Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Pier Maintenance Project, 69825-69834 [2013-27867]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69825-69834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27867]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XC824


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Pier Maintenance Project

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given 
that we have issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the 
U.S. Navy (Navy) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, 
two species of marine mammals during construction activities associated 
with a pier maintenance project at Naval Base Kitsap Bremerton, 
Washington.

DATES: This authorization is effective from December 1, 2013, through 
March 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Navy's application and any supporting 
documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, 
may be obtained by visiting the internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. In the case of problems accessing these 
documents, please call the contact listed below. A memorandum 
describing our adoption of the Navy's Environmental Assessment (2013) 
and our associated Finding of No Significant Impact, prepared pursuant 
to the National Environmental Policy Act, are also available at the 
same site.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Laws, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request by U.S. 
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial 
fishing) within a specified area, the incidental, but not intentional, 
taking of small numbers of marine mammals, providing that certain 
findings are made and the necessary prescriptions are established.
    The incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals may be 
allowed only if NMFS (through authority delegated by the Secretary) 
finds that the total taking by the specified activity during the 
specified time period will (i) have a negligible impact on the species 
or stock(s) and (ii) not have an unmitigable adverse impact

[[Page 69826]]

on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses 
(where relevant). Further, the permissible methods of taking and 
requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 
such taking must be set forth, either in specific regulations or in an 
authorization.
    The allowance of such incidental taking under section 101(a)(5)(A), 
by harassment, serious injury, death or a combination thereof, requires 
that regulations be established. Subsequently, a Letter of 
Authorization may be issued pursuant to the prescriptions established 
in such regulations, providing that the level of taking will be 
consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under 
the specific regulations. Under section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may 
authorize such incidental taking by harassment only, for periods of not 
more than 1 year, pursuant to requirements and conditions contained 
within an Incidental Harassment Authorization. The establishment of 
prescriptions through either specific regulations or an authorization 
requires notice and opportunity for public comment.
    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.'' 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; 
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.'' The former is termed Level A harassment and 
the latter is termed Level B harassment.

Summary of Request

    On May 22, 2013, we received a request from the Navy for 
authorization of the taking, by Level B harassment only, of marine 
mammals incidental to pile driving in association with the Pier 6 pile 
replacement project at Naval Base Kitsap Bremerton, WA (NBKB). That 
request was modified on June 5, 2013, and a final version, which we 
deemed adequate and complete, was submitted on June 12, 2013. In-water 
work associated with the project will be conducted over three years and 
will occur only during the approved in-water work window from June 15 
to March 1. This IHA is valid from December 1, 2013, through March 1, 
2014. Two species of marine mammal are expected to be affected by the 
specified activities: California sea lion (Zalophus californianus 
californianus) and harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii). These 
species may occur year-round in the action area, although California 
sea lions are less common and potentially absent in the summer months.
    NBKB serves as the homeport for a nuclear aircraft carrier and 
other Navy vessels and as a shipyard capable of overhauling and 
repairing all types and sizes of ships. Other significant capabilities 
include alteration, construction, deactivation, and dry-docking of 
naval vessels. Pier 6 was completed in 1926 and requires substantial 
maintenance to maintain readiness. Over the length of the entire 
project, the Navy plans to remove up to 400 deteriorating fender piles 
and to replace them with up to 330 new pre-stressed concrete fender 
piles. Under this IHA, the Navy plans to conduct 20 days of vibratory 
pile removal and 45 days of pile installation with an impact hammer.
    Effects to marine mammals from the specified activity are expected 
to result from underwater sound produced by vibratory and impact pile 
driving. In order to assess project impacts, the Navy used thresholds 
recommended by NMFS, outlined later in this document. The Navy assumed 
practical spreading loss and used empirically-measured source levels 
from representative pile driving events to estimate potential marine 
mammal exposures. Predicted exposures are described later in this 
document. The calculations predict that only Level B harassment would 
occur associated with pile driving activities, and required mitigation 
measures further ensure that no more than Level B harassment would 
occur.

Description of the Specified Activity

    Additional details regarding the specified activity were described 
in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (78 FR 56659; 
September 13, 2013; hereafter, the FR notice); please see that document 
or the Navy's application for more information.

Specific Geographic Region and Duration

    NBKB is located on the north side of Sinclair Inlet in Puget Sound 
(see Figures 1-1 and 2-1 of the Navy's application). Sinclair Inlet, an 
estuary of Puget Sound extending 3.5 miles southwesterly from its 
connection with the Port Washington Narrows, connects to the main basin 
of Puget Sound through Port Washington Narrows and then Agate Pass to 
the north or Rich Passage to the east. Sinclair Inlet has been 
significantly modified by development activities. Fill associated with 
transportation, commercial, and residential development of NBKB, the 
City of Bremerton, and the local ports of Bremerton and Port Orchard 
has resulted in significant changes to the shoreline. The area 
surrounding Pier 6 is industrialized, armored and adjacent to railroads 
and highways. Sinclair Inlet is also the receiving body for a 
wastewater treatment plant located just west of NBKB. Sinclair Inlet is 
relatively shallow and does not flush fully despite freshwater stream 
inputs.
    The project is expected to require a maximum of 135 days of in-
water impact pile driving work and 65 days of in-water vibratory pile 
removal work over a 3-year period. In-water work will occur only from 
June 15 to March 1 of any year. During the timeframe of this IHA 
(December 1, 2013-March 1, 2014), 45 days of impact pile driving and 20 
days of vibratory removal are planned.

Description of Specified Activity

    The Navy plans to remove deteriorated fender piles at Pier 6 and 
replace them with prestressed concrete piles. The entire project calls 
for the removal of 380 12-in diameter creosoted timber piles and twenty 
12-in steel pipe piles. These would be replaced with 240 18-in square 
concrete piles and 90 24-in square concrete piles. It is not possible 
to specify accurately the number of piles that might be installed or 
removed in any given work window, due to various delays that may be 
expected during construction work and uncertainty inherent to 
estimating production rates. The Navy assumes a notional production 
rate of four piles per day in determining the number of days of pile 
driving expected, and scheduling--as well as exposure analyses--is 
based on this assumption.
    All piles are planned for removal via vibratory driver. The driver 
is suspended from a barge-mounted crane and positioned on top of a 
pile. Vibration from the activated driver loosens the pile from the 
substrate. Once the pile is released, the crane raises the driver and 
pulls the pile from the sediment. Vibratory extraction is expected to 
take approximately 5-30 minutes per pile. If piles break during 
removal, the remaining portion may be removed via direct pull or with a 
clamshell bucket. Replacement piles will be installed via impact driver 
and are expected to require approximately 15-60 minutes of driving time 
per pile,

[[Page 69827]]

depending on subsurface conditions. Impact driving and/or vibratory 
removal could occur on any work day during the period of the IHA, but a 
maximum of one pile driving rig will be operating at any given time.

Description of Sound Sources and Distances to Thresholds

    An in-depth description of sound sources in general was provided in 
the FR notice (78 FR 56659; September 13, 2013). Significant sound-
producing in-water construction activities associated with the project 
include vibratory and impact pile driving.

Sound Thresholds

    NMFS currently uses acoustic exposure thresholds as important tools 
to help better characterize and quantify the effects of human-induced 
noise on marine mammals. These thresholds have predominantly been 
presented in the form of single received levels for particular source 
categories (e.g., impulse, continuous, or explosive) above which an 
exposed animal would be predicted to incur auditory injury or be 
behaviorally harassed. Current NMFS practice (in relation to the MMPA) 
regarding exposure of marine mammals to sound is that cetaceans and 
pinnipeds exposed to sound levels of 180 and 190 dB rms or above, 
respectively, are considered to have been taken by Level A (i.e., 
injurious) harassment, while behavioral harassment (Level B) is 
considered to have occurred when marine mammals are exposed to sounds 
at or above 120 dB rms for continuous sound (such as will be produced 
by vibratory pile driving) and 160 dB rms for pulsed sound (produced by 
impact pile driving), but below injurious thresholds. NMFS uses these 
levels as guidelines to estimate when harassment may occur.
    NMFS is in the process of revising these acoustic thresholds, with 
the first step being to identify new auditory injury criteria for all 
source types and new behavioral criteria for seismic activities 
(primarily airgun-type sources). For more information on that process, 
please visit https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.

Distance to Sound Thresholds

    Underwater Sound--Pile driving generates underwater noise that can 
potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the project 
area. Please see the FR notice (78 FR 56659; September 13, 2013) for a 
detailed description of the calculations and information used to 
estimate distances to relevant threshold levels. In general, the sound 
pressure level (SPL) at some distance away from the source (e.g., 
driven pile) is governed by a measured source level, minus the 
transmission loss of the energy as it dissipates with distance. A 
practical spreading value of 15 (4.5 dB reduction in sound level for 
each doubling of distance) is often used under intermediate conditions, 
and is assumed here.
    Source level, or the intensity of pile driving sound, is greatly 
influenced by factors such as the type of piles, hammers, and the 
physical environment in which the activity takes place. A number of 
studies have measured sound produced during underwater pile driving 
projects, primarily during work conducted by the Washington State 
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the California Department of 
Transportation (CalTrans). In order to determine reasonable SPLs that 
are likely to result from pile driving at NBKB, the Navy evaluated 
existing data on the basis of pile materials and driver type. 
Representative data for pile driving SPLs recorded from similar 
construction activities in recent years were presented in the FR notice 
(78 FR 56659; September 13, 2013). Underwater sound levels from pile 
driving for this project are assumed to be as follows:
     For impact driving of concrete piles, 191 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms). This value was selected as representative of the largest 
concrete pile size to be installed and may be conservative when smaller 
concrete piles are driven (CalTrans, 2012).
     For vibratory removal of steel piles, 170 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms). This proxy value, from the CalTrans compendium of pile driving 
data (CalTrans, 2012), is for vibratory installation and would likely 
be conservative when applied to vibratory extraction, which would be 
expected to produce lower SPLs than vibratory installation of same-
sized piles.
     For vibratory removal of timber piles, 168 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms). This proxy value was measured by the Washington State Department 
of Transportation for vibratory removal of timber piles and is the only 
information we are aware of for this event type (Laughlin, 2011). All 
calculated distances to and the total area encompassed by the marine 
mammal sound thresholds are provided in Table 1.

Table 1--Calculated Distance(s) to and Area Encompassed by Underwater Marine Mammal Sound Thresholds During Pile
                                                Installation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Distance to threshold (m) and associated area of ensonification (km
                                                                           \2\)
               Description               -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               190 dB            180 dB            160 dB            120 dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concrete piles, impact..................      1.2, <0.0001       5.4, 0.0001         117, 0.04               n/a
Steel piles, vibratory..................                 0                 0               n/a    \2\ 2,154, 7.5
Timber piles, vibratory.................                 0                 0               n/a       1,585; 5.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SPLs (levels at source) used for calculations were: 191 dB for impact driving, 170 dB for vibratory removal
  of steel piles, and 168 dB for vibratory removal of timber piles.
\2\ Areas presented take into account attenuation and/or shadowing by land. Please see Figures B-1 and B-2 in
  the Navy's application.

    Sinclair Inlet does not represent open water, or free field, 
conditions. Therefore, sounds would attenuate according to the 
shoreline topography. Distances shown in Table 1 are estimated for 
free-field conditions, but areas are calculated per the actual 
conditions of the action area. See Figures B-1 and B-2 of the Navy's 
application for a depiction of areas in which each underwater sound 
threshold is predicted to occur at the project area due to pile 
driving.
    Airborne Sound--Pile driving can generate airborne sound that could 
potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals (specifically, 
pinnipeds) which are hauled out or have their heads above the water's 
surface. As a result, the Navy analyzed the potential for pinnipeds 
hauled out or swimming at the surface near NBKB to be exposed to 
airborne SPLs that could result in Level B behavioral harassment. 
Although there is no official airborne sound threshold, NMFS assumes 
for purposes of the MMPA that behavioral disturbance can occur upon

[[Page 69828]]

exposure to sounds above 100 dB re 20 [micro]Pa rms (unweighted) for 
all pinnipeds, except harbor seals. For harbor seals, the threshold is 
90 dB re 20 [micro]Pa rms (unweighted).
    The potential effects of airborne sound on pinnipeds were discussed 
in greater detail in the FR notice (78 FR 56659; September 13, 2013). 
Based on available proxy data from the Navy's Test Pile Program in the 
Hood Canal (Illingworth & Rodkin, 2012) and from WSDOT (Laughlin, 
2010), we determined that only very small zones (< 169 m\2\) would be 
ensonified. There are no haul-out opportunities within these small 
zones, which are encompassed by the zones estimated for underwater 
sound. Protective measures will be in place out to the distances 
calculated for the underwater thresholds, and the distances for the 
airborne thresholds will be covered fully by mitigation and monitoring 
measures in place for underwater sound thresholds. We recognize that 
pinnipeds in water that are within the area of ensonification for 
airborne sound could be incidentally taken by either underwater or 
airborne sound or both. We consider these incidences of harassment to 
be accounted for in the take estimates for underwater sound. The 
effects of airborne sound are not considered further in this document's 
analysis.

Comments and Responses

    We published a notice of receipt of the Navy's application and 
proposed IHA in the Federal Register on September 13, 2013 (78 FR 
56659). NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission 
(Commission). The Commission's comments and our responses are provided 
here, and the comments have been posted on the Internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.
    Comment 1: The Commission recommends that we require the Navy to 
conduct empirical in-water and in-air sound measurements during removal 
and installation of piles of various types and sizes and use those data 
to inform future IHA applications at NBKB.
    Response: We agree with the Commission's statement that conducting 
empirical sound measurements during the first year of activities for 
the 3-year project at NBKB would augment the available data for the 
respective pile types, sizes, and locations (for which little data are 
available) and also would provide important information regarding 
verification of assumed source levels and propagation loss for use in 
subsequent IHA requests at NBKB. In a constrained fiscal environment, 
such as currently exists, applicants are generally not able to conduct 
acoustic source verifications in all situations where it may be 
desirable but must prioritize such efforts. However, the Navy has 
agreed to conduct acoustic monitoring during the first year of this 
project as recommended by the Commission. Further details are provided 
below (see ``Monitoring and Reporting'').

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    There are five marine mammal species with records of occurrence in 
waters of Sinclair Inlet in the action area. These are the California 
sea lion, harbor seal, Steller sea lion (eastern stock only; Eumetopias 
jubatus monteriensis), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and killer 
whale (Orcinus orca). For the killer whale, both transient (west coast 
stock) and resident (southern stock) animals, which are currently 
considered unnamed subspecies (Committee on Taxonomy, 2012), have 
occurred in the area. However, southern resident animals are known to 
have occurred only once, with the last confirmed sighting from 1997 in 
Dyes Inlet. A group of 19 whales from the L-25 subpod entered and 
stayed in Dyes Inlet, which connects to Sinclair Inlet northeast of 
NBKB, for 30 days. Dyes Inlet may be reached only by traversing from 
Sinclair Inlet through the Port Washington Narrows, a narrow connecting 
body that is crossed by two bridges, and it was speculated at the time 
that the whales' long stay was the result of a reluctance to traverse 
back through the Narrows and under the two bridges. There is one other 
unconfirmed report of a single southern resident animal occurring in 
the project area, in January 2009. Of these stocks, the Steller sea 
lion and southern resident killer whales are listed under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA), with the eastern stock of Steller sea 
lions listed as threatened and the southern resident stock of killer 
whales listed as endangered. The FR notice (78 FR 56659; September 13, 
2013) summarizes the population status and abundance of these species 
and discusses additional species known from Puget Sound, and the Navy's 
application provides detailed life history information. Table 2 lists 
the marine mammal species with expected potential for occurrence in the 
vicinity of NBKB during the project timeframe.

                       Table 2--Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of NBKB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Stock abundance    Relative occurrence in
                Species                   \1\ (CV, Nmin)         Sinclair Inlet           Season of occurrence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion U.S. Stock.........           296,750  Common....................  Year-round, excluding
                                           (n/a, 153,337)                               July.
Harbor seal WA inland waters stock.....         \2\14,612  Common....................  Year-round.
                                           (0.15, 12,844)
Steller sea lion Eastern stock.........     58,334-72,223  Occasional presence.......  Seasonal (Oct-May).
                                            (n/a, 52,847)
Killer whale West Coast transient stock         354 (n/a)  Uncommon..................  Year-round.
Gray whale Eastern North Pacific stock.            19,126  Uncommon..................  Year-round.
                                          (0.071, 18,017)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm. CV is
  coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
\2\ This abundance estimate is greater than eight years old and is therefore not considered current.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    We have determined that pile driving, as outlined in the project 
description, has the potential to result in behavioral harassment of 
marine mammals that may be present in the project vicinity while 
construction activity is being conducted. The FR notice (78 FR 56659; 
September 13, 2013) provides a detailed description of marine mammal 
hearing and of the potential effects of these construction activities 
on marine mammals.

[[Page 69829]]

Anticipated Effects on Habitat

    The planned activities at NBKB would not result in permanent 
impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, but may have 
potential short-term impacts to food sources such as forage fish and 
may affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion in proposed IHA FR 
notice). There are no rookeries or major haul-out sites, no known 
foraging hotspots, or other ocean bottom structure of significant 
biological importance to marine mammals present in the marine waters in 
the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the main impact issue 
associated with the specified activity would be temporarily elevated 
sound levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, as 
discussed previously in the proposed IHA FR notice. The most likely 
impact to marine mammal habitat occurs from pile driving effects on 
likely marine mammal prey (i.e., fish) near NBKB and minor impacts to 
the immediate substrate during installation and removal of piles during 
the project. The FR notice (78 FR 56659; September 13, 2013) describes 
these potential impacts in greater detail.

Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under 
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, we 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 (where relevant).
    Measurements from proxy pile driving events were coupled with 
practical spreading loss to estimate zones of influence (ZOIs; see 
``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment''); these values were used to 
develop mitigation measures for pile driving activities at NBKB. The 
ZOIs effectively represent the mitigation zone that would be 
established around each pile to prevent Level A harassment to marine 
mammals, while providing estimates of the areas within which Level B 
harassment might occur. In addition to the specific measures described 
later in this section, the Navy will conduct briefings between 
construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and 
Navy staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when 
new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, 
communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and 
operational procedures.

Monitoring and Shutdown for Pile Driving

    The following measures apply to the Navy's mitigation through 
shutdown and disturbance zones:
    Shutdown Zone--For all pile driving and removal activities, the 
Navy will establish a shutdown zone intended to contain the area in 
which SPLs equal or exceed the 190 dB rms acoustic injury criterion. 
The purpose of a shutdown zone is to define an area within which 
shutdown of activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or 
in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area), thus 
preventing injury, serious injury, or death of marine mammals. Radial 
distances for shutdown zones are shown in Table 1. However, for this 
project, a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m will be established during all 
pile driving activities, regardless of the estimated zone. Vibratory 
pile driving activities are not predicted to produce sound exceeding 
the Level A standard, but these precautionary measures are intended to 
prevent the already unlikely possibility of physical interaction with 
construction equipment and to further reduce any possibility of 
acoustic injury.
    Disturbance Zone--Disturbance zones are the areas in which SPLs 
equal or exceed 160 and 120 dB rms (for pulsed and non-pulsed sound, 
respectively). Disturbance zones provide utility for monitoring 
conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e., shutdown zone monitoring) by 
establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown 
zones. Monitoring of disturbance zones enables observers to be aware of 
and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project area but 
outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for potential shutdowns of 
activity. However, the primary purpose of disturbance zone monitoring 
is for documenting incidents of Level B harassment; disturbance zone 
monitoring is discussed in greater detail later (see ``Monitoring and 
Reporting''). Nominal radial distances for disturbance zones are shown 
in Table 1.
    In order to document observed incidences of harassment, monitors 
record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The 
observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven, 
is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a 
distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from 
the pile. It may then be estimated whether the animal was exposed to 
sound levels constituting incidental harassment on the basis of 
predicted distances to relevant thresholds in post-processing of 
observational and acoustic data, and a precise accounting of observed 
incidences of harassment created. This information may then be used to 
extrapolate observed takes to reach an approximate understanding of 
actual total takes.
    Monitoring Protocols--Monitoring will be conducted before, during, 
and after pile driving activities. In addition, observers shall record 
all incidences of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from 
activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with 
distance from piles being driven. Observations made outside the 
shutdown zone will not result in shutdown; that pile segment would be 
completed without cessation, unless the animal approaches or enters the 
shutdown zone, at which point all pile driving activities would be 
halted. Please see the Monitoring Plan (Appendix C in the Navy's 
application), developed by the Navy in agreement with NMFS, for full 
details of the monitoring protocols. Monitoring will take place from 15 
minutes prior to initiation through 30 minutes post-completion of pile 
driving activities. Pile driving activities include the time to remove 
a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between 
uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes. The 
following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
    (1) Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will 
be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for 
marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable 
by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. Qualified observers 
are trained biologists, with the following minimum qualifications:
     Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) 
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface 
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars 
may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
     Advanced education in biological science, wildlife 
management, mammalogy, or related fields (bachelor's degree or higher 
is required);
     Experience and ability to conduct field observations and 
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic 
experience);
     Experience or training in the field identification of 
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;

[[Page 69830]]

     Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations;
     Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of 
observations including but not limited to the number and species of 
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction 
activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction 
activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from 
construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown 
zone; and marine mammal behavior; 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.
    (2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone 
will be monitored for 15 minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine 
mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared 
the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to 
remain in the shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their own volition) 
and their behavior will be monitored and documented. The shutdown zone 
may only be declared clear, and pile driving started, when the entire 
shutdown zone is visible (i.e., when not obscured by dark, rain, fog, 
etc.). In addition, if such conditions should arise during impact pile 
driving that is already underway, the activity will be halted.
    (3) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone 
during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted 
and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been 
visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 15 minutes have passed 
without re-detection of the animal. Monitoring will be conducted 
throughout the time required to drive a pile.

Special Conditions

    The Navy has not requested the authorization of incidental take for 
Steller sea lions, killer whales, or gray whales (see discussion in 
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment). Therefore, shutdown would be 
implemented in the event that a Steller sea lion or any cetacean is 
observed upon sighting within (or in anticipation of entering) the 
defined disturbance zone. As described later in this document, we 
believe that occurrence of any of these species during the in-water 
work window would be uncommon. For gray and killer whales, in 
particular, the occurrence of an individual or group would likely be 
highly noticeable and would attract significant attention in local 
media and with local whale watchers and interested citizens.
    Prior to the start of pile driving on any day, the Navy will 
contact and/or review the latest sightings data from the Orca Network 
and/or Center for Whale Research to determine the location of the 
nearest marine mammal sightings. The Orca Sightings Network consists of 
a list of over 600 residents, scientists, and government agency 
personnel in the U.S. and Canada, and includes passive acoustic 
detections. The presence of a killer whale or gray whale in the 
southern reaches of Puget Sound would be a notable event, drawing 
public attention and media scrutiny. With this level of coordination in 
the region of activity, the Navy should be able to effectively receive 
real-time information on the presence or absence of whales, sufficient 
to inform the day's activities. Pile removal or driving would not occur 
if there was the risk of incidental harassment of a species for which 
incidental take was not authorized.
    Prior to beginning pile driving on each day, monitors will scan the 
floating security barrier to ensure that no Steller sea lions are 
present. During vibratory pile removal, four land-based observers will 
monitor the area; these will be positioned with two at the pier work 
site, one at the eastern extent of the ZOI in the Manette neighborhood 
of Bremerton, and one at the southern extent of the ZOI near the 
Annapolis ferry landing in Port Orchard (please see Figure 1 of 
Appendix C in the Navy's application). Additionally, one vessel-based 
observer will travel through the monitoring area, completing an entire 
loop approximately every 30 minutes. If any killer whales, grey whales, 
or Steller sea lions are detected, activity will not begin or will shut 
down.

Timing Restrictions

    In the project area, designated timing restrictions exist to avoid 
in-water work when salmonids and other spawning forage fish are likely 
to be present. The in-water work window is June 15-March 1. All in-
water construction activities would occur only during daylight hours 
(sunrise to sunset).

Soft Start

    The use of a soft-start procedure is believed to provide additional 
protection to marine mammals by warning or providing a chance to leave 
the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity, and typically 
involves a requirement to initiate sound from vibratory hammers for 
fifteen seconds at reduced energy followed by a 30-second waiting 
period. This procedure is repeated two additional times. However, 
implementation of soft start for vibratory pile driving during previous 
pile driving work conducted by the Navy at another location has led to 
equipment failure and serious human safety concerns. Therefore, 
vibratory soft start is not required as a mitigation measure for this 
project, as we have determined it not to be practicable. We have 
further determined this measure unnecessary to providing the means of 
effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals and their 
habitat. Prior to issuing any further IHAs to the Navy for pile driving 
activities in 2014 and beyond, we plan to facilitate consultation 
between the Navy and other practitioners (e.g., Washington State 
Department of Transportation and/or the California Department of 
Transportation) in order to determine whether the potentially 
significant human safety issue is inherent to implementation of the 
measure or is due to operator error. For impact driving, soft start 
will be required, and contractors will provide an initial set of three 
strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 30-
second waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets.
    We have carefully evaluated the applicant's planned mitigation 
measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of 
ensuring that we prescribe the means of effecting the least practicable 
impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their 
habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of 
the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in 
which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the 
measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals; (2) 
the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize 
adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure 
for applicant implementation.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's planned measures, as 
well as any other potential measures that may be relevant to the 
specified activity, we have determined that these mitigation measures 
provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine 
mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention 
to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that we must set forth

[[Page 69831]]

``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 ITAs must include the suggested means of 
accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result 
in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or 
impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be 
present in the action area. The Navy's planned monitoring and reporting 
is also described in their Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan (Appendix C of 
the Navy's application).

Acoustic Monitoring

    The Navy will implement a sound source level verification study 
during the specified activities. Data will be collected in order to 
estimate airborne and underwater source levels for vibratory removal of 
timber piles and impact driving of concrete piles, with measurements 
conducted for ten piles of each type. Monitoring will include one 
underwater and one airborne monitoring position. These exact positions 
will be determined in the field during consultation with Navy 
personnel, subject to constraints related to logistics and security 
requirements. Reporting of measured sound level signals will include 
the average, minimum, and maximum rms value and frequency spectra for 
each pile monitored. Please see section 11.4.4 for details of the 
Navy's acoustic monitoring plan.

Visual Marine Mammal Observations

    The Navy will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to 
construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of 
activity during the period of activity. All observers will be trained 
in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have 
no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. The 
Navy will monitor the shutdown zone and disturbance zone before, 
during, and after pile driving, with observers located at the best 
practicable vantage points. Based on our requirements, the Navy will 
implement the following procedures for pile driving:
     MMOs will be located at the best vantage point(s) in order 
to properly see the entire shutdown zone and as much of the disturbance 
zone as possible.
     During all observation periods, observers will use 
binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals.
     If the shutdown zones are obscured by fog or poor lighting 
conditions, pile driving at that location will not be initiated until 
that zone is visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving 
is underway, the activity would be halted.
     The shutdown and disturbance zones around the pile will be 
monitored for the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after 
any pile driving or removal activity.
    During vibratory pile removal, four observers will be deployed as 
described under the preceding mitigation discussion, including four 
land-based observers and one-vessel-based observer traversing the 
extent of the Level B harassment zone. During impact driving, one 
observer will be positioned at or near the pile to observe the much 
smaller disturbance zone.
    Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol will assess its 
effectiveness using an adaptive approach. Monitoring biologists will 
use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek 
improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any 
modifications to protocol will be coordinated between NMFS and the 
Navy.

Data Collection

    We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other 
pieces of information, the Navy will record detailed information about 
any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to 
the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting 
behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the Navy will attempt to 
distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the 
number of incidences of take. We require that, at a minimum, the 
following information be collected on the sighting forms:
     Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
     Construction activities occurring during each observation 
period;
     Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
     Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
     Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of 
marine mammals;
     Description of any observable marine mammal behavior 
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel, and if possible, 
the correlation to SPLs;
     Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals 
and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
     Locations of all marine mammal observations;
     Other human activity in the area; and
     Description of implementation of mitigation measures 
(e.g., shutdown or delay).

Reporting

    A draft report will be submitted to NMFS within 45 days of the 
completion of marine mammal and acoustic monitoring, or 60 days prior 
to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project, whichever comes 
first. The report will include marine mammal observations pre-activity, 
during-activity, and post-activity during pile driving days, and will 
also provide descriptions of any adverse responses to construction 
activities by marine mammals and a complete description of all 
mitigation shutdowns and the results of those actions and a refined 
take estimate based on the number of marine mammals observed during the 
course of construction. Reporting will also include the results of the 
acoustic monitoring effort. A final report will be prepared and 
submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft 
report.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    With respect to the activities described 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].'' All anticipated takes will be by Level B harassment, 
involving temporary changes in behavior. The planned mitigation and 
monitoring measures are expected to minimize the possibility of 
injurious or lethal takes such that take by Level A harassment, serious 
injury, or mortality is considered discountable. However, it is 
unlikely that injurious or lethal takes would occur even in the absence 
of the planned mitigation and monitoring measures.
    If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior 
(e.g., through relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed 
or vocalization behavior), the response may or may not constitute 
taking at the individual level, and is unlikely to affect the stock or 
the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine 
mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a

[[Page 69832]]

prolonged period, impacts on animals or on the stock or species could 
potentially be significant (Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). 
Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of 
impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate 
how many animals are likely to be present within a particular distance 
of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound. This 
practice potentially overestimates the numbers of marine mammals taken. 
In addition, it is often difficult to distinguish between the number of 
individuals harassed and incidences of harassment. In particular, for 
stationary activities, it is more likely that some smaller number of 
individuals may accrue a number of incidences of harassment per 
individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new individual, 
especially if those individuals display some degree of residency or 
site fidelity and the impetus to use the site (e.g., because of 
foraging opportunities) is stronger than the deterrence presented by 
the harassing activity.
    The project area is not believed to be particularly important 
habitat for marine mammals, nor is it considered an area frequented by 
marine mammals, although harbor seals may be present year-round and sea 
lions are known to haul-out on man-made objects at the NBKB waterfront. 
Sightings of other species are rare. Therefore, behavioral disturbances 
that could result from anthropogenic sound associated with these 
activities are expected to affect only a relatively small number of 
individual marine mammals, although those effects could be recurring 
over the life of the project if the same individuals remain in the 
project vicinity. The Navy requested authorization for the incidental 
taking of small numbers of harbor seals and California sea lions in 
Sinclair Inlet and nearby waters that may be ensonified by project 
activities.

Marine Mammal Densities

    For all species, the best scientific information available was used 
to derive density estimates and the maximum appropriate density value 
for each species was considered for use in the marine mammal take 
assessment calculations. These values, shown in Table 3 below, were 
derived or confirmed by experts convened to develop such information 
for use in Navy environmental compliance efforts in the Pacific 
Northwest, including Washington inland waters. The Navy Marine Species 
Density Database (NMSDD) density estimates were recently finalized, and 
use data from local marine mammal data sets, expert opinion, and survey 
data from Navy biologists and other agencies. A technical report 
documenting methodologies used to derive these densities and relevant 
background data is still in development (DoN, in prep.). These data are 
generally considered the best available information for Washington 
inland waters, except where specific local abundance information is 
available. At NBKB, the Navy began collecting opportunistic 
observational data of animals hauled-out on the floating security 
barrier. These surveys began in February 2010 and have been conducted 
approximately monthly from September 2010 through present (DoN, 2013). 
In addition, WSDOT recently conducted in-water pile driving over the 
course of multiple work windows as part of the Manette Bridge 
construction project in the nearby Port Washington Narrows. WSDOT 
conducted required marine mammal monitoring as part of this project 
(WSDOT, 2011, 2012; Rand, 2011). We determined, for both harbor seals 
and California sea lions, that these sources of local abundance 
information comprise the best available data for use in the take 
assessment calculations, as described below.

   Table 3--Maximum Marine Mammal Density Estimates for NBKB (Sinclair
                                 Inlet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Density
                                                             (Sinclair
                         Species                          Inlet), /km\2\
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal.............................................          0.4267
California sea lion.....................................          0.13
Steller sea lion........................................          0.037
Transient killer whale..................................          0.0024
Gray whale..............................................          0.0005
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Take Calculation

    The take calculations presented here rely on the best data 
currently available for marine mammal populations in Puget Sound. The 
methodology for estimating take was described in detail in the FR 
notice (78 FR 56659; September 13, 2013). The ZOI impact area is the 
estimated range of impact to the sound criteria. The distances 
specified in Table 1 were used to calculate ZOIs around each pile. The 
ZOI impact area calculations took into consideration the possible 
affected area with attenuation due to the topographical constraints of 
Sinclair Inlet, and the radial distances to thresholds are not always 
reached.
    While pile driving can occur any day, and the analysis is conducted 
on a per day basis, only a fraction of that time (typically a matter of 
hours on any given day) is actually spent pile driving. The exposure 
assessment methodology is an estimate of the numbers of individuals 
exposed to the effects of pile driving activities exceeding NMFS-
established thresholds. Of note in these exposure estimates, mitigation 
methods (i.e., visual monitoring and the use of shutdown zones; soft 
start for impact pile driving) were not quantified within the 
assessment and successful implementation of mitigation is not reflected 
in exposure estimates. In addition, equating exposure with response 
(i.e., a behavioral response meeting the definition of take under the 
MMPA) is simplistic and conservative assumption. For these reasons, 
results from this acoustic exposure assessment likely overestimate take 
estimates to some degree. Species-specific information and 
considerations in the take estimation process are detailed here.
    Harbor Seal--While no harbor seal haul-outs are present in the 
action area or in the immediate vicinity of NBKB, haul-outs are present 
elsewhere in Sinclair Inlet and in other nearby waters and harbor seals 
may haul out on available objects opportunistically. Use of the NMSDD 
density value (0.4267 animals/km\2\; corrected for proportion of 
animals hauled-out at any given time) would result in an estimate of 2-
3 incidences of harassment per day; it is likely that this would not 
adequately represent the potential presence of harbor seals given 
observed occurrence at other nearby construction projects. Marine 
mammal monitoring conducted during pile driving work on the Manette 
Bridge showed variable numbers of harbor seals (but generally greater 
than indicated by the NMSDD density). During the first year of 
construction (in-water work window only), an average of 3.7 harbor 
seals were observed per day of monitoring with a maximum of 59 observed 
in October 2011 (WSDOT, 2011; Rand, 2011). During the most recent 
construction period (July-November 2012), an average of eleven harbor 
seals per monitoring day was observed, though some animals were likely 
counted multiple times (WSDOT, 2012). Given the potential for similar 
occurrence of harbor seals in the vicinity of NBKB during the in-water 
construction period, we determined it appropriate to use this most 
recent, local abundance information in the take assessment calculation.
    California Sea Lion--Similar to harbor seals, it is not likely that 
use of the NMSDD density value for California sea lions (0.13 animals/
km\2\) would adequately represent their potential occurrence in the 
project area. California sea lions are commonly

[[Page 69833]]

observed hauled out on the floating security barrier which is in close 
proximity to Pier 6; counts from 34 surveys (March 2010-June 2013) 
showed an average of 42 individuals per survey day (range 0-144; DoN, 
2013). These counts represent the best local abundance data available 
and were used in the take assessment calculation.
    Steller Sea Lion--No Steller sea lion haul-outs are present within 
or near the action area, and Steller sea lions have not been observed 
during Navy waterfront surveys or during monitoring associated with the 
Manette Bridge construction project. It is assumed that the possibility 
exists that a Steller sea lion could occur in the project area, but 
there is no known attractant in Sinclair Inlet, which is a relatively 
muddy, industrialized area, and the floating security barrier that 
California sea lions use as an opportunistic haul-out cannot generally 
accommodate the larger adult Steller sea lions (juveniles could haul-
out on the barrier). Use of the NMSDD density estimate (0.037 animals/
km\2\) results in an estimate of zero exposures, and there are no 
existing data to indicate that Steller sea lions would occur more 
frequently locally. Therefore, the Navy did not request the 
authorization of incidental take for Steller sea lions and we have not 
issued such authorization. The Navy would not begin activity or would 
shut down upon report of a Steller sea lion present within or 
approaching the relevant ZOI.
    Killer Whale--Transient killer whales are rarely observed in the 
project area, with records since 2002 showing one group transiting 
through the area in May 2004 and a subsequent, similar observation in 
May 2010. No other observations have occurred during Navy surveys or 
during project monitoring for Manette Bridge. Use of the NMSDD density 
estimate (0.0024 animals/km\2\) results in an estimate of zero 
exposures, and there are no existing data to indicate that killer 
whales would occur more frequently locally. Therefore, the Navy did not 
request the authorization of incidental take for transient killer 
whales and we have not issued such authorization. The Navy would not 
begin activity or would shut down upon report of a killer whale present 
within or approaching the relevant ZOI.
    Gray Whale--Gray whales are rarely observed in the project area, 
and the majority of in-water work would occur when whales are 
relatively less likely to occur (i.e., outside of March-May). Since 
2002 and during the in-water work window, there are observational 
records of three whales (all during winter 2008-09) and a stranding 
record of a fourth whale (January 2013). No other observations have 
occurred during Navy surveys or during project monitoring for Manette 
Bridge. Use of the NMSDD density estimate (0.0005 animals/km\2\) 
results in an estimate of zero exposures, and there are no existing 
data to indicate that gray whales would occur more frequently locally. 
Therefore, the Navy did not request the authorization of incidental 
take for gray whales and we have not issued such authorization. The 
Navy would not begin activity or would shut down upon report of a gray 
whale present within or approaching the relevant ZOI.

     Table 4. Number of Potential Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Exposure
                         Species                             estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal\1\..........................................             715
California sea lion\2\..................................           2,730
Steller sea lion........................................               0
Transient killer whale..................................               0
Gray whale..............................................               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Use of NMSDD density results in estimated range of potential
  exposures of 130-195. Local abundance data were used in exposure
  assessment, i.e., 11 harbor seals potentially exposed per day for 65
  days of pile driving.
\2\ Use of NMSDD density results in estimated potential exposures of 65.
  Local abundance data were used in exposure assessment, i.e., 42
  California sea lions potentially exposed per day for 65 days of pile
  driving.

    For the Steller sea lion, transient killer whale, and gray whale, 
available information indicates that presence of these species is 
sufficiently rare to make exposure unlikely. Further, the Navy's 
monitoring plan further mitigates any such possibility to the point 
that we consider it discountable and have not authorized incidental 
take for these three species.

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers Analyses and Determinations

    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.'' In making a negligible impact determination, 
we considers a variety of factors, including but not limited to: (1) 
The number of anticipated mortalities; (2) the number and nature of 
anticipated injuries; (3) the number, nature, intensity, and duration 
of Level B harassment; and (4) the context in which the take occurs.

Small Numbers Analysis

    The number of incidences of take authorized for harbor seals and 
California sea lions would be considered small relative to the relevant 
stocks or populations (less than five percent and one percent, 
respectively) even if each estimated taking occurred to a new 
individual. This is an extremely unlikely scenario as, for pinnipeds in 
estuarine/inland waters, there is likely to be some overlap in 
individuals present day-to-day.

Negligible Impact Analysis

    Pile driving activities associated with the Navy's pier maintenance 
project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or 
displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may 
result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral 
disturbance) only, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving 
and removal. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these 
species are present in the ensonified zone when the specified activity 
is occurring.
    No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the 
nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the 
possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these 
outcomes is minimized through the construction method and the 
implementation of the planned mitigation measures. Specifically, piles 
will be removed via vibratory means--an activity that does not have the 
potential to cause injury to marine mammals due to the relatively low 
source levels produced (less than 180 dB) and the lack of potentially 
injurious source characteristics--and, while impact pile driving 
produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and much sharper 
rise time to reach those peaks, only small diameter concrete piles are 
planned for impact driving. Predicted source levels for such impact 
driving events are significantly lower than those typical of impact 
driving of steel piles and/or larger diameter piles. In addition, 
implementation of soft start and shutdown zones significantly reduces 
any possibility of injury. Given sufficient ``notice'' through use of 
soft start (for impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move 
away from a sound source that is annoying prior to its becoming 
potentially injurious. Environmental conditions in Sinclair Inlet are 
expected to generally be good, with calm sea states, although Sinclair 
Inlet waters may be more turbid than those further north in Puget Sound 
or in Hood Canal. Nevertheless, we

[[Page 69834]]

expect conditions in Sinclair Inlet to allow a high marine mammal 
detection capability for the trained observers required, enabling a 
high rate of success in implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury, 
serious injury, or mortality. In addition, the topography of Sinclair 
Inlet should allow for placement of observers sufficient to detect 
cetaceans, should any occur (see Figure 1 of Appendix C in the Navy's 
application).
    Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the 
basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other 
similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as 
increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased 
foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 
2006; HDR, Inc., 2012). Most likely, individuals will simply move away 
from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of 
pile driving, although even this reaction has been observed primarily 
only in association with impact pile driving. The pile driving 
activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful than, 
numerous other construction activities conducted in San Francisco Bay 
and in the Puget Sound region, which have taken place with no reported 
injuries or mortality to marine mammals, and no known long-term adverse 
consequences from behavioral harassment. Repeated exposures of 
individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are 
unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt 
foraging behavior. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small 
subset of the overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant 
realized decrease in viability for the affected individuals, and thus 
would not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole. Level B 
harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable impact 
through use of mitigation measures described herein and, if sound 
produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are 
likely to simply avoid the area--which is not believed to provide any 
habitat of special significance--while the activity is occurring.
    In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the 
following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or 
mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the 
anticipated incidences of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, 
temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the absence of any significant 
habitat within the project area, including rookeries, significant haul-
outs, or known areas or features of special significance for foraging 
or reproduction; (4) the presumed efficacy of the planned mitigation 
measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level 
of least practicable impact. In addition, neither of these stocks are 
listed under the ESA or considered depleted under the MMPA. In 
combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available 
body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the 
potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term 
effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to 
impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result 
in population-level impacts.

Determinations

    The number of marine mammals actually incidentally harassed by the 
project will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals 
in the vicinity of the activity. However, we find that the number of 
potential takings authorized (by level B harassment only), which we 
consider to be a conservative, maximum estimate, is small relative to 
the relevant regional stock or population numbers, and that the effect 
of the activity will be mitigated to the level of least practicable 
impact through implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures 
described previously. Based on the analysis contained herein of the 
likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their 
habitat, we find that the total taking from the activity will have a 
negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence 
Uses

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated 
by this action. Therefore, we have determined that the total taking of 
affected species or stocks will not have an unmitigable adverse impact 
on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for 
subsistence purposes.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    There are no ESA-listed marine mammals expected to occur in the 
action area. Therefore, the Navy has not requested authorization of the 
incidental take of ESA-listed species and no such authorization is 
issued; therefore, no consultation under the ESA is required.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by the regulations published 
by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the 
Navy prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the direct, 
indirect and cumulative effects to the human environment resulting from 
the pier maintenance project. NMFS made the Navy's EA available to the 
public for review and comment, in relation to its suitability for 
adoption by NMFS in order to assess the impacts to the human 
environment of issuance of an IHA to the Navy. Also in compliance with 
NEPA and the CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA Administrative Order 216-
6, NMFS has reviewed the Navy's EA, determined it to be sufficient, and 
adopted that EA and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 
on November 8, 2013. The Navy's EA and NMFS' FONSI for this action may 
be found at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.

Authorization

    As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to the 
Navy to conduct the specified activities at Naval Base Kitsap 
Bremerton, WA for the period from December 1, 2013, through March 1, 
2014, provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting requirements are incorporated.

    Dated: November 15, 2013.
Helen M. Golde,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-27867 Filed 11-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P