83 FR 32082 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Annapolis Passenger Ferry Dock Project, Washington

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 133 (July 11, 2018)

Page Range		32082-32093
FR Document		2018-14753

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 Kitsap Transit, to incidentally take, by Level A and B harassment, marine mammals during construction activities associated with the Annapolis Passenger Ferry Dock Project in Puget Sound, Washington.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32082-32093]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14753]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XG204

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Annapolis Passenger Ferry Dock
Project, Washington

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of 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
Kitsap Transit, to incidentally take, by Level A and B harassment,
marine mammals during construction activities associated with the
Annapolis Passenger Ferry Dock Project in Puget Sound, Washington.

DATES: This Authorization is applicable from October 1, 2018 through
September 31, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application,
IHA, and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references
cited in this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111. 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 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).

Summary of Request

On March 5, 2018, NMFS received a request from Kitsap Transit for
an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal
associated with upgrades to the Annapolis Ferry Terminal, Puget Sound,
Washington. Kitsap Transit submitted a revised application on May 3,
2018 which NMFS deemed adequate and complete. Pile driving and removal
will take a maximum of 17 days. No serious injury or mortality is
expected to occur or is authorized from this activity and, therefore,
an IHA is appropriate.
On May 16, 2018, NMFS published its proposed IHA in the Federal
Register for public comment (83 FR 22624). NMFS has issued an IHA to
Kitsap Transit for the take, by Level A and B harassment, of harbor
seal (Phoca vitulina richardii), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus
monteriensis), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), and harbor
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena vomerina).

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

Kitsap Transit is proposing to upgrade the existing dock at its
Annapolis Ferry Terminal to accommodate larger vessels by extending the
dock into deeper water and bring the terminal into compliance with
American Disability Act (ADA) accessibility standards. The project
includes removing 10 existing concrete and steel piles that support the
existing pier and float and installing 12 new steel piles to support
updated structures. Piles will be removed using a vibratory hammer and
new piles will be installed using a vibratory and, if necessary, an
impact hammer. The project is anticipated to take 8 weeks to complete;
however, Kitsap Transit anticipates it will take a maximum of 17 days
to complete in-water pile driving activities.

Dates and Duration

The project would occur for eight weeks between October 1, 2018 and
September 30, 2019 with the exception of March 3, 2019 through July 1,
2019 to protect salmonids and surf smelt. Pile removal has been
conservatively estimated to occur at a rate of 2 piles removed per day,
which would require 5 days to remove 10 piles. Pile installation was
conservatively estimated to occur at a rate of 1 pile per day, which
would require 12 days to install 12 piles. In total, there would be

[[Page 32083]]

17 days (maximum) of pile driving. No in-water pile driving will be
conducted between

Specific Geographic Region

The Annapolis Ferry Terminal is located in Sinclair Inlet across
from Naval Base Kitsap (NBK) Bremerton and southwest of Bainbridge
Island. Potential areas ensonified during pile driving include Sinclair
Inlet and portions of Port Washington Narrows, Port Orchard Passage and
Rich Passage. These waterbodies range up to 130 feet in depth and
substrates include silt/mud, sand, gravel, cobbles and rock outcrops.
The terminal itself and parking area contains a hardened shoreline
comprised of sheet piles.

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

A detailed description of the specified activity is provided in our
notice of proposed IHA (83 FR 22624; May 16, 2018). Please refer to
that document for full detail. We provide a summary here.
The Annapolis Ferry Terminal was designed to have a useful life of
40 years and is now 34 years old. Kitsap Transit has determined
upgrades are necessary to meet ADA requirements and accommodate larger
ferry vessels. To make the upgrades, Kitsap Transit is removing a
portion of the existing pier, installing a longer gangway, removing the
existing float and installing a larger float in deeper water. This work
requires removing 10 existing piles and installing 12 new piles.
Piles would be removed with a vibratory hammer. Piles would be
installed using a vibratory hammer to refusal and then ``proofed'' with
an impact hammer, if necessary. The maximum amount of time spent
removing 10 piles would be 5 days while the maximum amount of time
installing 12 piles would be 12 days for a total of 17 days. The types
of piles included in the project and schedule, are included in Table 1.

Table 1--Description of Piles To Be Installed and Removed During the Annapolis Ferry Dock Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of days
Pile size Method piles (maximum)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.5-in concrete.............................. Vibratory....................... 4 5
18'' steel.................................... Vibratory....................... 6 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile Installation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12-in steel................................... Vibratory....................... 4 12
Impact.......................... .............. ..............
24-in steel................................... Vibratory....................... 8 ..............
Impact.......................... .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see ``Mitigation''
and ``Monitoring and Reporting'').

Comments and Responses

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA was published in the
Federal Register on May 16, 2018 (83 FR 22624). During the 30-day
public comment period, the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission)
submitted a letter, providing comments as described below.
Comment 1: The Commission made a general comment recommending NMFS
more thoroughly review applications before deeming one adequate and
complete and better evaluate Level A harassment zones and take numbers
prior to publishing a proposed authorization.
NMFS Response: MMPA implementing regulations provide a list of 14
informational elements that must be included in an IHA application
before NMFS can determine it is adequate and complete. For the subject
IHA, the application contained all the required information. With
respect to Level A harassment distances and take numbers, the public
review process provides the Commission opportunity to comment on the
application and our proposal and we consider all public comments prior
to issuance of the IHA. The Level A harassment zones for this project
are relatively small; however, as described in the Estimated Take
section below, we have included authorization of a small number of
takes by Level A harassment, as recommended by the Commission, in case
animals are undetected before Kitsap Transit can shut down.
Comment 2: The Commission recommends that NMFS require Kitsap
Transit to abide by mitigation measures previously used by other
applicants regarding contacting the Orca Network and/or Center for
Whale Research for both marine mammal sightings and acoustic detection
data.
NMFS Response: Both the application and proposed IHA Federal
Register notice included a condition that Kitsap Transit access the
Orca Network each day of pile driving. NMFS has added that this
specifically applies to both visual and acoustic monitoring data.
Comment 3: The Commission recommends that NMFS require Kitsap
Transit and any other action proponent using a bubble curtain to
implement what they refer to as ``NMFS's bubble curtain performance
standards'' in all relevant authorizations. The Commission provided the
following performance standards it deems is neither unreasonable or
cost-prohibitive: (1) The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles
around 100 percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the
water column, (2) the lowest bubble ring should be in contact with the
mudline for the full circumference of the ring, and the weights
attached to the bottom ring should ensure 100 percent mudline contact
(no parts of the ring or other objects shall prevent full mudline
contact), and (3) the action proponent requires construction
contractors to train personnel in the proper balancing of air flow to
the bubblers and to submit an inspection/performance report for
approval by the action proponent within 72 hours following the
performance test--corrections to the attenuation device to meet the
performance standards are to occur prior to impact driving.
NMFS Response: The Commission mischaracterized the referenced
performance measures as NMFS' ``standards.'' These measures were
developed by the U.S. Navy, in consultation with NMFS, as a direct

[[Page 32084]]

result of documented issues with bubble curtain performance. These
issues were problematic because NMFS considered a reduction in impact
pile driving source level based on effective bubble curtain use. The
same case does not apply here and NMFS disagrees with the Commission's
contention that consideration of any source level reduction has no
bearing on whether an applicant should be implementing performance
measures. NMFS will consider the appropriateness of including some or
all of the proposed bubble curtain performance measures on a case-by-
case basis.
NMFS also disagrees with the Commission's comment that the
performance measures should be implemented because they are neither
unreasonable nor cost-prohibitive. Mitigation requirements in an IHA
must be carefully assessed with respect to NMFS' authority under the
MMPA. For the subject IHA, Kitsap Transit did not request, nor did NMFS
propose a reduction in impact pile driving source levels due to use of
the bubble curtain. That is, the use of a bubble curtain did not
influence our effects analysis or take numbers. Moreover, use of the
bubble curtain was not critical to NMFS making a negligible impact
determination required to issue the IHA. In addition to negligible
impact and small numbers findings, mitigation measures are designed to
provide the least practicable adverse impact to marine mammals. Use of
the bubble curtain was part of the proposed action due to requirements
separate and apart from Kitsap Transit's request for an IHA. However,
to dictate how the applicant operates the bubble curtain, trains
operators, reports inspection results on performance testing, and makes
any corrections is not appropriate for this short project involving
small (12-in and 24-in) piles for which we did not consider use of the
bubble curtain quantitatively in our effects analysis.
Finally, it is unclear how the Commission determined the
implementation of the performance measures would not be unreasonable
nor cost-prohibitive which are their reasons for us to include these
measures. For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service may require
certain operational criteria through consultation under section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act. The Commission does not provide evidence
they have considered these or any other potential operational
protocols. Further, the applicant did not provide a bubble curtain
performance testing plan so it is unclear how the Commission determined
requiring one would not be cost-prohibitive for this small, short
project.
Comment 4: The Commission recommends that it should be a priority
for NMFS to consult with both internal and external scientists and
acousticians to determine the appropriate Level A harassment
accumulation time that action proponents should use to determine the
extent of the Level A harassment zones based on the associated
SELcum thresholds for the various types of sound sources.
Until such time that this issue is resolved, the Commission postulated
that NMFS is relegated to using the outputs of its user spreadsheet,
while also rounding up the outputs of the user spreadsheet to the
nearest 5, 10, 25 or 100 m, when more sophisticated modeling is not
available.
NMFS Response: As described in NMFS 2018 Revision to Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing, NMFS is committed to re-examining the default 24-hour
accumulation period and convening a working group to investigate
alternative means of identifying appropriate accumulation periods.
However, NMFS already considers factors other than the outputs of the
User Spreadsheet in developing appropriate Level A harassment zones
and/or shutdown zones. For example, in the Federal Register notice of
the proposed IHA, NMFS identified the Level A harassment distances
generated by the User Spreadsheet represented a long duration but
produced very small harassment zones (e.g., six hours of vibratory pile
removal per day separated in time to re-set piles resulted in an 11.8 m
Level A harassment distance for harbor seals). Per the Commission, NMFS
should round this up to a 15 meter Level A harassment zone. However,
NMFS believes this results is an unwarranted shut down zone as
sophisticated modeling is not necessary to justify that a harbor seal
would not remain 11.8 meters from piles being removed over the course
of several hours. In addition, NMFS is implementing a minimum 10 m shut
down for all in-water equipment, including pile driving. However, NMFS
does agree integrated shut-down zones (e.g., 5 to 10 meter increments)
are more practicable for observers; therefore, the new shut down zone
in the example provided is 10 m. For larger distances (e.g., 393.8
meters), we have rounded to 395 meters despite the long duration in
consideration of the unpredictable movement and lower profile of harbor
seals.
Comment 5: The Commission recommends NMFS provide its criteria for
rounding take estimates.
NMFS Response: On June 27, 2018, NMFS provided the Commission with
internal guidance on rounding and the consideration of additional
factors in take estimation.
Comment 6: The Commission recommends that NMFS refrain from
implementing its proposed renewal process and instead use abbreviated
Federal Register notices and reference existing documents to streamline
the incidental harassment authorization process; NMFS provide the
Commission with a legal analysis supporting the conclusion the renewal
process is consistent with the requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D)
of the MMPA; and should NMFS issue a renewal IHA, NMFS should publish
notice in the Federal Register whenever such a renewal has been issued.
NMFS Response: Until an applicant requests renewal of an IHA for
which public comment was received on the proposal to potentially renew
the initial IHA, NMFS will continue to make abbreviated notices
available to the public when proposing IHA renewals. When an applicant
requests renewal of an IHA for which public comment was received on the
proposed IHA (when first issued), NMFS will utilize the renewal process
because the original notice of the proposed IHA expressly notifies the
public that under certain, limited conditions an applicant could seek a
renewal IHA for an additional year. Therefore the public comment period
is not bypassed. To make this clearer to the public, NMFS added
language to the SUMMARY of all proposed IHAs requesting the public
comment on the potential renewal. In addition, all proposed IHA notices
describes the conditions under which such a renewal request could be
considered and expressly seeks public comment in the event such a
renewal is sought. Importantly, such renewals would be limited to where
the activities are identical or nearly identical to those analyzed in
the proposed IHA, monitoring does not indicate impacts that were not
previously analyzed and authorized, and the mitigation and monitoring
requirements remain the same, all of which allow the public to comment
on the appropriateness and effects of a renewal at the same time the
public provides comments on the initial IHA. All IHAs, including
renewal IHAs, are valid for no more than one year and that the agency
would consider only one renewal for a project at this time. NMFS will
publish a description of the renewal process on our website before

[[Page 32085]]

any renewal is issued utilizing the new process. Finally, NMFS has
previously notified the Commission that a notice of issuance or denial
of a renewal IHA would be published in the Federal Register.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by
Kitsap Transit's activity, including brief introductions to the species
and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding
population trends and threats, and information regarding local
occurrence, are provided in Kitsap Transit's application and the
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 22624; May 16,
2018). We are not aware of any changes in the status of these species
and stocks. To avoid repetition, detailed descriptions are not provided
here. Please refer to additional species information available in the
NMFS stock assessment reports for the Pacific and Alaska at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/region.htm.

Table 2--Marine Mammal Potentially Present in the Vicinity of the Annapolis Ferry Terminal During Construction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray whale...................... Eschrichtius robustus.. Eastern North Pacific.. -; N 20,990 (0.05; 20,125; 624 132
2011).
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
Humpback whale.................. Megaptera novaeangliae California/Oregon/ E/D; Y 1,918 (0.03; 1,876; \7\ 11 >=9.2
kuzira. Washington (CA/OR/WA). 2014).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Killer whale.................... Orcinus orca \4\....... West Coast Transient -; N 243 (n/a; 2009)....... 2.4 0
\5\.
Eastern North Pacific E/D; Y 83 (n/a; 2016)........ 0.14 0
Southern Resident.
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena Washington Inland -; N 11,233 (0.37; 8,308; 66 >=7.2
vomerina. Waters. 2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
sea lions):
California sea lion............. Zalophus californianus. United States.......... -; N 296,750 (n/a; 153,337; 9,200 389
2011).
Steller sea lion................ Eumetopias jubatus Eastern U.S............ D; Y 41,638 (n/a; 2015).... 2,498 108
monteriensis.
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor seal..................... Phoca vitulina Southern Puget Sound -; N 1,568 (0.15; 1,025; Undet. 3.4
richardii. \6\. 1999).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered 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 at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is
coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For two stocks of killer whales, the
abundance values represent direct counts of individually identifiable animals; therefore there is only a single abundance estimate with no associated
CV. For certain stocks of pinnipeds, abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction
factor derived from knowledge of the species' (or similar species') life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no
associated CV. In these cases, the minimum abundance may represent actual counts of all animals ashore.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS' SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial
fisheries, subsistence hunting, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value. All
M/SI values are as presented in the draft 2017 SARs.
\4\ Transient and resident killer whales are considered unnamed subspecies (Committee on Taxonomy, 2017).
\5\ The abundance estimate for this stock includes only animals from the ``inner coast'' population occurring in inside waters of southeastern Alaska,
British Columbia, and Washington--excluding animals from the ``outer coast'' subpopulation, including animals from California--and therefore should be
considered a minimum count. For comparison, the previous abundance estimate for this stock, including counts of animals from California that are now
considered outdated, was 354.
\6\ Abundance estimates for the Southern Puget Sound harbor seal stock is not considered current. PBR is therefore considered undetermined for these
stocks, as there is no current minimum abundance estimate for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimates, as
these represent the best available information for use in this document.
\7\ This stock is known to spend a portion of time outside the U.S. EEZ. Therefore, the PBR presented here is the allocation for U.S. waters only and is
a portion of the total. The total PBR for humpback whales is 22 (one half allocation for U.S. waters). Annual M/SI presented for these species is for
U.S. waters only.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat

We provided a detailed description of the anticipated effects of
the specified activity on marine mammals in our Federal Register notice
announcing the proposed authorization (83 FR 22624; May 16, 2018).
Please refer to that document for our detailed analysis; we provide
only summary information here.
The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic
environment from pile driving and removal is the primary means by which
marine mammals may be harassed from Kitsap Transit's specified
activity. The effects of pile driving noise on marine mammals are
dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type
(e.g., impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the species, age and sex class
(e.g., adult male vs. mom with calf), duration of

[[Page 32086]]

exposure, the distance between the pile and the animal, received
levels, behavior at time of exposure, and previous history with
exposure (Southall et al., 2007, Wartzok et al. 2004). Animals exposed
to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience physical and
behavioral effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall
et al. 2007). In general, exposure to pile driving noise has the
potential to result in auditory threshold shifts (permanent threshold
shift (PTS) and temporary threshold shift (TTS)) and behavioral
reactions (e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging and
vocalizing, changes in dive behavior).
Similar pile driving and removal activities have been conducted in
Sinclair Inlet and, more broadly, Puget Sound. Marine mammal monitoring
conducted under several IHAs indicate there are no permanent or
significant impacts to marine mammals from exposure to pile driving
noise.
Construction activities at the Annapolis Ferry Terminal could have
localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat and their prey by
increasing in-water sound pressure levels and slightly decreasing water
quality. Any impacts are anticipated to be localized, short-term, and
minimal.

Estimated Take

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both
NMFS' consideration of ``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 B harassment. Level A
harassment is authorized for those cases where animals are undetected
before exposure to noise levels that may induce auditory injury. As
described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be
authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is
estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering:
(1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available
science indicates marine mammals 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 authorized 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., 2012). 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 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g.
vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. For in-air sounds, NMFS predicts that
phocids and otariids exposed above received levels of 90 dB and 100 dB
re 20 [mu]Pa (rms), respectively, may be behaviorally harassed.
Kitsap Transit's project includes the use of continuous (vibratory
pile driving) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and
therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) are applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to
assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine
mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to
noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
Kitsap Transit's activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile
driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving) sources.
These thresholds are provided in Table 3. 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.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 32087]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY18.000

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Ensonified Area

Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds.
Sound Propagation--Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in
acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a
source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions,
current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and
bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater
TL is:

TL = B * log10(R1/R2),

Where

B = transmission loss coefficient (assumed to be 15)
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
(free-field) 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)).
As is common practice in coastal waters, here we assume practical
spreading loss (4.5 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of
distance). Practical spreading is a compromise that is often used under
conditions where water depth increases as the receiver moves away from
the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that
would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions.

[[Page 32088]]

Sound Source Levels--The intensity of pile driving sounds is
greatly influenced by factors such as the type of piles, hammers, and
the physical environment in which the activity takes place. There are
source level measurements available for certain pile types and sizes
from the specific environment of several of nearby projects (i.e., NBK
Bangor and NBK Bremerton), but not from all. Numerous studies have
examined sound pressure levels (SPLs) recorded from underwater pile
driving projects in California (e.g., Caltrans, 2015) and elsewhere in
Washington. In order to determine reasonable SPLs and their associated
effects on marine mammals that are likely to result from pile driving
at the six installations, studies with similar properties to the
specified activity were evaluated.
No direct pile driving measurements at the Annapolis Ferry Dock are
available. Therefore, Kitsap Transit reviewed available values from
multiple nearshore marine projects obtained from the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) using similar type of piles
(e.g., size and material) and water depth (Caltrans, 2015). NMFS also
evaluated the proposed source levels with respect to pile driving
measurements made by the Washington Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) at other ferry terminals in Puget Sound as well as measurements
collected by the Navy in Puget Sound. A full description of source
level analysis is contained within the notice of proposed IHA (83 FR
22624, May 16, 2018).

Table 4--Estimated Pile Driving Source Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sound pressure (dB re: 1 [micro]Pa)
Method Pile size -----------------------------------------------
(inches) SPL \1\ (peak) SPL (rms) \1\ SEL \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact.......................................... 12 192 177 \2\ 167
24 207 194 178
Vibratory....................................... 12 171 155 155
24 \3\ 178 \3\ 165 \3\ 165
Vibratory Removal............................... 16.5-18 175 160 160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source levels presented at standard distance of 10 m from the driven pile. Peak source levels are not
typically evaluated for vibratory pile driving, as vibratory driving does not present rapid rise times. SEL
source levels for vibratory driving are equivalent to SPL (rms) source levels.
\2\ SEL value assumes a 10 dB reduction from SPL.
\3\ SLs provided for 24 in. vibratory driving consider measurements from Caltrans (2015) for driving 24 in.
sheet piles 36 in. pipe piles, Navy measurements in inland Washington (as described in NMFS proposed rule (83
FR 9366; March 5, 2018)), and analysis contained with the Biological Opinion prepared for this project.

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 take by Level A harassment. 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 stationary sources such as
pile driving, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at
which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration
of the activity, it would not incur PTS. A description of inputs used
in the User Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths are reported
below.
Kitsap Transit estimates it will take a maximum of six hours, per
day, to install or remove piles using a vibratory hammer (up to four
piles per day). For steel piles that are ``proofed,'' Kitsap Transit
estimated approximately 1,000 hammer strikes per pile would be required
with two piles installed per day. If piles can be installed completely
with the vibratory hammer, Kitsap Transit would not use an impact
hammer; however, it is included here as a possibility. A practical
spreading model (15logR) was used for all calculation. NMFS considered
these inputs when using the NMFS user spreadsheet (Table 5).

Table 5--NMFS User Spreadsheet Inputs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory pile Impact pile
Input parameter driving driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighting Factor Adjustment \1\. 2.5 kHz........... 2 kHz.
Source Level (SL)............... See Table 4 (rms See Table 4 (SEL
values). values).
Duration........................ 6 hours........... n/a.
Strikes per pile................ n/a............... 1,000.
Piles per day................... n/a............... 2.
Transmission loss coefficient... 15................ 15.
Distance from SL measurement.... 10 m.............. 10 m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For those applicants who cannot fully apply auditory weighting
functions associated with the SELcum metric, NMFS has recommended the
default, single frequency weighting factor adjustments (WFAs) provided
here. As described in Appendix D of NMFS' Technical Guidance (NMFS,
2016), the intent of the WFA is to broadly account for auditory
weighting functions below the 95 frequency contour percentile. Use of
single frequency WFA is likely to over-predict Level A harassment
distances.

[[Page 32089]]

As described above, the Level B harassment threshold for impulsive
noise (e.g., impact pile driving) is 160 dB rms. The Level B harassment
threshold for continuous noise (e.g., vibratory pile driving) is 120 dB
rms.
Distances corresponding to received levels reaching NMFS harassment
thresholds are provided in Table 6. These distances represent the
distance at which an animal would have to remain for the entire
duration considered (i.e., 6 hours of vibratory pile driving, 2,000
hammer strikes) for the potential onset of PTS to occur. These results
do not consider the time it takes to re-set between piles; therefore,
it is highly unlikely any species would remain at these distances for
the entire duration of pile driving within a day. As a result, these
distances represent the calculated outputs of the User Spreadsheet but,
in reality, do not reflect a likely scenario for the potential onset of
Level A harassment. Regardless, Kitsap Transit has identified it is
practicable to implement shut-down zones mirroring these calculated
outputs to avoid Level A harassment. However, for practical purposes,
we have modified them slightly for ease of monitoring and implementing
mitigation (see Table 9). Table 6 also includes distances to the Level
B harassment isopleths considering land truncation.

Table 6--Distances to Level A and B Harassment Thresholds and Area Ensonified
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to Level A (meters)
Pile size ----------------------------------------------------------------- Level B Level B
Method (inches) LF MF HF (meters) area
cetaceans cetaceans cetaceans Phocids Otariids (km\2\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact (install)................................ 12 136 4.8 162.0 72.8 5.3 136 0.1
24 735.8 26.2 876.4 393.8 28.7 1,848 5.5
Vibratory (install)............................. 12 9.0 0.8 13.3 5.5 0.4 2,154 6.5
24 41.7 3.7 61.6 25.3 1.8 10,000 19.2
Vibratory (removal)............................. 16.5-18 19.3 1.7 28.6 11.8 0.8 4,612 14.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
Available information regarding marine mammal occurrence in the
vicinity of the Annapolis Ferry Terminal includes density information
aggregated in the Navy's Marine Mammal Species Density Database (NMSDD;
Navy, 2015) or site-specific survey information from particular
installations (e.g., local pinniped counts). More recent density
estimates for harbor porpoise are available in Jefferson et al. (2016).
Specifically, a density-based analysis is used for the harbor
porpoise and Steller sea lion, while data from site-specific abundance
surveys is used for the California sea lion and harbor seal (Table 7).

Table 7--Density or Pinniped Count Data, by Species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
Species (animals/ Average daily
km\2\) pinniped count
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal............................. 1.22 n/a
Steller sea lion........................ 0.036 n/a
California sea lion..................... n/a 69
Harbor Porpoise......................... 0.53 n/a
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take Calculation and Estimation

Here we describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
The proposed IHA did not include authorization of take by Level A
harassment for marine mammals due to the extended durations animals
would have to be exposed within a relatively short distance. However,
we have authorized Level A harassment in the final IHA in the chance a
marine mammal enters the conservative Level A harassment zone before
pile driving could shut down. We do not believe there is a likely
potential for Level A harassment for any species. Further, no take
(either Level A or Level B harassment) of humpback whales, gray whales,
and killer whales was requested or proposed for authorization due to
the short duration of the project (17 days), the small amount of piles
installed (12) and removed (5), and the incorporation of the prescribed
mitigation and monitoring measures (see Mitigation and Monitoring and
Reporting sections).
The take calculation for harbor seal, Steller sea lion, and harbor
porpoise is derived using the following equation: take estimate =
species density (see Table 7) x ensonified area (based on pile size) x
number of pile driving days. Because there would be 5 days of pile
removal, four 12 in. piles installed over four days (maximum), and
eight 24 in. piles installed over eight days (maximum), we summed each
product together to produce a total take estimate. When impact and
vibratory hammer use would occur on the same day, the larger Level B
harassment ensonifed zone for that day was used. For example, harbor
seal takes due to 12 inch pile driving are calculated as 1.22 animals/
km\2\ x 6.5 km\2\ x 4 days = 32. Harbor seal takes due to installing 24
in. piles is 1.22 animals/km\2\ x 19.2 km\2\ x 8 days = 187. Finally,
harbor seal takes due to pile removal is 1.22 animals/km\2\ x 14.3
km\2\ x 5 days = 87. Therefore, take by Level B harassment is estimated
at 306 harbor seals. We anticipate this amount of take does not
represent number of individuals taken but some lesser amount of
individuals taken multiple times. The take estimation process was
repeated for Steller sea lions and harbor porpoise using their
respective densities (see Table 7).
The calculation for California sea lion exposures is estimated by
the following equation: Level B Exposure estimate = N (estimated
animals/day) x number of pile driving days. Because density is not used
for this species, we simply

[[Page 32090]]

assumed 69 sea lions could be taken on any given day of pile driving.
Therefore, 69 California sea lion/day x 17 days = 1,173 California sea
lion takes.
Finally, we included a small amount of take by Level A harassment
for harbor seals and harbor porpoise in case animals go undetected
before Kitsap Transit can shut down pile driving. For both species, we
assumed up to three animals could come closer than the Level A
harassment distance generated by the user spreadsheet each day of pile
driving (total of 12 days). We authorized 36 Level A harassment takes
of harbor seals and harbor porpoise assuming three animals of each
species could enter the Level A harassment zone during pile driving
based on previous monitoring and sightability; however, the likelihood
of those animals actually experiencing PTS is very low because the
distances represent long exposure durations. The amount of authorized
take, by harassment type, incidental to 17 days of pile driving is
provided in Table 8.

Table 8--Authorized Take, by Species, Incidental to Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Species Level A Level B Total take stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal..................................... \1\ 36 306 342 22
Steller sea lion................................ 0 10 10 0.01
California sea lion............................. 0 1,173 1,173 0.4
Harbor porpoise................................. \1\ 36 126 162 1.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assuming three harbor seals or harbor porpoise could enter the Level A harassment zone during 12 days of
pile driving.

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, and impact on
operations.

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

Kitsap Transit is required to implement a number of mitigation
measures designed to minimize the impacts of the project on marine
mammals and their habitat. Below is a description of these measures.
For in-water heavy machinery work (e.g., barges, tug boats), a
minimum 10 m shutdown zone shall be implemented. If a marine mammal
comes within 10 m of such operations, operations shall cease and
vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain
steerage and safe working conditions.
Kitsap Transit shall shut down pile driving if marine mammals are
observed within or approaching the shut down zones identified in Table
9.

Table 9--Shutdown Zones To Avoid Heavy Equipment Injury, Level A Harassment, or Level B Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shutdown Zones (m)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vibratory
Impact 12'' Impact 24'' Vibratory 12'' Vibratory 24'' removal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale.................. 140 1,850 2,160 10,000 4,620
Gray whale...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Killer whale.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Harbor porpoise................. 160 875 15 60 30
Harbor seal..................... 70 395 .............. 25 10
Steller sea lion................ \1\ 10 30 \1\ 10 \1\ 10 \1\ 10
California sea lion............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A minimum 10 m shutdown zone is required to avoid potential injury from equipment.

Pre-activity monitoring shall take place from 30 minutes prior to
initiation of pile driving activity and post-activity monitoring shall
continue through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving activity.
Pile driving may commence at the end of the 30-minute pre-activity
monitoring period, provided observers have determined that the shutdown
zone (see Table 6) is clear of marine mammals, which includes delaying
start of pile driving activities if a marine mammal is sighted in the
shutdown zone. A determination that the shutdown zone is clear must be
made during a period of good visibility (i.e., the entire shutdown zone
and

[[Page 32091]]

surrounding waters must be visible to the naked eye).
If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during
activities or pre-activity monitoring, all pile driving activities at
that location shall be halted or delayed, respectively. If pile driving
is halted or delayed due to the presence of a marine mammal, the
activity may not resume or commence until either the animal has
voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone
or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal. 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 thirty minutes.
Kitsap Transit shall use soft start techniques when impact pile
driving. Soft start requires contractors to provide an initial set of
strikes at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting period,
then two subsequent reduced energy strike sets. Soft start shall be
implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any
time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of thirty
minutes or longer.
If a species for which authorization has not been granted
(including humpback whales, gray whales, and killer whales), or a
species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized
takes are met, is observed approaching or within the Level B harassment
isopleth (Table 6 and 9), pile driving and removal activities must shut
down immediately using delay and shut-down procedures. Activities must
not resume until the animal has been confirmed to have left the area or
the observation time period has elapsed.
Kitsap Transit shall use a bubble curtain during impact pile
driving. Kitsap Transit has indicated they would operate the bubble
curtain such that it will distribute bubbles for the full depth of the
water column and the full circumference of the pile during impact pile
driving, and the lowest bubble ring will be weighted to ensure contact
with the substrate for the full circumference of the ring (pers. comm.,
S. Mahugh to J. Daly, June 11, 2018). We note the estimated source
levels used to calculate harassment zones did not consider any
reduction in noise from use of this bubble curtain (i.e., source levels
are unattenuated estimates).
Kitsap Transit shall access the Orca Network website each morning
prior to in-water construction activities and if pile removal or
installation ceases for more than two hours. If marine mammals for
which take is not authorized (e.g., killer whales, humpback whales,
gray whales) are observed and on a path towards the Level B harassment
zone, pile driving shall be delayed until animals are confirmed outside
of and on a path away from the Level B harassment zone or if one hour
passes with no subsequent sightings.
Kitsap Transit shall implement the use of best management practices
(e.g., erosion and sediment control, spill prevention and control) to
minimize impacts to marine mammal habitat.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's planned 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.
For all pile driving activities, at least two protected species
observers (PSOs) shall be on duty. One PSO shall be stationed at the
on-shore vantage point at the outer portion of the pier to monitor and
implement shutdown or delay procedures, when applicable, through
communication with the equipment operator. The other PSO shall be
stationed at the Waterman Point Dock. If conditions exceed a Beaufort
level 3, a third boat-based observer shall be employed during pile
driving.
Monitoring of pile driving shall be conducted by qualified PSOs
(see below), who shall have no other assigned tasks during monitoring
periods. Kitsap Transit shall adhere to the following conditions when
selecting observers:
Independent, dedicated PSOs shall be used (i.e., not
construction personnel);
At least one PSO must have prior experience working as a
marine mammal observer during construction activities;
Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological
science or related field) or training for experience; and
The Kitsap Transit shall submit PSO CVs for approval by
NMFS.
Kitsap Transit shall ensure that observers have the following
additional qualifications:
Ability to conduct field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols.
Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including but not limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation
of

[[Page 32092]]

mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and
marine mammal behavior; and
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.
Kitsap Transit is also required to submit an annual report
summarizing their monitoring efforts, number of animals taken, any
implementation of mitigation measures (e.g., shut downs) and abide by
reporting requirements contained within the IHA.

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., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
Pile driving activities associated with the Annapolis Ferry
Terminal Project, as described previously, have the potential to
disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified
activities may result in take of four species of marine mammals, in the
form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) from underwater
sounds generated from pile driving. Although unlikely, we have also
authorized a small amount of Level A harassment for harbor seals and
harbor porpoise and considered it in our analysis. The degree of
harassment is expected to be minimized through implementation of the
required mitigation measures--use of the bubble curtain for impact
driving steel piles, soft start (for impact driving), and shutdown
zones. Typically, given sufficient notice through use of soft start,
marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is
annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious or resulting in
more severe behavioral reactions. Environmental conditions in inland
waters are expected to generally be good, with calm sea states, and we
expect conditions would allow a high marine mammal detection
capability, enabling a high rate of success. No serious injury or
mortality is authorized.
We anticipate individuals exposed to pile driving noise generated
at the Annapolis Ferry Terminal will, predominately, simply move away
from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of
pile driving, and that a small number of harbor seals and harbor
porpoise may incur a small degree of PTS. The pile driving activities
analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful than, numerous other
construction activities conducted in the Puget Sound region, which have
taken place with no known long-term adverse consequences. No pupping or
breeding areas are present within the action area. Further, animals are
likely somewhat habituated to noise-generating human activity given the
proximity to Seattle-Bremerton and Port Orchard ferry lanes, recent
construction at NBK Bremerton and the Manette Bridge (both of which
involved pile driving), and general recreational, commercial and
military vessel traffic. Monitoring reports from the Manette Bridge and
NBK Bremerton demonstrate no discernable individual or population level
impacts from similar pile driving activities.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No mortality is anticipated or authorized;
The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist
of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior;
Any injury incurred would consist of small degree of PTS;
There is no significant habitat within the industrialized
project areas, including known areas or features of special
significance for foraging or reproduction; and
The required mitigation measures reduce the effects of the
specified activity to the level of least practicable adverse impact.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the planned monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from
the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected
marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not
define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are
available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most
appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in
our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may
be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of
the activities.
We propose to authorize incidental take of four marine mammal
stocks. The total amount of taking proposed for authorization is less
than 1.5 percent of the stock of Steller sea lions, California sea
lions, and harbor porpoise and 22 percent of the harbor seal stock (see
Table 8). We note that harbor seals takes likely represent multiple
exposures of a fewer number of individuals; therefore, the percentage
of the stock taken under this authorization is likely less than 22
percent. The amount of take authorized is considered relatively small
percentages and we find are small numbers of marine mammals relative to
the estimated overall population abundances for those stocks.
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 Analysis and Determination

There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or

[[Page 32093]]

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)

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 West Coast Region (WCR)
Protected Resources Division Office, whenever we propose to authorize
take for endangered or threatened species.
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is expected or authorized
from this activity. On April 5, 2018, NMFS WCR issued a Biological
Opinion to the Federal Transit Administration concluding the project is
not likely to adversely affect Southern Resident killer whales and the
Western North Pacific and Central American humpback whale distinct
population segments (DPSs). Therefore, NMFS determined that formal
consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this
action.

National Environmental Policy Act

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A,
which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined
that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.

Authorization

As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to
Kitsap Transit for the harassment of small numbers of marine mammals
incidental to construction activities related to the Annapolis Ferry
Dock Project, Puget Sound, Washington, provided the previously
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are
incorporated.

Dated: July 5, 2018.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-14753 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

32082 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices

Estimated Number of Respondents: associated with the Annapolis Passenger migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
600. Ferry Dock Project in Puget Sound, feeding, or sheltering (Level B
Estimated Time per Response: Initial Washington. harassment).
registration 15 minutes. DATES: This Authorization is applicable
Estimated Total Annual Burden Summary of Request
from October 1, 2018 through
Hours: 150. On March 5, 2018, NMFS received a
Estimated Total Annual Cost to September 31, 2019.
request from Kitsap Transit for an IHA
Public: $15,300 in recordkeeping/ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
to take marine mammals incidental to
reporting costs and application fees. Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected pile driving and removal associated
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. with upgrades to the Annapolis Ferry
IV. Request for Comments Electronic copies of the application, Terminal, Puget Sound, Washington.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether IHA, and supporting documents, as well Kitsap Transit submitted a revised
the proposed collection of information as a list of the references cited in this application on May 3, 2018 which
is necessary for the proper performance document, may be obtained online at: NMFS deemed adequate and complete.
of the functions of the agency, including https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/ Pile driving and removal will take a
whether the information shall have 23111. In case of problems accessing maximum of 17 days. No serious injury
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the these documents, please call the contact or mortality is expected to occur or is
agency’s estimate of the burden listed above. authorized from this activity and,
(including hours and cost) of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
proposed collection of information; (c) On May 16, 2018, NMFS published its
Background
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and proposed IHA in the Federal Register
clarity of the information to be Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
for public comment (83 FR 22624).
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
NMFS has issued an IHA to Kitsap
burden of the collection of information the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated
Transit for the take, by Level A and B
on respondents, including through the to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the
harassment, of harbor seal (Phoca
use of automated collection techniques incidental, but not intentional, taking of
vitulina richardii), Steller sea lion
or other forms of information small numbers of marine mammals by
(Eumetopias jubatus monteriensis),
technology. U.S. citizens who engage in a specified
California sea lion (Zalophus
Comments submitted in response to activity (other than commercial fishing)
californianus), and harbor porpoise
this notice will be summarized and/or within a specified geographical region if
(Phocoena phocoena vomerina).
included in the request for OMB certain findings are made and either
approval of this information collection; regulations are issued or, if the taking is Description of Proposed Activity
they also will become a matter of public limited to harassment, a notice of a
Overview
record. proposed authorization is provided to
the public for review. Kitsap Transit is proposing to upgrade
Dated: July 6, 2018.
An authorization for incidental the existing dock at its Annapolis Ferry
Sarah Brabson,
takings shall be granted if NMFS finds Terminal to accommodate larger vessels
NOAA PRA Clearance Officer. by extending the dock into deeper water
that the taking will have a negligible
[FR Doc. 2018–14851 Filed 7–10–18; 8:45 am] and bring the terminal into compliance
impact on the species or stock(s), will
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P not have an unmitigable adverse impact with American Disability Act (ADA)
on the availability of the species or accessibility standards. The project
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where includes removing 10 existing concrete
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE and steel piles that support the existing
relevant), and if the permissible
National Oceanic and Atmospheric methods of taking and requirements pier and float and installing 12 new
Administration pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring steel piles to support updated
and reporting of such takings are set structures. Piles will be removed using
RIN 0648–XG204 forth. a vibratory hammer and new piles will
NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible be installed using a vibratory and, if
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact necessary, an impact hammer. The
Specified Activities; Taking Marine resulting from the specified activity that project is anticipated to take 8 weeks to
Mammals Incidental to the Annapolis cannot be reasonably expected to, and is complete; however, Kitsap Transit
Passenger Ferry Dock Project, not reasonably likely to, adversely affect anticipates it will take a maximum of 17
Washington the species or stock through effects on days to complete in-water pile driving
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries annual rates of recruitment or survival. activities.
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’
Dates and Duration
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or
Commerce. attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill The project would occur for eight
ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental any marine mammal. weeks between October 1, 2018 and
harassment authorization. Except with respect to certain September 30, 2019 with the exception
activities not pertinent here, the MMPA of March 3, 2019 through July 1, 2019
SUMMARY: In accordance with the defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of to protect salmonids and surf smelt. Pile
regulations implementing the Marine pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) removal has been conservatively
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as has the potential to injure a marine estimated to occur at a rate of 2 piles
amended, notification is hereby given mammal or marine mammal stock in the removed per day, which would require
that NMFS has issued an incidental wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 5 days to remove 10 piles. Pile
harassment authorization (IHA) to the potential to disturb a marine installation was conservatively
Kitsap Transit, to incidentally take, by mammal or marine mammal stock in the estimated to occur at a rate of 1 pile per
Level A and B harassment, marine wild by causing disruption of behavioral day, which would require 12 days to
mammals during construction activities patterns, including, but not limited to, install 12 piles. In total, there would be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:26 Jul 10, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN1.SGM 11JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 32083

17 days (maximum) of pile driving. No parking area contains a hardened installing a longer gangway, removing
in-water pile driving will be conducted shoreline comprised of sheet piles. the existing float and installing a larger
between float in deeper water. This work
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
requires removing 10 existing piles and
Specific Geographic Region A detailed description of the specified installing 12 new piles.
The Annapolis Ferry Terminal is activity is provided in our notice of Piles would be removed with a
located in Sinclair Inlet across from proposed IHA (83 FR 22624; May 16, vibratory hammer. Piles would be
Naval Base Kitsap (NBK) Bremerton and 2018). Please refer to that document for installed using a vibratory hammer to
southwest of Bainbridge Island. full detail. We provide a summary here. refusal and then ‘‘proofed’’ with an
Potential areas ensonified during pile The Annapolis Ferry Terminal was impact hammer, if necessary. The
driving include Sinclair Inlet and designed to have a useful life of 40 years maximum amount of time spent
portions of Port Washington Narrows, and is now 34 years old. Kitsap Transit removing 10 piles would be 5 days
Port Orchard Passage and Rich Passage. has determined upgrades are necessary while the maximum amount of time
These waterbodies range up to 130 feet to meet ADA requirements and installing 12 piles would be 12 days for
in depth and substrates include silt/ accommodate larger ferry vessels. To a total of 17 days. The types of piles
mud, sand, gravel, cobbles and rock make the upgrades, Kitsap Transit is included in the project and schedule,
outcrops. The terminal itself and removing a portion of the existing pier, are included in Table 1.

TABLE 1—DESCRIPTION OF PILES TO BE INSTALLED AND REMOVED DURING THE ANNAPOLIS FERRY DOCK PROJECT
Number of
Number of
Pile size Method days
piles (maximum)

Pile Removal

16.5-in concrete ......................................................................................... Vibratory .......................................... 4 5
18″ steel ..................................................................................................... Vibratory .......................................... 6 ........................

Pile Installation

12-in steel .................................................................................................. Vibratory .......................................... 4 12
Impact .............................................. ........................ ........................
24-in steel .................................................................................................. Vibratory .......................................... 8 ........................
Impact .............................................. ........................ ........................

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and provides the Commission opportunity to curtain performance standards’’ in all
reporting measures are described in comment on the application and our relevant authorizations. The
detail later in this document (please see proposal and we consider all public Commission provided the following
‘‘Mitigation’’ and ‘‘Monitoring and comments prior to issuance of the IHA. performance standards it deems is
Reporting’’). The Level A harassment zones for this neither unreasonable or cost-
project are relatively small; however, as prohibitive: (1) The bubble curtain must
Comments and Responses
described in the Estimated Take section distribute air bubbles around 100
A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue below, we have included authorization percent of the piling perimeter for the
an IHA was published in the Federal of a small number of takes by Level A full depth of the water column, (2) the
Register on May 16, 2018 (83 FR 22624). harassment, as recommended by the lowest bubble ring should be in contact
During the 30-day public comment Commission, in case animals are with the mudline for the full
period, the Marine Mammal undetected before Kitsap Transit can circumference of the ring, and the
Commission (Commission) submitted a shut down. weights attached to the bottom ring
letter, providing comments as described Comment 2: The Commission should ensure 100 percent mudline
below. recommends that NMFS require Kitsap contact (no parts of the ring or other
Comment 1: The Commission made a Transit to abide by mitigation measures objects shall prevent full mudline
general comment recommending NMFS previously used by other applicants contact), and (3) the action proponent
more thoroughly review applications regarding contacting the Orca Network requires construction contractors to
before deeming one adequate and and/or Center for Whale Research for train personnel in the proper balancing
complete and better evaluate Level A both marine mammal sightings and of air flow to the bubblers and to submit
harassment zones and take numbers acoustic detection data. an inspection/performance report for
prior to publishing a proposed NMFS Response: Both the application approval by the action proponent within
authorization. and proposed IHA Federal Register 72 hours following the performance
NMFS Response: MMPA notice included a condition that Kitsap test—corrections to the attenuation
implementing regulations provide a list Transit access the Orca Network each device to meet the performance
of 14 informational elements that must day of pile driving. NMFS has added standards are to occur prior to impact
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

be included in an IHA application that this specifically applies to both driving.
before NMFS can determine it is visual and acoustic monitoring data. NMFS Response: The Commission
adequate and complete. For the subject Comment 3: The Commission mischaracterized the referenced
IHA, the application contained all the recommends that NMFS require Kitsap performance measures as NMFS’
required information. With respect to Transit and any other action proponent ‘‘standards.’’ These measures were
Level A harassment distances and take using a bubble curtain to implement developed by the U.S. Navy, in
numbers, the public review process what they refer to as ‘‘NMFS’s bubble consultation with NMFS, as a direct

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:26 Jul 10, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN1.SGM 11JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 32085

any renewal is issued utilizing the new activity, including brief introductions to species and stocks. To avoid repetition,
process. Finally, NMFS has previously the species and relevant stocks as well detailed descriptions are not provided
notified the Commission that a notice of as available information regarding here. Please refer to additional species
issuance or denial of a renewal IHA population trends and threats, and information available in the NMFS stock
would be published in the Federal information regarding local occurrence, assessment reports for the Pacific and
Register. are provided in Kitsap Transit’s Alaska at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
Description of Marine Mammals in the application and the Federal Register sars/region.htm.
Area of Specified Activities notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR
A detailed description of the species 22624; May 16, 2018). We are not aware
likely to be affected by Kitsap Transit’s of any changes in the status of these

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE ANNAPOLIS FERRY TERMINAL DURING
CONSTRUCTION
ESA/
MMPA Stock abundance Annual
Common name Scientific name Stock status; (CV, Nmin, most recent PBR M/SI 3
strategic abundance survey) 2
(Y/N) 1

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray whale ....................... Eschrichtius robustus ............. Eastern North Pacific ............. -; N 20,990 (0.05; 20,125; 2011) .. 624 132
Family Balaenopteridae
(rorquals):
Humpback whale .............. Megaptera novaeangliae California/Oregon/Washington E/D; Y 1,918 (0.03; 1,876; 2014) ...... 7 11 ≥9.2
kuzira. (CA/OR/WA).

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)

Family Delphinidae:
Killer whale ....................... Orcinus orca 4 ......................... West Coast Transient 5 .......... -; N 243 (n/a; 2009) ....................... 2.4 0
Eastern North Pacific South- E/D; Y 83 (n/a; 2016) ......................... 0.14 0
ern Resident.
Family Phocoenidae (por-
poises):
Harbor porpoise ............... Phocoena phocoena Washington Inland Waters ..... -; N 11,233 (0.37; 8,308; 2015) .... 66 ≥7.2
vomerina.

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia

Family Otariidae (eared seals
and sea lions):
California sea lion ............ Zalophus californianus ........... United States .......................... -; N 296,750 (n/a; 153,337; 2011) 9,200 389
Steller sea lion ................. Eumetopias jubatus Eastern U.S. ........................... D; Y 41,638 (n/a; 2015) .................. 2,498 108
monteriensis.
Family Phocidae (earless
seals):
Harbor seal ....................... Phoca vitulina richardii ........... Southern Puget Sound 6 ........ -; N 1,568 (0.15; 1,025; 1999) ...... Undet. 3.4
1 Endangered 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 at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coeffi-
cient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For two stocks of killer whales, the abundance values rep-
resent direct counts of individually identifiable animals; therefore there is only a single abundance estimate with no associated CV. For certain stocks of pinnipeds,
abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from knowledge of the species’ (or
similar species’) life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV. In these cases, the minimum abundance may represent ac-
tual counts of all animals ashore.
3 These values, found in NMFS’ SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries,
subsistence hunting, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value. All M/SI values are as pre-
sented in the draft 2017 SARs.
4 Transient and resident killer whales are considered unnamed subspecies (Committee on Taxonomy, 2017).
5 The abundance estimate for this stock includes only animals from the ‘‘inner coast’’ population occurring in inside waters of southeastern Alaska, British Columbia,
and Washington—excluding animals from the ‘‘outer coast’’ subpopulation, including animals from California—and therefore should be considered a minimum count.
For comparison, the previous abundance estimate for this stock, including counts of animals from California that are now considered outdated, was 354.
6 Abundance estimates for the Southern Puget Sound harbor seal stock is not considered current. PBR is therefore considered undetermined for these stocks, as
there is no current minimum abundance estimate for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimates, as these represent the best
available information for use in this document.
7 This stock is known to spend a portion of time outside the U.S. EEZ. Therefore, the PBR presented here is the allocation for U.S. waters only and is a portion of
the total. The total PBR for humpback whales is 22 (one half allocation for U.S. waters). Annual M/SI presented for these species is for U.S. waters only.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities May 16, 2018). Please refer to that be harassed from Kitsap Transit’s
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat document for our detailed analysis; we specified activity. The effects of pile
provide only summary information driving noise on marine mammals are
We provided a detailed description of here. dependent on several factors, including,
the anticipated effects of the specified The introduction of anthropogenic but not limited to, sound type (e.g.,
activity on marine mammals in our noise into the aquatic environment from impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the
Federal Register notice announcing the pile driving and removal is the primary species, age and sex class (e.g., adult
proposed authorization (83 FR 22624; means by which marine mammals may male vs. mom with calf), duration of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:26 Jul 10, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN1.SGM 11JYN1

32086 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices

exposure, the distance between the pile patterns, including, but not limited to, the practical need to use a threshold
and the animal, received levels, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, based on a factor that is both predictable
behavior at time of exposure, and feeding, or sheltering (Level B and measurable for most activities,
previous history with exposure harassment). NMFS uses a generalized acoustic
(Southall et al., 2007, Wartzok et al. Authorized takes would be by Level A threshold based on received level to
2004). Animals exposed to natural or and B harassment. Level A harassment estimate the onset of behavioral
anthropogenic sound may experience is authorized for those cases where harassment. NMFS predicts that marine
physical and behavioral effects, ranging animals are undetected before exposure mammals are likely to be behaviorally
in magnitude from none to severe to noise levels that may induce auditory harassed in a manner we consider Level
(Southall et al. 2007). In general, injury. As described previously, no B harassment when exposed to
exposure to pile driving noise has the mortality is anticipated or proposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above
potential to result in auditory threshold be authorized for this activity. Below we received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms)
shifts (permanent threshold shift (PTS) describe how the take is estimated. for continuous (e.g. vibratory pile-
and temporary threshold shift (TTS)) Described in the most basic way, we driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1
and behavioral reactions (e.g., estimate take by considering: (1) mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive
avoidance, temporary cessation of Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent
foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive believes the best available science
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. For in-air
behavior). indicates marine mammals will be
sounds, NMFS predicts that phocids
Similar pile driving and removal behaviorally harassed or incur some
and otariids exposed above received
activities have been conducted in degree of permanent hearing
levels of 90 dB and 100 dB re 20 mPa
Sinclair Inlet and, more broadly, Puget impairment; (2) the area or volume of
(rms), respectively, may be behaviorally
Sound. Marine mammal monitoring water that will be ensonified above
these levels in a day; (3) the density or harassed.
conducted under several IHAs indicate
there are no permanent or significant occurrence of marine mammals within Kitsap Transit’s project includes the
impacts to marine mammals from these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the use of continuous (vibratory pile
exposure to pile driving noise. number of days of activities. Below, we driving) and impulsive (impact pile
Construction activities at the describe these components in more driving) sources, and therefore the 120
Annapolis Ferry Terminal could have detail and present the authorized take and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) are
localized, temporary impacts on marine estimate. applicable.
mammal habitat and their prey by Level A harassment for non-explosive
Acoustic Thresholds
increasing in-water sound pressure sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance
levels and slightly decreasing water Using the best available science,
for Assessing the Effects of
quality. Any impacts are anticipated to NMFS has developed acoustic
Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
be localized, short-term, and minimal. thresholds that identify the received
Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance,
level of underwater sound above which
Estimated Take 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess
exposed marine mammals would be
auditory injury (Level A harassment) to
This section provides an estimate of reasonably expected to be behaviorally
five different marine mammal groups
the number of incidental takes proposed harassed (equated to Level B
(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result
for authorization through this IHA, harassment) or to incur PTS of some
of exposure to noise from two different
which will inform both NMFS’ degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive types of sources (impulsive or non-
consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and
sources—Though significantly driven by impulsive). Kitsap Transit’s activity
the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take received level, the onset of behavioral includes the use of impulsive (impact
expected to result from these activities. disturbance from anthropogenic noise pile driving) and non-impulsive
Except with respect to certain activities exposure is also informed to varying (vibratory pile driving) sources.
not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the degrees by other factors related to the These thresholds are provided in
MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act source (e.g., frequency, predictability, Table 3. The references, analysis, and
of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which duty cycle), the environment (e.g., methodology used in the development
(i) has the potential to injure a marine bathymetry), and the receiving animals of the thresholds are described in NMFS
mammal or marine mammal stock in the (hearing, motivation, experience, 2016 Technical Guidance, which may
wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has demography, behavioral context) and be accessed at: http://
the potential to disturb a marine can be difficult to predict (Southall et www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/
mammal or marine mammal stock in the al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on guidelines.htm.
wild by causing disruption of behavioral what the available science indicates and BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:26 Jul 10, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN1.SGM 11JYN1

32088 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices

Sound Source Levels—The intensity Caltrans, 2015) and elsewhere in Transportation (Caltrans) using similar
of pile driving sounds is greatly Washington. In order to determine type of piles (e.g., size and material) and
influenced by factors such as the type of reasonable SPLs and their associated water depth (Caltrans, 2015). NMFS also
piles, hammers, and the physical effects on marine mammals that are evaluated the proposed source levels
environment in which the activity takes likely to result from pile driving at the with respect to pile driving
place. There are source level six installations, studies with similar measurements made by the Washington
measurements available for certain pile properties to the specified activity were Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
types and sizes from the specific evaluated. at other ferry terminals in Puget Sound
environment of several of nearby No direct pile driving measurements as well as measurements collected by
projects (i.e., NBK Bangor and NBK at the Annapolis Ferry Dock are the Navy in Puget Sound. A full
Bremerton), but not from all. Numerous available. Therefore, Kitsap Transit
description of source level analysis is
studies have examined sound pressure reviewed available values from multiple
contained within the notice of proposed
levels (SPLs) recorded from underwater nearshore marine projects obtained from
pile driving projects in California (e.g., the California Department of IHA (83 FR 22624, May 16, 2018).

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED PILE DRIVING SOURCE LEVELS
Sound pressure
(dB re: 1 μPa)
Pile size
Method (inches) SPL 1 SPL SEL 1
(peak) (rms) 1

Impact .............................................................................................................. 12 192 177 2 167

24 207 194 178
Vibratory ........................................................................................................... 12 171 155 155
24 3 178 3 165 3 165

Vibratory Removal ........................................................................................... 16.5–18 175 160 160
1 Source levels presented at standard distance of 10 m from the driven pile. Peak source levels are not typically evaluated for vibratory pile
driving, as vibratory driving does not present rapid rise times. SEL source levels for vibratory driving are equivalent to SPL (rms) source levels.
2 SEL value assumes a 10 dB reduction from SPL.
3 SLs provided for 24 in. vibratory driving consider measurements from Caltrans (2015) for driving 24 in. sheet piles 36 in. pipe piles, Navy
measurements in inland Washington (as described in NMFS proposed rule (83 FR 9366; March 5, 2018)), and analysis contained with the Bio-
logical Opinion prepared for this project.

When NMFS Technical Guidance overestimate of take by Level A Kitsap Transit estimates it will take a
(2016) was published, in recognition of harassment. However, these tools offer maximum of six hours, per day, to
the fact that ensonified area/volume the best way to predict appropriate install or remove piles using a vibratory
could be more technically challenging isopleths when more sophisticated 3D hammer (up to four piles per day). For
to predict because of the duration modeling methods are not available, and steel piles that are ‘‘proofed,’’ Kitsap
component in the new thresholds, we NMFS continues to develop ways to Transit estimated approximately 1,000
developed a User Spreadsheet that quantitatively refine these tools, and hammer strikes per pile would be
includes tools to help predict a simple will qualitatively address the output required with two piles installed per
isopleth that can be used in conjunction where appropriate. For stationary day. If piles can be installed completely
with marine mammal density or sources such as pile driving, NMFS User with the vibratory hammer, Kitsap
occurrence to help predict takes. We Spreadsheet predicts the closest Transit would not use an impact
note that because of some of the distance at which, if a marine mammal hammer; however, it is included here as
assumptions included in the methods remained at that distance the whole a possibility. A practical spreading
used for these tools, we anticipate that duration of the activity, it would not model (15logR) was used for all
isopleths produced are typically going incur PTS. A description of inputs used calculation. NMFS considered these
to be overestimates of some degree, in the User Spreadsheet, and the inputs when using the NMFS user
which will result in some degree of resulting isopleths are reported below. spreadsheet (Table 5).

TABLE 5—NMFS USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS
Input parameter Vibratory pile driving Impact pile driving

Weighting Factor Adjustment 1 ................................................................ 2.5 kHz .......................................... 2 kHz.
Source Level (SL) ................................................................................... See Table 4 (rms values) .............. See Table 4 (SEL values).
Duration ................................................................................................... 6 hours ........................................... n/a.
Strikes per pile ........................................................................................ n/a .................................................. 1,000.
Piles per day ........................................................................................... n/a .................................................. 2.
Transmission loss coefficient .................................................................. 15 ................................................... 15.
Distance from SL measurement ............................................................. 10 m ............................................... 10 m.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

1 For those applicants who cannot fully apply auditory weighting functions associated with the SEL
cum metric, NMFS has recommended the
default, single frequency weighting factor adjustments (WFAs) provided here. As described in Appendix D of NMFS’ Technical Guidance (NMFS,
2016), the intent of the WFA is to broadly account for auditory weighting functions below the 95 frequency contour percentile. Use of single fre-
quency WFA is likely to over-predict Level A harassment distances.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:26 Jul 10, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN1.SGM 11JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 32089

As described above, the Level B considered (i.e., 6 hours of vibratory for the potential onset of Level A
harassment threshold for impulsive pile driving, 2,000 hammer strikes) for harassment. Regardless, Kitsap Transit
noise (e.g., impact pile driving) is 160 the potential onset of PTS to occur. has identified it is practicable to
dB rms. The Level B harassment These results do not consider the time implement shut-down zones mirroring
threshold for continuous noise (e.g., it takes to re-set between piles; these calculated outputs to avoid Level
vibratory pile driving) is 120 dB rms. therefore, it is highly unlikely any A harassment. However, for practical
Distances corresponding to received species would remain at these distances purposes, we have modified them
levels reaching NMFS harassment for the entire duration of pile driving slightly for ease of monitoring and
thresholds are provided in Table 6. within a day. As a result, these implementing mitigation (see Table 9).
These distances represent the distance distances represent the calculated Table 6 also includes distances to the
at which an animal would have to outputs of the User Spreadsheet but, in Level B harassment isopleths
remain for the entire duration reality, do not reflect a likely scenario considering land truncation.

TABLE 6—DISTANCES TO LEVEL A AND B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS AND AREA ENSONIFIED
Distance to Level A
(meters) Level B
Pile size Level B
Method area
(inches) (meters)
LF MF HF (km2)
Phocids Otariids
cetaceans cetaceans cetaceans

Impact (install) .................. 12 136 4.8 162.0 72.8 5.3 136 0.1
24 735.8 26.2 876.4 393.8 28.7 1,848 5.5
Vibratory (install) .............. 12 9.0 0.8 13.3 5.5 0.4 2,154 6.5
24 41.7 3.7 61.6 25.3 1.8 10,000 19.2
Vibratory (removal) .......... 16.5–18 19.3 1.7 28.6 11.8 0.8 4,612 14.3

Marine Mammal Occurrence vicinity of the Annapolis Ferry for harbor porpoise are available in
Terminal includes density information Jefferson et al. (2016).
In this section we provide the aggregated in the Navy’s Marine Specifically, a density-based analysis
information about the presence, density, Mammal Species Density Database is used for the harbor porpoise and
or group dynamics of marine mammals (NMSDD; Navy, 2015) or site-specific Steller sea lion, while data from site-
that will inform the take calculations. survey information from particular specific abundance surveys is used for
Available information regarding installations (e.g., local pinniped the California sea lion and harbor seal
marine mammal occurrence in the counts). More recent density estimates (Table 7).

TABLE 7—DENSITY OR PINNIPED COUNT DATA, BY SPECIES
Density Average daily
Species (animals/km2) pinniped count

Harbor seal .............................................................................................................................................................. 1.22 n/a
Steller sea lion ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.036 n/a
California sea lion .................................................................................................................................................... n/a 69
Harbor Porpoise ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.53 n/a

Take Calculation and Estimation the small amount of piles installed (12) calculated as 1.22 animals/km2 × 6.5
Here we describe how the information and removed (5), and the incorporation km2 × 4 days = 32. Harbor seal takes due
provided above is brought together to of the prescribed mitigation and to installing 24 in. piles is 1.22 animals/
produce a quantitative take estimate. monitoring measures (see Mitigation km2 × 19.2 km2 × 8 days = 187. Finally,
The proposed IHA did not include and Monitoring and Reporting sections). harbor seal takes due to pile removal is
authorization of take by Level A The take calculation for harbor seal, 1.22 animals/km2 × 14.3 km2 × 5 days
harassment for marine mammals due to Steller sea lion, and harbor porpoise is = 87. Therefore, take by Level B
the extended durations animals would derived using the following equation: harassment is estimated at 306 harbor
have to be exposed within a relatively take estimate = species density (see seals. We anticipate this amount of take
short distance. However, we have Table 7) × ensonified area (based on pile does not represent number of
authorized Level A harassment in the size) × number of pile driving days. individuals taken but some lesser
final IHA in the chance a marine Because there would be 5 days of pile amount of individuals taken multiple
mammal enters the conservative Level A removal, four 12 in. piles installed over times. The take estimation process was
harassment zone before pile driving four days (maximum), and eight 24 in. repeated for Steller sea lions and harbor
could shut down. We do not believe piles installed over eight days porpoise using their respective densities
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

there is a likely potential for Level A (maximum), we summed each product (see Table 7).
harassment for any species. Further, no together to produce a total take estimate. The calculation for California sea lion
take (either Level A or Level B When impact and vibratory hammer use exposures is estimated by the following
harassment) of humpback whales, gray would occur on the same day, the larger equation: Level B Exposure estimate = N
whales, and killer whales was requested Level B harassment ensonifed zone for (estimated animals/day) × number of
or proposed for authorization due to the that day was used. For example, harbor pile driving days. Because density is not
short duration of the project (17 days), seal takes due to 12 inch pile driving are used for this species, we simply

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:26 Jul 10, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN1.SGM 11JYN1

32090 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices

assumed 69 sea lions could be taken on both species, we assumed up to three during pile driving based on previous
any given day of pile driving. Therefore, animals could come closer than the monitoring and sightability; however,
69 California sea lion/day × 17 days = Level A harassment distance generated the likelihood of those animals actually
1,173 California sea lion takes. by the user spreadsheet each day of pile experiencing PTS is very low because
Finally, we included a small amount driving (total of 12 days). We authorized the distances represent long exposure
of take by Level A harassment for harbor 36 Level A harassment takes of harbor durations. The amount of authorized
seals and harbor porpoise in case seals and harbor porpoise assuming take, by harassment type, incidental to
animals go undetected before Kitsap three animals of each species could 17 days of pile driving is provided in
Transit can shut down pile driving. For enter the Level A harassment zone Table 8.

TABLE 8—AUTHORIZED TAKE, BY SPECIES, INCIDENTAL TO PILE DRIVING
Percent of
Species Level A Level B Total take stock

Harbor seal ...................................................................................................... 1 36 306 342 22
Steller sea lion ................................................................................................. 0 10 10 0.01
California sea lion ............................................................................................ 0 1,173 1,173 0.4
Harbor porpoise ............................................................................................... 1 36 126 162 1.4
1 Assuming three harbor seals or harbor porpoise could enter the Level A harassment zone during 12 days of pile driving.

Mitigation In evaluating how mitigation may or may consider such things as cost, and
In order to issue an IHA under may not be appropriate to ensure the impact on operations.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, least practicable adverse impact on
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and
NMFS must set forth the permissible species or stocks and their habitat, as
Their Habitat
methods of taking pursuant to such well as subsistence uses where
activity, and other means of effecting applicable, we carefully consider two Kitsap Transit is required to
the least practicable impact on such primary factors: implement a number of mitigation
species or stock and its habitat, paying (1) The manner in which, and the measures designed to minimize the
particular attention to rookeries, mating degree to which, the successful impacts of the project on marine
grounds, and areas of similar implementation of the measure(s) is mammals and their habitat. Below is a
significance, and on the availability of expected to reduce impacts to marine description of these measures.
such species or stock for taking for mammals, marine mammal species or For in-water heavy machinery work
certain subsistence uses (latter not stocks, and their habitat. This considers (e.g., barges, tug boats), a minimum 10
applicable for this action). NMFS the nature of the potential adverse m shutdown zone shall be
regulations require applicants for impact being mitigated (likelihood, implemented. If a marine mammal
incidental take authorizations to include scope, range). It further considers the comes within 10 m of such operations,
information about the availability and likelihood that the measure will be operations shall cease and vessels shall
feasibility (economic and technological) effective if implemented (probability of reduce speed to the minimum level
of equipment, methods, and manner of accomplishing the mitigating result if required to maintain steerage and safe
conducting such activity or other means implemented as planned) the likelihood working conditions.
of effecting the least practicable adverse of effective implementation (probability Kitsap Transit shall shut down pile
impact upon the affected species or implemented as planned) and; driving if marine mammals are observed
stocks and their habitat (50 CFR (2) The practicability of the measures within or approaching the shut down
216.104(a)(11)). for applicant implementation, which zones identified in Table 9.

TABLE 9—SHUTDOWN ZONES TO AVOID HEAVY EQUIPMENT INJURY, LEVEL A HARASSMENT, OR LEVEL B HARASSMENT
Shutdown Zones (m)
Species Vibratory
Impact 12″ Impact 24″ Vibratory 12″ Vibratory 24″ removal

Humpback whale ................................................................. 140 1,850 2,160 10,000 4,620
Gray whale ........................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................
Killer whale ........................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................
Harbor porpoise ................................................................... 160 875 15 60 30
Harbor seal .......................................................................... 70 395 ........................ 25 10
Steller sea lion ..................................................................... 1 10 30 1 10 1 10 1 10

California sea lion ................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................
1A minimum 10 m shutdown zone is required to avoid potential injury from equipment.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

Pre-activity monitoring shall take the end of the 30-minute pre-activity mammal is sighted in the shutdown
place from 30 minutes prior to initiation monitoring period, provided observers zone. A determination that the
of pile driving activity and post-activity have determined that the shutdown shutdown zone is clear must be made
monitoring shall continue through 30 zone (see Table 6) is clear of marine during a period of good visibility (i.e.,
minutes post-completion of pile driving mammals, which includes delaying start the entire shutdown zone and
activity. Pile driving may commence at of pile driving activities if a marine

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:26 Jul 10, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN1.SGM 11JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 32091

surrounding waters must be visible to authorized (e.g., killer whales, cumulative), other stressors, or
the naked eye). humpback whales, gray whales) are cumulative impacts from multiple
If a marine mammal approaches or observed and on a path towards the stressors;
enters the shutdown zone during Level B harassment zone, pile driving • How anticipated responses to
activities or pre-activity monitoring, all shall be delayed until animals are stressors impact either: (1) Long-term
pile driving activities at that location confirmed outside of and on a path fitness and survival of individual
shall be halted or delayed, respectively. away from the Level B harassment zone marine mammals; or (2) populations,
If pile driving is halted or delayed due or if one hour passes with no species, or stocks;
to the presence of a marine mammal, the subsequent sightings. • Effects on marine mammal habitat
activity may not resume or commence Kitsap Transit shall implement the (e.g., marine mammal prey species,
until either the animal has voluntarily use of best management practices (e.g., acoustic habitat, or other important
left and been visually confirmed beyond erosion and sediment control, spill physical components of marine
the shutdown zone or 15 minutes have prevention and control) to minimize mammal habitat); and
passed without re-detection of the impacts to marine mammal habitat. • Mitigation and monitoring
animal. Pile driving activities include Based on our evaluation of the effectiveness.
the time to install or remove a single applicant’s planned measures, NMFS For all pile driving activities, at least
pile or series of piles, as long as the time has determined that the prescribed two protected species observers (PSOs)
elapsed between uses of the pile driving mitigation measures provide the means shall be on duty. One PSO shall be
equipment is no more than thirty effecting the least practicable impact on stationed at the on-shore vantage point
minutes. the affected species or stocks and their at the outer portion of the pier to
Kitsap Transit shall use soft start habitat, paying particular attention to monitor and implement shutdown or
techniques when impact pile driving. rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of delay procedures, when applicable,
Soft start requires contractors to provide similar significance. through communication with the
an initial set of strikes at reduced equipment operator. The other PSO
energy, followed by a thirty-second Monitoring and Reporting
shall be stationed at the Waterman Point
waiting period, then two subsequent In order to issue an IHA for an Dock. If conditions exceed a Beaufort
reduced energy strike sets. Soft start activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the level 3, a third boat-based observer shall
shall be implemented at the start of each MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, be employed during pile driving.
day’s impact pile driving and at any requirements pertaining to the Monitoring of pile driving shall be
time following cessation of impact pile monitoring and reporting of such taking. conducted by qualified PSOs (see
driving for a period of thirty minutes or The MMPA implementing regulations at below), who shall have no other
longer. 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that assigned tasks during monitoring
If a species for which authorization requests for authorizations must include periods. Kitsap Transit shall adhere to
has not been granted (including the suggested means of accomplishing the following conditions when selecting
humpback whales, gray whales, and the necessary monitoring and reporting observers:
killer whales), or a species for which that will result in increased knowledge • Independent, dedicated PSOs shall
authorization has been granted but the of the species and of the level of taking be used (i.e., not construction
authorized takes are met, is observed or impacts on populations of marine personnel);
approaching or within the Level B mammals that are expected to be • At least one PSO must have prior
harassment isopleth (Table 6 and 9), present in the proposed action area. experience working as a marine
pile driving and removal activities must Effective reporting is critical both to mammal observer during construction
shut down immediately using delay and compliance as well as ensuring that the activities;
shut-down procedures. Activities must most value is obtained from the required • Other PSOs may substitute
not resume until the animal has been monitoring. education (degree in biological science
confirmed to have left the area or the Monitoring and reporting or related field) or training for
observation time period has elapsed. requirements prescribed by NMFS experience; and
Kitsap Transit shall use a bubble should contribute to improved • The Kitsap Transit shall submit
curtain during impact pile driving. understanding of one or more of the PSO CVs for approval by NMFS.
Kitsap Transit has indicated they would following: Kitsap Transit shall ensure that
operate the bubble curtain such that it • Occurrence of marine mammal observers have the following additional
will distribute bubbles for the full depth species or stocks in the area in which qualifications:
of the water column and the full take is anticipated (e.g., presence, • Ability to conduct field
circumference of the pile during impact abundance, distribution, density); observations and collect data according
pile driving, and the lowest bubble ring • Nature, scope, or context of likely to assigned protocols.
will be weighted to ensure contact with marine mammal exposure to potential • Experience or training in the field
the substrate for the full circumference stressors/impacts (individual or identification of marine mammals,
of the ring (pers. comm., S. Mahugh to cumulative, acute or chronic), through including the identification of
J. Daly, June 11, 2018). We note the better understanding of: (1) Action or behaviors;
estimated source levels used to calculate environment (e.g., source • Sufficient training, orientation, or
harassment zones did not consider any characterization, propagation, ambient experience with the construction
reduction in noise from use of this noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life operation to provide for personal safety
bubble curtain (i.e., source levels are history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence during observations;
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

unattenuated estimates). of marine mammal species with the • Writing skills sufficient to prepare a
Kitsap Transit shall access the Orca action; or (4) biological or behavioral report of observations including but not
Network website each morning prior to context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or limited to the number and species of
in-water construction activities and if feeding areas); marine mammals observed; dates and
pile removal or installation ceases for • Individual marine mammal times when in-water construction
more than two hours. If marine responses (behavioral or physiological) activities were conducted; dates, times,
mammals for which take is not to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or and reason for implementation of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:26 Jul 10, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN1.SGM 11JYN1

32092 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices

mitigation (or why mitigation was not Level A harassment for harbor seals and special significance for foraging or
implemented when required); and harbor porpoise and considered it in our reproduction; and
marine mammal behavior; and analysis. The degree of harassment is • The required mitigation measures
• Ability to communicate orally, by expected to be minimized through reduce the effects of the specified
radio or in person, with project implementation of the required activity to the level of least practicable
personnel to provide real-time mitigation measures—use of the bubble adverse impact.
information on marine mammals curtain for impact driving steel piles, Based on the analysis contained
observed in the area as necessary. soft start (for impact driving), and herein of the likely effects of the
Kitsap Transit is also required to shutdown zones. Typically, given specified activity on marine mammals
submit an annual report summarizing sufficient notice through use of soft and their habitat, and taking into
their monitoring efforts, number of start, marine mammals are expected to consideration the implementation of the
animals taken, any implementation of move away from a sound source that is planned monitoring and mitigation
mitigation measures (e.g., shut downs) annoying prior to its becoming measures, NMFS finds that the total
and abide by reporting requirements potentially injurious or resulting in marine mammal take from the proposed
contained within the IHA. more severe behavioral reactions. activity will have a negligible impact on
Environmental conditions in inland all affected marine mammal species or
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination waters are expected to generally be stocks.
good, with calm sea states, and we Small Numbers
NMFS has defined negligible impact
expect conditions would allow a high
as an impact resulting from the As noted above, only small numbers
marine mammal detection capability,
specified activity that cannot be of incidental take may be authorized
enabling a high rate of success. No
reasonably expected to, and is not under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
serious injury or mortality is authorized.
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the for specified activities other than
species or stock through effects on We anticipate individuals exposed to
military readiness activities. The MMPA
annual rates of recruitment or survival pile driving noise generated at the
does not define small numbers and so,
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact Annapolis Ferry Terminal will,
in practice, where estimated numbers
finding is based on the lack of likely predominately, simply move away from
are available, NMFS compares the
adverse effects on annual rates of the sound source and be temporarily
number of individuals taken to the most
recruitment or survival (i.e., population- displaced from the areas of pile driving,
appropriate estimation of abundance of
level effects). An estimate of the number and that a small number of harbor seals
the relevant species or stock in our
of takes alone is not enough information and harbor porpoise may incur a small
determination of whether an
on which to base an impact degree of PTS. The pile driving
authorization is limited to small
determination. In addition to activities analyzed here are similar to, or
numbers of marine mammals.
considering estimates of the number of less impactful than, numerous other
Additionally, other qualitative factors
marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ construction activities conducted in the
may be considered in the analysis, such
through harassment, NMFS considers Puget Sound region, which have taken
as the temporal or spatial scale of the
other factors, such as the likely nature place with no known long-term adverse
activities.
of any responses (e.g., intensity, consequences. No pupping or breeding We propose to authorize incidental
duration), the context of any responses areas are present within the action area. take of four marine mammal stocks. The
(e.g., critical reproductive time or Further, animals are likely somewhat total amount of taking proposed for
location, migration), as well as effects habituated to noise-generating human authorization is less than 1.5 percent of
on habitat, and the likely effectiveness activity given the proximity to Seattle- the stock of Steller sea lions, California
of the mitigation. We also assess the Bremerton and Port Orchard ferry lanes, sea lions, and harbor porpoise and 22
number, intensity, and context of recent construction at NBK Bremerton percent of the harbor seal stock (see
estimated takes by evaluating this and the Manette Bridge (both of which Table 8). We note that harbor seals takes
information relative to population involved pile driving), and general likely represent multiple exposures of a
status. Consistent with the 1989 recreational, commercial and military fewer number of individuals; therefore,
preamble for NMFS’s implementing vessel traffic. Monitoring reports from the percentage of the stock taken under
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, the Manette Bridge and NBK Bremerton this authorization is likely less than 22
1989), the impacts from other past and demonstrate no discernable individual percent. The amount of take authorized
ongoing anthropogenic activities are or population level impacts from similar is considered relatively small
incorporated into this analysis via their pile driving activities. percentages and we find are small
impacts on the environmental baseline In summary and as described above, numbers of marine mammals relative to
(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status the following factors primarily support the estimated overall population
of the species, population size and our determination that the impacts abundances for those stocks.
growth rate where known, ongoing resulting from this activity are not Based on the analysis contained
sources of human-caused mortality, or expected to adversely affect the species herein of the proposed activity
ambient noise levels). or stock through effects on annual rates (including the prescribed mitigation and
Pile driving activities associated with of recruitment or survival: monitoring measures) and the
the Annapolis Ferry Terminal Project, as • No mortality is anticipated or anticipated take of marine mammals,
described previously, have the potential authorized; NMFS finds that small numbers of
to disturb or displace marine mammals. • The anticipated incidents of Level B marine mammals will be taken relative
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

Specifically, the specified activities may harassment consist of, at worst, to the population size of the affected
result in take of four species of marine temporary modifications in behavior; species or stocks.
mammals, in the form of Level B • Any injury incurred would consist
harassment (behavioral disturbance) of small degree of PTS; Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis
from underwater sounds generated from • There is no significant habitat and Determination
pile driving. Although unlikely, we within the industrialized project areas, There are no relevant subsistence uses
have also authorized a small amount of including known areas or features of of the affected marine mammal stocks or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:26 Jul 10, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN1.SGM 11JYN1

Document Created: 2018-07-10 23:53:35
Document Modified: 2018-07-10 23:53:35

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.
Dates		This Authorization is applicable from October 1, 2018 through September 31, 2019.
Contact		Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application, IHA, and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: https:// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.
FR Citation		83 FR 32082
RIN Number		0648-XG20

83 FR 32082 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Annapolis Passenger Ferry Dock Project, Washington

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 133 (July 11, 2018)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration