 

applications, as well as to NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR; 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/), instead of 

reprinting all of the information here. 

Additional 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/), or in the U.S. Navy’s 

Marine Resource Assessments (MRA) 

for relevant operating areas. The MRAs 

are available online at: 

www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and_

services/ev/products_and_services/ 

marine_resources/marine_resource_

assessments.html. Table 2 lists all 

species with expected potential for 

occurrence in Chehalis Bridge project 

area 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. 

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. 

Five species (with five managed 

stocks) are considered to have the 

potential to co-occur with the proposed 

construction activities. All values 

presented in Table 2 are the most recent 

available at the time of publication and 

are available in the 2015 SARs (Carretta 

et al., 2016) and draft 2016 SARs 

(available online at: 

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

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS WITH POTENTIAL PRESENCE WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock 

abundance 

(CV, Nmin, 

most recent 

abundance 

survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae 

Gray whale ........................... Eschrichtius robustus .......... Eastern North Pacific .......... N 20,990 624 132 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

Harbor porpoise ................... Phocoena phocoena ........... Washington inland waters ... N 11,233 66 7.2 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

California sea lion ................ Zalophus californianus ........ U.S ...................................... N 296,750 9,200 389 

Steller sea lion ..................... Eumetopias jubatus ............. Eastern U.S. ........................ N 71,562 2,498 108 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor seal ........................... Phoca vitulina ...................... Washington northern inland 

waters.

N 4 11,036 1,641 43 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is 

not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct 

human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. 

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

estimate of stock abundance. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., 

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

range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 4 Harbor seal estimate is based on data that are 8 years old, but this is the best available information for use here. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices 50631 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section later in this 

document will include a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination’’ section 

will consider the content of this section, 

the ‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section, and the 

‘‘Mitigation’’ section, to draw 

conclusions regarding the likely impacts 

of these activities on the reproductive 

success or survivorship of individuals 

and how those impacts on individuals 

are likely to impact marine mammal 

species or stocks. 

Potential impacts to marine mammals 

from the proposed US 101/Chehalis 

Bridge repair project are from noise 

generated during in-water pile driving 

and pile removal activities. 

Acoustic Effects 

Here, we first provide background 

information on marine mammal hearing 

before discussing the potential effects of 

the use of active acoustic sources on 

marine mammals. 

Marine Mammal Hearing—Hearing is 

the most important sensory modality for 

marine mammals underwater, and 

exposure to anthropogenic sound can 

have deleterious effects. To 

appropriately assess the potential effects 

of exposure to sound, it is necessary to 

understand the frequency ranges marine 

mammals are able to hear. Current data 

indicate that not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok 

and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 

2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. 

(2007) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into functional 

hearing groups based on directly 

measured or estimated hearing ranges 

on the basis of available behavioral 

response data, audiograms derived 

using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (note 

that these frequency ranges correspond 

to the range for the composite group, 

with the entire range not necessarily 

reflecting the capabilities of every 

species within that group): 

• Low-frequency cetaceans 

(mysticetes): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hertz (Hz) and 35 

kilohertz (kHz), with best hearing 

estimated to be from 100 Hz to 8 kHz; 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger 

toothed whales, beaked whales, and 

most delphinids): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, 

with best hearing from 10 to less than 

100 kHz; 

• High-frequency cetaceans 

(porpoises, river dolphins, and members 

of the genera Kogia and 

Cephalorhynchus; including two 

members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, 

on the basis of recent echolocation data 

and genetic data): Generalized hearing 

is estimated to occur between 

approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz. 

• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between approximately 50 Hz 

to 86 kHz, with best hearing between 1– 

50 kHz; 

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae 

(eared seals): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 

39 kHz, with best hearing between 2–48 

kHz. 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2016) for a review of 

available information. Five marine 

mammal species (2 cetacean and 3 

pinniped (2 otariid and 1 phocid) 

species) have the reasonable potential to 

co-occur with the proposed construction 

activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the 

cetacean species that may be present, 

one species is classified as lowfrequency cetaceans (i.e., gray whale), 

and one is classified as high-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise). 

The WSDOT’s US 101 Chehalis River 

Bridge Project using in-water pile 

driving and pile removal could 

adversely affect marine mammal species 

and stocks by exposing them to elevated 

noise levels in the vicinity of the 

activity area. 

Exposure to high intensity sound for 

a sufficient duration may result in 

auditory effects such as a noise-induced 

threshold shift (TS)—an increase in the 

auditory threshold after exposure to 

noise (Finneran et al., 2005). Factors 

that influence the amount of threshold 

shift include the amplitude, duration, 

frequency content, temporal pattern, 

and energy distribution of noise 

exposure. The magnitude of hearing 

threshold shift normally decreases over 

time following cessation of the noise 

exposure. The amount of TS just after 

exposure is the initial TS. If the TS 

eventually returns to zero (i.e., the 

threshold returns to the pre-exposure 

value), it is a temporary threshold shift 

(TTS) (Southall et al., 2007). 

Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of 

hearing)—When animals exhibit 

reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds 

must be louder for an animal to detect 

them) following exposure to an intense 

sound or sound for long duration, it is 

referred to as a noise-induced TS. An 

animal can experience TTS) or 

permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS 

can last from minutes or hours to days 

(i.e., there is complete recovery), can 

occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., 

an animal might only have a temporary 

loss of hearing sensitivity between the 

frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can 

be of varying amounts (for example, an 

animal’s hearing sensitivity might be 

reduced initially by only 6 dB or 

reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, 

but some recovery is possible. PTS can 

also occur in a specific frequency range 

and amount as mentioned above for 

TTS. 

For marine mammals, published data 

are limited to the captive bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and 

Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran et 

al., 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010a, 

2010b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; 

Lucke et al., 2009; Mooney et al., 2009a, 

2009b; Popov et al., 2011a, 2011b; 

Kastelein et al., 2012a; Schlundt et al., 

2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, 2004). For 

pinnipeds in water, data are limited to 

measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an 

elephant seal, and California sea lions 

(Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et 

al., 2012b). 

Lucke et al. (2009) found a TS of a 

harbor porpoise after exposing it to 

airgun noise with a received sound 

pressure level (SPL) at 200.2 dB (peak– 

to-peak) re: 1 micropascal (mPa), which 

corresponds to a sound exposure level 

of 164.5 dB re: 1 mPa2 s after integrating 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
50632 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices 

exposure. Because the airgun noise is a 

broadband impulse, one cannot directly 

determine the equivalent of root mean 

square (rms) SPL from the reported 

peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a 

conservative conversion factor of 16 dB 

for broadband signals from seismic 

surveys (McCauley, et al., 2000) to 

correct for the difference between peakto-peak levels reported in Lucke et al. 

(2009) and rms SPLs, the rms SPL for 

TTS would be approximately 184 dB re: 

1 mPa, and the received levels associated 

with PTS (Level A harassment) would 

be higher. Therefore, based on these 

studies, NMFS recognizes that TTS of 

harbor porpoises is lower than other 

cetacean species empirically tested 

(Finneran & Schlundt, 2010; Finneran et 

al., 2002; Kastelein and Jennings, 2012). 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics, and interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that occurs during a 

time where ambient noise is lower and 

there are not as many competing sounds 

present. Alternatively, a larger amount 

and longer duration of TTS sustained 

during time when communication is 

critical for successful mother/calf 

interactions could have more serious 

impacts. Also, depending on the degree 

and frequency range, the effects of PTS 

on an animal could range in severity, 

although it is considered generally more 

serious because it is a permanent 

condition. Of note, reduced hearing 

sensitivity as a simple function of aging 

has been observed in marine mammals, 

as well as humans and other taxa 

(Southall et al., 2007), so one can infer 

that strategies exist for coping with this 

condition to some degree, though likely 

not without cost. 

In addition, chronic exposure to 

excessive, though not high-intensity, 

noise could cause masking at particular 

frequencies for marine mammals, which 

utilize sound for vital biological 

functions (Clark et al., 2009). Acoustic 

masking is when other noises such as 

from human sources interfere with 

animal detection of acoustic signals 

such as communication calls, 

echolocation sounds, and 

environmental sounds important to 

marine mammals. Therefore, under 

certain circumstances, marine mammals 

whose acoustical sensors or 

environment are being severely masked 

could also be impaired from maximizing 

their performance fitness in survival 

and reproduction. 

Masking occurs at the frequency band 

that the animals utilize. Therefore, since 

noise generated from vibratory pile 

driving is mostly concentrated at low 

frequency ranges, it may have less effect 

on high frequency echolocation sounds 

by odontocetes (toothed whales). 

However, lower frequency man-made 

noises are more likely to affect detection 

of communication calls and other 

potentially important natural sounds 

such as surf and prey noise. It may also 

affect communication signals when they 

occur near the noise band and thus 

reduce the communication space of 

animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and 

cause increased stress levels (e.g., Foote 

et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009). 

Unlike TS, masking, which can occur 

over large temporal and spatial scales, 

can potentially affect the species at 

population, community, or even 

ecosystem levels, as well as individual 

levels. Masking affects both senders and 

receivers of the signals and could have 

long-term chronic effects on marine 

mammal species and populations. 

Recent science suggests that low 

frequency ambient sound levels have 

increased by as much as 20 dB (more 

than three times in terms of sound 

pressure level) in the world’s ocean 

from pre-industrial periods, and most of 

these increases are from distant 

shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). For 

WSDOT’s Chehalis Bridge repair 

activities, noises from vibratory pile 

driving and pile removal contribute to 

the elevated ambient noise levels in the 

project area, thus increasing potential 

for or severity of masking. Baseline 

ambient noise levels in the vicinity of 

project area are high due to ongoing 

shipping, construction and other 

activities in the Puget Sound. 

Finally, marine mammals’ exposure to 

certain sounds could lead to behavioral 

disturbance (Richardson et al., 1995), 

such as: Changing durations of surfacing 

and dives, number of blows per 

surfacing, or moving direction and/or 

speed; reduced/increased vocal 

activities; changing/cessation of certain 

behavioral activities (such as socializing 

or feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where noise sources are located; 

and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds 

flushing into water from haulouts or 

rookeries). 

The onset of behavioral disturbance 

from anthropogenic noise depends on 

both external factors (characteristics of 

noise sources and their paths) and the 

receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography) and is also 

difficult to predict (Southall et al., 

2007). Currently NMFS uses a received 

level of 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) to predict 

the onset of behavioral harassment from 

impulse noises (such as impact pile 

driving), and 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for 

continuous noises (such as vibratory 

pile driving). For the WSDOT’s US 101 

Chehalis River Bridge Project, only the 

120-dB level is considered for effects 

analysis because WSDOT plans to use 

vibratory pile driving and pile removal. 

The biological significance of many of 

these behavioral disturbances is difficult 

to predict, especially if the detected 

disturbances appear minor. However, 

the consequences of behavioral 

modification could be biologically 

significant if the change affects growth, 

survival, and/or reproduction, which 

depends on the severity, duration, and 

context of the effects. 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

The primary potential impacts to 

marine mammal habitat are associated 

with elevated sound levels produced by 

vibratory pile removal and pile driving 

in the area. However, other potential 

impacts to the surrounding habitat from 

physical disturbance are also possible. 

With regard to fish as a prey source 

for cetaceans and pinnipeds, fish are 

known to hear and react to sounds and 

to use sound to communicate (Tavolga 

et al., 1981) and possibly avoid 

predators (Wilson and Dill, 2002). 

Experiments have shown that fish can 

sense both the strength and direction of 

sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors 

determining whether a fish can sense a 

sound signal, and potentially react to it, 

are the frequency of the signal and the 

strength of the signal in relation to the 

natural background noise level. 

The level of sound at which a fish 

will react or alter its behavior is usually 

well above the detection level. Fish 

have been found to react to sounds 

when the sound level increased to about 

20 dB above the detection level of 120 

dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response 

threshold can depend on the time of 

year and the fish’s physiological 

condition (Engas et al., 1993). In 

general, fish react more strongly to 

pulses of sound (such as noise from 

impact pile driving) rather than 

continuous signals (such as noise from 

vibratory pile driving) (Blaxter et al., 

1981), and a quicker alarm response is 

elicited when the sound signal intensity 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices 50633 

rises rapidly compared to sound rising 

more slowly to the same level. 

During the coastal construction only a 

small fraction of the available habitat 

would be ensonified at any given time. 

Disturbance to fish species would be 

short-term and fish would return to 

their pre-disturbance behavior once the 

pile driving activity ceases. Thus, the 

proposed construction would have 

little, if any, impact on marine 

mammals’ prey availability in the area 

where construction work is planned. 

Finally, the time of the proposed 

construction activity would avoid the 

spawning season of the ESA-listed 

salmonid species. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which will 

inform both NMFS’ consideration of 

whether the number of takes is ‘‘small’’ 

and the negligible impact 

determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any 

act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to noise generated from 

vibratory pile driving and removal. 

Based on the nature of the activity and 

the anticipated effectiveness of the 

mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown 

measures—discussed in detail below in 

Mitigation section), Level A harassment 

is neither anticipated nor authorized. 

As described previously, no mortality 

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. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

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

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

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

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (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. 

Applicant’s proposed activity 

includes the use of continuous 

(vibratory pile driving and removal) 

source, and therefore the 120 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) is applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 

2016) identifies dual criteria to assess 

auditory injury (Level A harassment) to 

five different marine mammal groups 

(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result 

of exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). Applicant’s proposed 

activity includes the use non-impulsive 

(vibratory pile driving and pile removal) 

source. 

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—CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE SOUND UNDERWATER

Hearing group 

PTS onset thresholds Behavioral thresholds 

Impulsive Non-impulsive Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ........... Lpk,flat: 219 dB,LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......... LE,LF,24h: 199 dB .. Lrms,flat: 160 dB ..... Lrms,flat: 120 dB. 

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

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

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

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

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

also be considered. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
50634 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds. 

Source Levels 

The project includes vibratory pile 

driving and removal of steel H piles and 

sheet piles. The dimension of the H 

piles is unknown, but not is expected to 

be more than 12 inches (in). 

Source levels for the steel H pile 

vibratory driving are based on in-water 

measurements reported by CALTRANS 

(2015) of 12-in steel H pile, which are 

150 dBrms and 165 dBpeak re 1 mPa at 10 

meters (m). Source levels for the sheet 

pile are based on in-water 

measurements at the Elliot Bay Seawall 

Project (The Greenbush Group, 2015), 

which is 165 dBrms and 180 dBpeak re 1 

mPa at 10 m. For vibratory pile removal, 

the source levels are conservatively 

estimated using the pile driving source 

levels as proxies. 

A summary of source levels from 

different pile driving and pile removal 

activities is provided in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF IN-WATER PILE DRIVING SOURCE LEVELS

[At 10 m from source] 

Method Pile type/size SEL 

(dB re 1 μPa 2-s) 

SPLrms

(dB re 1 μPa) 

Vibratory driving/removal ........................................ 12-in steel H pile .................................................... 150 150 

Vibratory driving/removal ........................................ Sheet pile ............................................................... 165 165 

These source levels are used to 

compute the Level A injury zones and 

to estimate the Level B harassment 

zones. For Level A harassment zones, 

since the peak source levels for both 

pile driving are below the injury 

thresholds, cumulative SEL were used 

to do the calculations using the NMFS 

acoustic guidance (NMFS 2016). 

Estimating Injury Zones 

When NMFS Technical Guidance 

(2016) was published, in recognition of 

the fact that ensonified area/volume 

could be more technically challenging 

to predict because of the duration 

component in the new thresholds, we 

developed a User Spreadsheet that 

includes tools to help predict a simple 

isopleth that can be used in conjunction 

with marine mammal density or 

occurrence to help predict takes. We 

note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used for these tools, we anticipate that 

isopleths produced are typically going 

to be overestimates of some degree, 

which will result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A take. However, 

these tools offer the best way to predict 

appropriate isopleths when more 

sophisticated 3D modeling methods are 

not available, and NMFS continues to 

develop ways to quantitatively refine 

these tools, and will qualitatively 

address the output where appropriate. 

For cumulative SEL (LE), distances to 

marine mammal injury thresholds were 

estimated using NMFS Optional User 

Spreadsheet based on the noise 

exposure guidance. 

Isopleths to Level B behavioral zones 

are based on rms SPL (SPLrms) that are 

specific for non-impulse (vibratory pile 

driving) sources. Distances to marine 

mammal behavior thresholds were 

calculated using practical spreading. 

A summary of the measured and 

modeled harassment zones is provided 

in Table 5. 

TABLE 5—DISTANCES TO HARASSMENT ZONES

Pile type, size and pile driving method 

Injury zone (m) Behavior 

zone 

(m) LF 

cetacean 

MF 

cetacean 

HF 

cetacean Phocid Otariid 

Vibratory driving & removal, sheet pile, 10 piles/day .............................. 36.9 3.3 54.6 22.4 1.6 10,000 

Vibratory driving & removal, steel H pile, 6 piles/day ............................. 2.6 0.2 3.9 1.6 0.1 1,000 

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. 

In most cases, marine mammal 

density data are from the U.S. Navy 

Marine Species Density Database (U.S. 

Navy 2015). Harbor seal density is based 

on a counts of harbor seals at 44 lowtide haul outs in Grays Harbor by 

Jeffries, et al. (2000), the estimated 

density of harbor seals in the US 101 

Chehalis River Bridge project area is 

29.4 animals per square kilometer (km2). 

The Navy Marine Species Density 

Database (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the 

density of California sea lions in the 

waters offshore of Grays Harbor as 0.033 

animals/km2. This estimate will be used 

as a surrogate for Grays Harbor. 

The Navy Marine Species Density 

Database (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the 

density of Steller sea lions in the waters 

offshore of Grays Harbor as 0.0145 

animals/km2. This estimate will be used 

as a surrogate for Grays Harbor. 

The Navy Marine Species Density 

Database (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the 

density of harbor porpoises in the 

waters offshore of Grays Harbor as a 

range between 0.69 and 1.67 animals 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices 50635 

per square kilometer. According to 

Evenson, et al. (2016), the maximum 

harbor porpoise density in the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca (approximately 105 miles 

north of Grays Harbor) in 2014 was 

0.768 animals/km2. The higher density 

estimate for waters offshore of Grays 

Harbor (1.67) will be used for this 

analysis. 

According to counts conducted by 

Calambokidis et al. (2012), 29 gray 

whales were observed over a 12-year 

period during the months of July 

through September (the proposed period 

of project activities). Based on this data, 

an average of 2.25 gray whales may be 

present in Grays Harbor/south 

Washington coast during the 3-month 

period. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

For all marine mammal species except 

gray whale, estimated takes are 

calculated based on ensonified area for 

a specific pile driving activity 

multiplied by the marine mammal 

density in the action area, multiplied by 

the number of pile driving (or removal) 

days. Distances to and areas of different 

harassment zones are listed in Tables 5 

and 6. Total days for sheet pile driving 

and removal are five days each, and the 

total day for steel H pile driving and 

removal is one day each. 

TABLE 6—AREAS OF HARASSMENT ZONES

Pile type, size and pile driving method 

Injury zone (km2) Behavior 

zone 

(km2) LF 

cetacean 

MF 

cetacean 

HF 

cetacean Phocid Otariid 

Vibratory driving & removal, sheet pile, 10 piles/day .............................. 0.004 0.000 0.009 0.002 0.000 2.13 

Vibratory driving & removal, steel H pile, 6 piles/day ............................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.67 

The results predicted that a total of 

666 harbor seals, 1 California sea lion, 

0 Steller sea lion, and 38 harbor 

porpoise could be exposure to received 

levels that would cause Level B 

harassment. However, owing to the 

prior observations that California sea 

lion and Steller sea lion’s presence in 

the project area, we adjusted the take 

number of these species to 10. 

For gray whales, the Level B takes 

were estimate based on an average 

sighting of 2.25 whales in Grays Harbor/ 

south Washington Coast during the 

months of July through September 

(Calambokidis et al., (2012) adjusted 

upwards to 3 animals. 

Due to the extreme small injury zones 

(maximum zone is 0.009 km2 for highfrequency cetacean), the calculation 

predicted no animals would be exposed 

to noise levels that could cause Level A 

harassment, and therefore no Level A 

take is authorized. A summary of 

estimated marine mammal Level B takes 

is listed in Table 7. 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY BE EXPOSED TO RECEIVED NOISE LEVELS THAT CAUSE

LEVEL B HARASSMENT

Species Density 

(animals/km2) 

Estimated 

Level B take Abundance Percentage 

Pacific harbor seal ........................................................................................... 29.4 666 11,036 6.03 

California sea lion ............................................................................................ 0.033 10 296,750 0.00 

Steller sea lion ................................................................................................. 0.0145 10 71,562 0.00 

Gray whale ....................................................................................................... NA 3 20,990 0.00 

Harbor porpoise ............................................................................................... 1.67 38 11,233 0.34 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on such species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of such species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) the likelihood 

of effective implementation (probability 

implemented as planned) and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

1. Time Restriction 

Work would occur only during 

daylight hours, when visual monitoring 

of marine mammals can be conducted. 

In addition, all in-water construction 

will be limited to the period between 

July 16, 2018, and September 30, 2018. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
50636 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices 

2. Establishing and Monitoring Level A, 

Level B Harassment Zones, and 

Exclusion Zones 

Before the commencement of in-water 

construction activities, which include 

vibratory pile driving and pile removal, 

WSDOT shall establish Level A 

harassment zones where received 

underwater SELcum could cause PTS (see 

above). 

WSDOT shall also establish Level B 

harassment zones where received 

underwater SPLs are higher than 120 

dBrms re 1 mPa for non-impulsive noise 

sources (vibratory pile driving and pile 

removal). 

WSDOT shall establish exclusion 

zones within which marine mammals 

could be taken by Level A harassment. 

For Level A harassment zones that is 

less than 10 m from the source, a 

minimum of 10 m distance should be 

established as an exclusion zone. 

A summary of exclusion zones is 

provided in Table 8. 

TABLE 8—EXCLUSION ZONES FOR VARIOUS PILE DRIVING ACTIVITIES AND MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

Pile type, size and pile driving method 

Exclusion zone (m) 

LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocid Otariid 

Vibratory driving and removal, sheet pile, 10 piles/day ...... 37 10 55 22 10 

Vibratory driving & removal, steel H pile, 6 piles/day ......... 10 10 10 10 10 

NMFS-approved protected species 

observers (PSO) shall conduct an initial 

survey of the exclusion zones to ensure 

that no marine mammals are seen 

within the Level A zones before pile 

driving and pile removal of a pile 

segment begins. If marine mammals are 

found within the exclusion zone, pile 

driving of the segment would be 

delayed until they move out of the area. 

If a marine mammal is seen above water 

and then dives below, the contractor 

would wait 30 minutes. If no marine 

mammals are seen by the observer in 

that time it can be assumed that the 

animal has moved beyond the exclusion 

zone. 

If pile driving of a segment ceases for 

30 minutes or more and a marine 

mammal is sighted within the 

designated exclusion zone prior to 

commencement of pile driving, the 

observer(s) must notify the pile driving 

operator (or other authorized 

individual) immediately and continue 

to monitor the exclusion zone. 

Operations may not resume until the 

marine mammal has exited the 

exclusion zone or 30 minutes have 

elapsed since the last sighting. 

3. Shutdown Measures 

WSDOT shall implement shutdown 

measures if a marine mammal is 

detected within an exclusion zone or is 

about to enter an exclusion zone listed 

in Table 8. In-water pile driving may not 

resume until the animal is seen leaving 

the exclusion zone, or 30 minutes have 

passed since the sighting of the animal 

within the exclusion zone. 

Further, WSDOT shall implement 

shutdown measures if the number of 

authorized takes for any particular 

species reaches the limit under the IHA 

(if issued) and if such marine mammals 

are sighted within the vicinity of the 

project area and are approaching the 

Level B harassment zone during inwater construction activities. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

required measures, NMFS has 

determined that the prescribed 

mitigation measures provide the means 

effecting the least practicable impact on 

the affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking.’’ The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) 

indicate that requests for authorizations 

must include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present in the proposed 

action area. Effective reporting is critical 

both to compliance as well as ensuring 

that the most value is obtained from the 

required monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Monitoring Measures 

WSDOT shall employ NMFSapproved PSOs to conduct marine 

mammal monitoring for its U.S. 101/ 

Chehalis Bridge Repair Project. The 

purposes of marine mammal monitoring 

are to implement mitigation measures 

and learn more about impacts to marine 

mammals from WSDOT’s construction 

activities. The PSOs will observe and 

collect data on marine mammals in and 

around the project area for 30 minutes 

before, during, and for 30 minutes after 

all pile removal and pile installation 

work. NMFS-approved PSOs shall meet 

the following requirements: 

1. Independent observers (i.e., not 

construction personnel) are required; 

2. At least one observer must have 

prior experience working as an observer; 

3. Other observers may substitute 

education (undergraduate degree in 

biological science or related field) or 

training for experience; 

4. Where a team of three or more 

observers are required, one observer 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices 50637 

should be designated as lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator. The lead 

observer must have prior experience 

working as an observer; and 

5. NMFS will require submission and 

approval of observer CVs. 

Monitoring of marine mammals 

around the construction site shall be 

conducted using high-quality binoculars 

(e.g., Zeiss, 10 × 42 power). Due to the 

different sizes of ZOIs from different 

pile types, two different ZOIs and 

different monitoring protocols 

corresponding to a specific pile type 

will be established. 

• For vibratory pile driving and pile 

removal of sheet piles, a total of four 

land-based PSOs will monitor the 

exclusion zones and Level B harassment 

zone. 

• For vibratory pile driving and pile 

removal of H piles, a total of three landbased PSOs will monitor the exclusion 

zones and Level B harassment zone. 

Locations of the land-based PSOs and 

routes of monitoring vessels are shown 

in WSDOT’s Marine Mammal 

Monitoring Plan, which is available 

online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

permits/incidental/construction.htm. 

To verify the required monitoring 

distance, the exclusion zones and ZOIs 

will be determined by using a range 

finder or hand-held global positioning 

system device. 

Reporting Measures 

WSDOT is required to submit a draft 

monitoring report within 90 days after 

completion of the construction work or 

the expiration of the IHA, whichever 

comes earlier. This report would detail 

the monitoring protocol, summarize the 

data recorded during monitoring, and 

estimate the number of marine 

mammals that may have been harassed. 

NMFS would have an opportunity to 

provide comments on the report, and if 

NMFS has comments, WSDOT would 

address the comments and submit a 

final report to NMFS within 30 days. 

In addition, NMFS would require 

WSDOT to notify NMFS’ Office of 

Protected Resources and NMFS’ West 

Coast Stranding Coordinator within 48 

hours of sighting an injured or dead 

marine mammal in the construction site. 

WSDOT shall provide NMFS and the 

Stranding Network with the species or 

description of the animal(s), the 

condition of the animal(s) (including 

carcass condition, if the animal is dead), 

location, time of first discovery, 

observed behaviors (if alive), and photo 

or video. 

In the event that WSDOT finds an 

injured or dead marine mammal that is 

not in the construction area, WSDOT 

would report the same information as 

listed above to NMFS as soon as 

operationally feasible. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, this introductory 

discussion of our analyses applies to all 

the species listed in Table 7, given that 

the anticipated effects of WSDOT’s 

Chehalis Bridge repair project activities 

involving pile driving and pile removal 

on marine mammals are expected to be 

relatively similar in nature. There is no 

information about the nature or severity 

of the impacts, or the size, status, or 

structure of any species or stock that 

would lead to a different analysis by 

species for this activity, or else speciesspecific factors would be identified and 

analyzed. 

For all marine mammal species, takes 

that are anticipated and authorized are 

expected to be limited to short-term 

Level B harassment (behavioral) because 

of the small scale (only a total of 100 

piles to be installed and removed), 

lower source levels (small piles by 

vibratory pile driving and pile removal), 

and short durations (maximum five 

hours pile driving or pile removal per 

day). Marine mammals present in the 

vicinity of the action area and taken by 

Level B harassment would most likely 

show overt brief disturbance (startle 

reaction) and avoidance of the area from 

elevated noise levels during pile driving 

and pile removal. For these reasons, 

these behavioral impacts are not 

expected to affect marine mammals’ 

growth, survival, and reproduction, 

especially considering the limited 

geographic area that would be affected 

in comparison to the much larger 

habitat for marine mammals in the 

Pacific Northwest. 

The project also is not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitat, as 

analyzed in detail in the ‘‘Anticipated 

Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat’’ 

section. There is no ESA designated 

critical area in the vicinity of the 

Chehalis Bridge Project area. The project 

activities would not permanently 

modify existing marine mammal habitat. 

The activities may kill some fish and 

cause other fish to leave the area 

temporarily, thus impacting marine 

mammals’ foraging opportunities in a 

limited portion of the foraging range; 

but, because of the short duration of the 

activities and the relatively small area of 

the habitat that may be affected, the 

impacts to marine mammal habitat are 

not expected to cause significant or 

long-term negative consequences. 

Therefore, given the consideration of 

potential impacts to marine mammal 

prey species and their physical 

environment, WSDOT’s proposed 

construction activity at Chehalis Bridge 

would not adversely affect marine 

mammal habitat. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No injury, series injury, or mortality 

is anticipated or authorized; 

• All harassment is Level B 

harassment in the form of short-term 

behavioral modification; and 

• No areas of specific importance to 

affected species are impacted. 

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 

prescribed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS finds that the total take 

from the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
50638 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices 

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 

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. 

The estimated takes are below seven 

percent of the population for all marine 

mammals (Table 7). 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the prescribed 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 

Subsistence Analysis and 

Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is authorized or expected to 

result from this activity. Therefore, 

NMFS has determined that formal 

consultation under section 7 of the ESA 

is not required for this action. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an IHA to the 

Washington State Department of 

Transportation for the U.S. 101/Chehalis 

River Bridge—Scour Repair in 

Washington State, provided the 

previously described mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: October 26, 2017. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23748 Filed 10–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy 

Board of Visitors 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of partially closed 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Naval Academy 

Board of Visitors will meet to make such 

inquiry, as the Board shall deem 

necessary, into the state of morale and 

discipline, the curriculum, instruction, 

physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and 

academic methods of the Naval 

Academy. 

DATES: The open session of the meeting 

will be held on December 4, 2017, from 

9:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. The executive 

session held from 11:15 a.m. to 12:00 

p.m., will be the closed portion of the 

meeting. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the United States Naval Academy in 

Annapolis, MD. The meeting will be 

handicap accessible. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lieutenant Commander Lawrence 

Heyworth IV, USN, Executive Secretary 

to the Board of Visitors, Office of the 

Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, 

Annapolis, MD 21402–5000, 410–293– 

1503. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice of meeting is provided per the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. App.). The executive 

session of the meeting from 11:15 a.m. 

to 12:00 p.m. on December 4, 2017, will 

consist of discussions of new and 

pending administrative/minor 

disciplinary infractions and non-judicial 

punishments involving midshipmen 

attending the Naval Academy to include 

but not limited to, individual honor/ 

conduct violations within the Brigade, 

the disclosure of which would 

constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. For this 

reason, the executive session of this 

meeting will be closed to the public, as 

the discussion of such information 

cannot be adequately segregated from 

other topics, which precludes opening 

the executive session of this meeting to 

the public. Accordingly, the Department 

of the Navy/Assistant for 

Administration has determined in 

writing that the meeting shall be 

partially closed to the public because 

the discussions during the executive 

session from 11:15 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

will be concerned with matters 

protected under sections 552b(c) (5), (6), 

and (7) of title 5, United States Code. 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b 

Dated: October 26, 2017. 

E.K. Baldini, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 

Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23809 Filed 10–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

National Assessment Governing Board 

Quarterly Board Meeting 

AGENCY: National Assessment 

Governing Board, U.S. Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Announcement of open and 

closed meetings. 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the 

agenda for the November 16–18, 2017 

Quarterly Board Meeting of the National 

Assessment Governing Board (hereafter 

referred to as Governing Board). This 

notice provides information to members 

of the public who may be interested in 

attending the meeting or providing 

written comments related to the work of 

the Governing Board. Notice of this 

meeting is required under § 10(a)(2) of 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA). 

DATES: The Quarterly Board Meeting 

will be held on the following dates: 

• November 16, 2017 from 11:15 a.m. 

to 6:00 p.m. 

• November 17, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m. 

• November 18, 2017 from 7:30 a.m. 

to 12:00 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Washington Marriott 

Georgetown, 1221 22nd Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20037. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Munira Mwalimu, Executive Officer/ 

Designated Federal Official for the 

Governing Board, 800 North Capitol 

Street NW., Suite 825, Washington, DC 

20002, telephone: (202) 357–6938, fax: 

(202) 357–6945, email: 

Munira.Mwalimu@ed.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Statutory Authority and Function: 

The Governing Board is established 

under the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress Authorization Act, 

Title III of Public Law 107–279. Written 

comments may be submitted 

electronically or in hard copy to the 

attention of the Executive Officer/ 

Designated Federal Official (see contact 

information noted above). Information 

on the Governing Board and its work 

can be found at www.nagb.gov. 

The Governing Board is established to 

formulate policy for the National 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES