Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Annapolis Passenger Ferry Dock Project, Puget Sound, Washington, 22624-22644 [2018-10385]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22624-22644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10385]


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

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, Puget Sound, Washington

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

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Kitsap Transit for 
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the Annapolis 
Passenger Ferry Dock Project in Puget Sound, Washington. Pursuant to 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on 
its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 
incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS 
will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the 
issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will 
be summarized in the final notice of our decision.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than June 15, 
2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments 
should be sent to [email protected].
    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any 
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the 
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including 
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments 
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or 
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111 without change. All personal 
identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by 
the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential 
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application 
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

[[Page 22625]]

wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering (Level B harassment).

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, 
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts 
on the human environment.
    This action is consistent with categories of activities identified 
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with 
no anticipated serious injury or mortality) 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 preliminarily determined that the 
issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded 
from further NEPA review.
    We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice 
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the 
IHA request.

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. Kitsap Transit's request 
is for take of harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii), Steller sea lion 
(Eumetopias jubatus monteriensis), California sea lion (Zalophus 
californianu), and harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena vomerina) by 
Level B harassment only. Neither Kitsap Transit nor NMFS expects 
serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, 
therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

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 may be removed using a vibratory hammer and 
new piles may be installed using a vibratory and, if necessary, an 
impact hammer. The project is anticipated to take 8 weeks to complete 
and could start as early as July 2, 2018; however, Kitsap Transit 
anticipates it will take a maximum of 17 days to completed pile-related 
work.

Dates and Duration

    The project would occur for eight weeks between July 1, 2018 and 
March 2, 2019. 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 17 days (maximum) of pile 
driving.

Specific Geographic Region

    The Annapolis Ferry Terminal is located in Sinclair Inlet across 
from Navy Base Kitsap (NBK) Bremerton and southwest of Bainbridge 
Island. Potential areas ensonfied 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

    The Annapolis Ferry Terminal is 34 years old with a useful life of 
40 years. Kitsap Transit has determined upgrades are necessary to meet 
ADA requirements and accommodate larger ferry vessels. These 
improvements are designed to improve the ferry operation, environmental 
conditions, overall experience for all passengers and provide equal 
access for elderly and disabled passengers. 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 existing decking 
with a concrete saw, removing 10 existing piles, and installing 12 new 
piles. The concrete saw would not cause in-air harassment as no 
pinnipeds haulout in the immediate vicinity of the dock; therefore, 
this activity is not discussed further.
    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. During impact hammering, Kitsap Transit 
would use a bubble curtain to reduce underwater sound pressure levels. 
The exact type and design of bubble curtain is not known.
    Kitsap Transit estimates up to four piles could be removed per day 
and up to two piles would be installed per day. However, to account for 
unexpected issues, Kitsap Transit recognizes only two piles may be 
removed and one pile may be installed per day. Pile removal and 
installation would not occur on the same day. Therefore, 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-in steel...................................  Vibratory.......................               6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 22626]]

 
                                                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 ``Proposed 
Mitigation'' and ``Proposed Monitoring and Reporting'').

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information 
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and 
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. 
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be 
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/) and more general information about these species (e.g., physical 
and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
    Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
Puget Sound and summarizes information related to the population or 
stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential 
biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow 
Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum 
number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be 
removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach 
or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's 
SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and 
annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are 
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and 
other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprises that stock. All managed stocks in the specified geographical 
regions are assessed in either NMFS's U.S. Alaska SARs or U.S. Pacific 
SARs.
    Seven species (comprising eight managed stocks) are considered to 
have the potential to co-occur with Kitsap Transit's proposed project. 
While there are several other species or stocks that occur in 
Washington inland waters, many are not expected to occur in the 
vicinity of the Annapolis Ferry Terminal due to its position within the 
Puget Sound. These species, such as Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli 
dalli) and Northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) occur in 
more northerly waters of Puget Sound and in the vicinity of the San 
Juan Islands but have not been observed within the project area. 
Therefore, they are not discussed further. The sea otter (Enhydra 
lutris kenyoni) is also found in Puget Sound; however, sea otters are 
managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are not considered 
further in this document.
    All values presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at 
the time of writing and are available in the draft 2017 SARs (available 
online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).

                     Table 2--Marine Mammal Potentially Present in the Vicinity of the Annapolis Ferry Terminal During Construction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Stock abundance (CV,
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock            ESA/MMPA status;      Nmin, most recent       PBR     Annual M/
                                                                                        Strategic (Y/N)\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):

[[Page 22627]]

 
    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.

    All species that could potentially occur in the proposed project 
area are included in Table 2. As described below, all seven species 
could temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity; however, 
Kitsap Transit has proposed mitigation measures which eliminate the 
potential take of three of these species (gray whales, humpback whales, 
and killer whales). Therefore, Kitsap Transit has requested, and we are 
proposing to authorize, take of four marine mammal species: harbor 
seal, California sea lion, Steller sea lion, and harbor porpoise.

Gray Whale

    Gray whales are observed in Washington inland waters in all months 
of the year, with peak numbers from March through June (Calambokidis et 
al., 2010). Most whales sighted are part of a small regularly occurring 
group of 6 to 10 whales that use mudflats in the Whidbey Island and 
Camano Island area as a springtime feeding area (Calambokidis et al., 
2010). Observed feeding areas are located in Saratoga Passage between 
Whidbey and Camano Islands including Crescent Harbor, and in Port Susan 
Bay located between Camano Island and the mainland north of Everett. 
Gray whales that are not identified with the regularly occurring 
feeding group are occasionally sighted in Puget Sound. These whales are 
not associated with feeding areas and are often emaciated (WDFW, 2012). 
There are typically from 2 to 10 stranded gray whales per year in 
Washington (Cascadia Research, 2012).
    In Sinclair Inlet and the surrounding waterways (Rich Passage, Dyes 
Inlet, and Agate Passage), 11 opportunistic sightings of gray whales 
were reported to the Orca Network (a public marine mammal sightings 
database) between 2003 and 2012. One stranding occurred at NBK 
Bremerton in 2013. Gray whales have been sighted in Hood Canal south of 
the Hood Canal Bridge on six occasions since 1999, including a stranded 
whale. The most recent report was in 2010.

Humpback Whale

    Prior to 2016, humpback whales were listed under the ESA as an 
endangered species worldwide. Following a 2015 global status review 
(Bettridge et al., 2015), NMFS established 14 distinct population 
segments (DPS) with different listing statuses (81 FR 62259; September 
8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. The DPSs that occur in U.S. waters do not 
necessarily equate to the existing stocks designated under the MMPA and 
shown in Table 2. Because MMPA stocks cannot be portioned, i.e., parts 
managed as ESA-listed while other parts managed as not ESA-listed, 
until such time as the MMPA stock delineations are reviewed in light of 
the DPS designations, NMFS considers the existing humpback whale stocks 
under the MMPA to be endangered and depleted for MMPA management 
purposes (e.g., selection of a recovery factor, stock status).
    Within U.S. west coast waters, three current DPSs may occur: The 
Hawaii DPS (not listed), Mexico DPS (threatened), and Central America 
DPS (endangered). According to Wade et al. (2016), the probability that 
whales encountered in Washington waters are from a given DPS are as 
follows: Hawaii, 52.9 percent (CV = 0.15); Mexico, 41.9 percent (0.14); 
Central America, 5.2 percent (0.91).
    Most humpback whale sightings reported since 2003 were in the main 
basin of Puget Sound with numerous sightings in the waters between 
Point No Point and Whidbey Island, Possession Sound, and southern Puget 
Sound in the vicinity of Point Defiance. A few sightings of possible 
humpback whales were reported by Orca Network

[[Page 22628]]

in the waters near Navy Base Kitsap (NBK) Bremerton (located across 
Sinclair Inlet from the Annapolis Ferry Terminal) and Keyport (Rich 
Passage to Agate Passage area including Sinclair and Dyes Inlet) 
between 2003 and 2015. Humpback whales were also observed in the 
vicinity of Manette Bridge in Bremerton in 2016 and 2017, and a carcass 
was found under a dock at NBK Bremerton in 2016 (Cascadia Research, 
2016). In Hood Canal, single humpback whales were observed for several 
weeks in 2012 and 2015. One sighting was reported in 2016. Review of 
the 2012 sightings information indicated they were of one individual. 
Prior to the 2012 sightings, there were no confirmed reports of 
humpback whales entering Hood Canal.

Harbor Seal

    Harbor seals in Washington inland waters have been divided into 
three stocks: Hood Canal, Northern Inland Waters, and Southern Puget 
Sound. Animals belonging to the latter stock are ones most likely to 
occur in the action area during pile driving. Harbor seals are the most 
common pinniped found in the action area and are present year-round. 
They haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice and 
feed in marine, estuarine, and occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals 
generally are non-migratory, with local movements associated with such 
factors as tides, weather, season, food availability, and reproduction 
(as reviewed in Carretta et al., 2014). Harbor seals have also 
displayed strong fidelity for haulout sites.
    There are no documented harbor seal haul-out within the immediate 
vicinity of the ferry terminal and much of the shoreline around the 
terminal has been armored with sheet-piling, preventing seals from 
hauling out. The nearest harbor seal haul-out is located in Dyes Inlet 
with less than 100 estimated individuals, approximately nine nautical 
miles from the site (Jefferies et al., 2000).

California Sea Lions

    California sea lions are typically present most of the year except 
for mid-June through July in Washington inland waters, with peak 
abundance numbers between October and May (NMFS, 1997; Jeffries et al., 
2000). During summer months and associated breeding periods, the inland 
waters are not be considered a high-use area by California sea lions, 
as they are returning to rookeries in California waters.
    California sea lions have been documented during shore- and boat-
based surveys at NBK Bremerton since 2010, with as many as 315 
individuals hauled out at one time (November 2015) on port security 
barrier floats. On average, 69 sea lions have been observed daily.

Stellar Sea Lion

    Steller sea lions are not frequently observed near the action area. 
Shore-based surveys at NBK Bremerton (directly across Sinclar Inlet 
from the Annapolis Ferry Terminal) have not detected Steller sea lions 
since the surveys were initiated in 2010. However, a single Steller sea 
lion was sighted on the floating security barrier in 2012 and aerial 
surveys conducted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 
(WDFW) in 2013 noted Steller sea lion presence in the action area. WDFW 
identifies two Steller sea lion haulouts near the Annapolis Ferry 
Terminal: (1) Navigation buoys and net pen floats in Clam Bay and (2) 
NBK Bremerton port security barrier (Wiles, 2015). No pupping or 
breeding areas are present in the project area.

Killer Whale (Transient)

    Groups of transient killer whales were observed for lengthy periods 
in Hood Canal in 2003 (59 days) and 2005 (172 days) (London, 2006), but 
were not observed again until 2016, when they were seen on a handful of 
days between March and May (including in Dabob Bay). Transient killer 
whales have been seen infrequently near NBK Bremerton, including in 
Dyes Inlet and Sinclair Inlet (e.g., sightings in 2010, 2013, and 
2015). Sightings in the vicinity of NBK Keyport have also been 
infrequent, and no records were found for Rich Passage in the vicinity 
of NBK Manchester. Transient killer whales have been observed in 
Possession Sound near NS Everett.
    West Coast transient killer whales most often travel in small pods 
averaging four individuals (Baird and Dill, 1996); however, the most 
commonly observed group size in Puget Sound (waters east of Admiralty 
Inlet, including Hood Canal, through South Puget Sound and north to 
Skagit Bay) from 2004 to 2010 was 6 whales (Houghton et al., 2015).

Killer Whales (Resident)

    Critical habitat for southern resident killer whales, designated 
pursuant to the ESA, includes three specific areas: (1) Summer core 
area in Haro Strait and waters around the San Juan Islands; (2) Puget 
Sound; and (3) Strait of Juan de Fuca (71 FR 69054; November 29, 2006). 
The primary constituent elements essential for conservation of the 
habitat are: (1) Water quality to support growth and development; (2) 
Prey species of sufficient quantity, quality, and availability to 
support individual growth, reproduction, and development, as well as 
overall population growth; and (3) Passage conditions to allow for 
migration, resting, and foraging. However, the six naval installations 
are specifically excluded from the critical habitat designation. A 
revision to the critical habitat designation is currently under 
consideration (80 FR 9682; February 24, 2015).
    Southern resident killer whales are expected to occur occasionally 
in the waters surrounding all of the installations except those in Hood 
Canal, where they have not been reported since 1995 (NMFS, 2006). 
Southern resident killer whales are rare near NBK Bremerton and 
Keyport, with the last confirmed sighting in Dyes Inlet in 1997. 
Southern residents have been observed in Saratoga Passage and 
Possession Sound near NS Everett.
    The stock contains three pods (J, K, and L pods), with pod sizes 
ranging from approximately 20 (in J pod) to 40 (in L pod) individuals. 
Group sizes encountered can be smaller or larger if pods temporarily 
separate or join together. Therefore, some exposure to groups of up to 
20 individuals or more could occur over the 5-year duration.

Harbor Porpoise

    Harbor porpoises, once very common in Puget Sound, are recovering 
from a virtual disappearance in the 1970s (Jefferson et al., 2016). 
Recent opportunistic sightings, strandings, and fisheries bycatches 
indicate that harbor porpoises have reoccupied much or all of Puget 
Sound in significant numbers since the 2002-2003. Jefferson et al. 
(2016) conducted aerial surveys throughout Puget Sound from 2013 to 
2015 and developed harbor porpoise density estimates for eight 
stratums. When pooling all seasons, the density of harbor porpoise in 
southern Puget Sound for the entire year is 0.89 animals/km\2\ (see 
Table 3 in Jefferson et al., 2016).

Marine Mammal Hearing

    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals 
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious 
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to 
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine 
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine 
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et 
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008).

[[Page 22629]]

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals 
be divided into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or 
estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response 
data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, 
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements 
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes 
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) described 
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. 
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with 
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the 
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower 
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. The functional groups and 
the associated frequencies are indicated below (note that these 
frequency ranges correspond to the range for the composite group, with 
the entire range not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of every 
species within that group):
     Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing 
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 hertz (Hz) and 35 
kilohertz (kHz);
     Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked 
whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur 
between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
     High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and 
members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members 
of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data 
and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
     Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized 
hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz;
     Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized 
hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz.
    The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et 
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have 
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing 
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range 
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth et al., 
2013).
    For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency 
ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information. 
Seven marine mammal species (four cetacean and three pinniped (two 
otariid and one phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-
occur with the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of 
the cetacean species that may be present, two are classified as low-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), one is classified as 
mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid species and 
the sperm whale), and one is classified as high-frequency cetaceans 
(i.e., harbor porpoise and Kogia spp.).

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and 
their habitat. The ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section 
later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number 
of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The 
``Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination'' section considers the 
content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by Incidental 
Harassment'' section, and the ``Proposed Mitigation'' section, to draw 
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the 
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those 
impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or 
stocks.

Description of Sound Sources

    This section contains a brief technical background on sound, on the 
characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this 
proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified 
activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified 
activity on marine mammals found later in this document. For general 
information on sound and its interaction with the marine environment, 
please see, e.g., Au and Hastings (2008); Richardson et al. (1995); 
Urick (1983).
    Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are 
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number 
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and 
is measured in Hz or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance 
between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave (length of 
one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths than lower 
frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, 
except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of 
the sound pressure wave or the ``loudness'' of a sound and is typically 
described using the relative unit of the dB. A sound pressure level 
(SPL) in dB is described as the ratio between a measured pressure and a 
reference pressure (for underwater sound, this is 1 microPascal 
([mu]Pa)), and is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations 
in amplitude; therefore, a relatively small change in dB corresponds to 
large changes in sound pressure. The source level (SL) represents the 
SPL referenced at a distance of 1 meter (m) from the source (referenced 
to 1 [mu]Pa), while the received level is the SPL at the listener's 
position (referenced to 1 [mu]Pa).
    Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over 
the duration of an impulse. Root mean square is calculated by squaring 
all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the 
square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean square accounts for 
both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all 
values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of 
pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often 
used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because 
behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be 
better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
    Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s) 
represents the total energy in a stated frequency band over a stated 
time interval or event, and considers both intensity and duration of 
exposure. The per-pulse SEL is calculated over the time window 
containing the entire pulse (i.e., 100 percent of the acoustic energy). 
SEL is a cumulative metric; it can be accumulated over a single pulse, 
or calculated over periods containing multiple pulses. Cumulative SEL 
represents the total energy accumulated by a receiver over a defined 
time window or during an event. Peak sound pressure (also referred to 
as zero-to-peak sound pressure or 0-pk) is the maximum instantaneous 
sound pressure measurable in the water at a specified distance from the 
source, and is represented in the same units as the rms sound pressure.
    When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure 
waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the 
water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in a 
manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either 
directed in a beam or beams or may radiate in all directions

[[Page 22630]]

(omnidirectional sources), as is the case for sound produced by the 
pile driving activity considered here. The compressions and 
decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in 
pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as 
hydrophones.
    Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the 
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound, which is 
defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single 
source or point (Richardson et al., 1995). The sound level of a region 
is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and 
unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., wind and 
waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds 
produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic 
(e.g., vessels, dredging, construction) sound. A number of sources 
contribute to ambient sound, including wind and waves, which are a main 
source of naturally occurring ambient sound for frequencies between 200 
Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to 
increase with increasing wind speed and wave height. Precipitation can 
become an important component of total sound at frequencies above 500 
Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet times. Marine mammals can 
contribute significantly to ambient sound levels, as can some fish and 
snapping shrimp. The frequency band for biological contributions is 
from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz. Sources of ambient sound 
related to human activity include transportation (surface vessels), 
dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, 
geophysical surveys, sonar, and explosions. Vessel noise typically 
dominates the total ambient sound for frequencies between 20 and 300 
Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz 
and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate 
rapidly.
    The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources that 
comprise ambient sound at any given location and time depends not only 
on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and 
levels of biological and human activity) but also on the ability of 
sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation 
is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the 
water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of 
the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound 
levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial 
and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can 
vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result 
is that, depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the 
specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local 
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine 
mammals.
    Underwater ambient sound in Puget Sound is comprised of sounds 
produced by a number of natural and anthropogenic sources and varies 
both geographically and temporally. Human-generated sound is a 
significant contributor to the ambient acoustic environment at the 
installations considered here. The underwater acoustic environment at 
the Annapolis Ferry Terminal is dependent upon the presence of ferries, 
other vessel traffic, and construction work occurring at nearby NBK 
Bremerton and the Manette Bridge. If ferries are approaching or 
docking, ambient sound levels would be higher than in absence of 
vessels.
    Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types: 
pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following). The distinction 
between these two sound types is important because they have differing 
potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to 
hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). Please see 
Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth discussion of these concepts. 
The distinction between these two sound types is not always obvious, as 
certain signals share properties of both pulsed and non-pulsed sounds. 
A signal near a source could be categorized as a pulse, but due to 
propagation effects as it moves farther from the source, the signal 
duration becomes longer (e.g., Greene and Richardson, 1988).
    Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, explosions, gunshots, sonic 
booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically 
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients 
(ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 1998; ISO, 2003) and occur either as 
isolated events or repeated in some succession. Pulsed sounds are all 
characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure to a 
maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period that may 
include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal 
pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce physical 
injury as compared with sounds that lack these features. Non-pulsed 
sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or prolonged, and 
may be either continuous or intermittent (ANSI, 1995). Some of these 
non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals of short duration but 
without the essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid rise time). 
Examples of non-pulsed sounds include those produced by vessels, 
aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 
pile driving, and active sonar systems. The duration of such sounds, as 
received at a distance, can be greatly extended in a highly reverberant 
environment. The impulsive sound generated by impact hammers is 
characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels. Vibratory 
hammers produce non-impulsive, continuous noise at levels lower than 
those produced by impact hammers. Further, rise time is not pronounced, 
reducing the probability and severity of injury, and sound energy is 
distributed over a greater amount of time (e.g., Nedwell and Edwards, 
2002; Carlson et al., 2005).

Acoustic Effects

    We previously provided general background information on marine 
mammal hearing (see Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the 
Specified Activity). Here, we discuss the potential effects of sound on 
marine mammals.
    Potential Effects of Underwater Sound--Note that, in the following 
discussion, we refer in many cases to a review article concerning 
studies of noise-induced hearing loss conducted from 1996-2015 (i.e., 
Finneran, 2015). For study-specific citations, please see that work. 
Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad range of frequencies and sound 
levels and can have a range of highly variable impacts on marine life, 
from none or minor to potentially severe responses, depending on 
received levels, duration of exposure, behavioral context, and various 
other factors. The potential effects of underwater sound from active 
acoustic sources can potentially result in one or more of the 
following: temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory 
physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and 
masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 
2007; Southall et al., 2007; G[ouml]tz et al., 2009). The degree of 
effect is intrinsically related to the signal characteristics, received 
level, distance from the source, and duration of the sound exposure. In 
general, sudden, high level sounds can cause hearing loss, as can 
longer exposures to lower level sounds. Temporary or permanent loss of 
hearing will occur almost exclusively for noise within an animal's

[[Page 22631]]

hearing range. Below, we describe specific manifestations of acoustic 
effects before providing discussion specific to pile driving.
    Richardson et al. (1995) described zones of increasing intensity of 
effect that might be expected to occur, in relation to distance from a 
source and assuming that the signal is within an animal's hearing 
range. First is the area within which the acoustic signal would be 
audible (potentially perceived) to the animal but not strong enough to 
elicit any overt behavioral or physiological response. The next zone 
corresponds with the area where the signal is audible to the animal and 
of sufficient intensity to elicit behavioral or physiological 
responsiveness. Third is a zone within which, for signals of high 
intensity, the received level is sufficient to potentially cause 
discomfort or tissue damage to auditory or other systems. Overlaying 
these zones to a certain extent is the area within which masking (i.e., 
when a sound interferes with or masks the ability of an animal to 
detect a signal of interest that is above the absolute hearing 
threshold) may occur; the masking zone may be highly variable in size.
    We describe the more severe effects (i.e., certain non-auditory 
physical or physiological effects) only briefly as we do not expect 
that there is a reasonable likelihood that pile driving may result in 
such effects (see below for further discussion). Potential effects from 
impulsive sound sources can range in severity from effects such as 
behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, 
slight injury of the internal organs and the auditory system, or 
mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973). Non-auditory physiological effects 
or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to 
high level underwater sound or as a secondary effect of extreme 
behavioral reactions (e.g., change in dive profile as a result of an 
avoidance reaction) caused by exposure to sound include neurological 
effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ 
or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007; Zimmer and 
Tyack, 2007; Tal et al., 2015). The construction activities considered 
here do not involve the use of devices such as explosives or mid-
frequency tactical sonar that are associated with these types of 
effects.
    NMFS defines threshold shift (TS) as ``a change, usually an 
increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or 
portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established 
reference level'' (NMFS, 2016). Threshold shift can be permanent (PTS) 
or temporary (TTS). As described in NMFS (2016), there are numerous 
factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, 
but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern (e.g., impulsive or 
non-impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long 
enough duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude 
of the TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the 
frequency range of the exposure (i.e., spectral content), the hearing 
and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species relative to the 
signal's frequency spectrum (i.e., how animal uses sound within the 
frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al. 2014b), and their 
overlap (e.g., spatial, temporal, and spectral).

Permanent Threshold Shift

    NMFS defines PTS as ``a permanent, irreversible increase in the 
threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an 
individual's hearing range above a previously established reference 
level'' (NMFS, 2016). It is the permanent elevation in hearing 
threshold resulting from irreparable damage to structures of the inner 
ear (e.g., sensory hair cells, cochlea) or central auditory system 
(ANSI, 1995; Ketten 2000). Available data from humans and other 
terrestrial mammals indicate that a measured 40 dB threshold shift 
approximates PTS onset (e.g., Kryter et al. 1966; Miller 1974; 
Henderson et al. 2008). Unlike TTS, NMFS considers PTS auditory injury 
and therefore constitutes Level A harassment, as defined in the MMPA.
    With the exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS 
in a harbor seal (Kastak et al., 2008), there are no empirical data 
measuring PTS in marine mammals largely due to the fact that, for 
various ethical reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise 
exposure at levels inducing PTS are not typically pursued or authorized 
(NMFS, 2016).

Temporary Threshold Shift

    NMFS defines TTS as ``a temporary, reversible increase in the 
threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an 
individual's hearing range above a previously established reference 
level'' (NMFS, 2016). A TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum threshold 
shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-session 
variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Finneran et al., 2000; 
Finneran et al., 2002, as reviewed in Southall et al., 2007 for a 
review)). TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (i.e., there is 
recovery), occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might 
only have a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity between the 
frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz)), and can be of varying amounts (for 
example, an animal's hearing sensitivity might be temporarily reduced 
by only 6 dB or reduced by 30 dB). Depending on the degree (elevation 
of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and frequency 
range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS can have 
effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious (similar 
to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a marine 
mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively small 
amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that takes place during 
a time when the animal is traveling through the open ocean, where 
ambient noise is lower and there are not as many competing sounds 
present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS 
sustained during time when communication is critical for successful 
mother/calf interactions could have more serious impacts. We note that 
reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been 
observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall 
et al., 2007), so we can infer that strategies exist for coping with 
this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.
    Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans 
(bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale (Delphinapterus 
leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocoena 
asiaeorientalis)) and three species of pinnipeds (northern elephant 
seal, harbor seal, and California sea lion) exposed to a limited number 
of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in 
laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed in trained 
spotted (Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to 
impulsive noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset 
(Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises 
have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species 
(Finneran, 2015). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data 
come from a limited number of individuals within these species. There 
are no data available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For 
summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of 
TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and 
Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and NMFS (2016).
    Behavioral Effects--Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of

[[Page 22632]]

effects, including subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief 
avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous 
changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or 
potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment 
of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly 
variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous 
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of maturity, 
experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, 
time of day), as well as the interplay between factors (e.g., 
Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; 
Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not 
only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on 
previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other 
factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on 
characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is 
moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). 
Please see Appendices B-C of Southall et al. (2007) for a review of 
studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.
    Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes 
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated 
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to 
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that 
habituation is appropriately considered as a ``progressive reduction in 
response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor 
beneficial,'' rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to 
human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is 
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent 
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of 
exposure. As noted, behavioral state may affect the type of response. 
For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral 
change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are 
highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with 
captive marine mammals have showed pronounced behavioral reactions, 
including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; 
Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to 
loud pulsed sound sources (typically airguns or acoustic harassment 
devices) have been varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or 
other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 
2002; see also Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007). However, 
many delphinids approach low-frequency airgun source vessels with no 
apparent discomfort or obvious behavioral change (e.g., Barkaszi et 
al., 2012), indicating the importance of frequency output in relation 
to the species' hearing sensitivity.
    Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater 
sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given 
sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving 
the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater 
sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts 
of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let 
alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces 
marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a 
prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be 
significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 
2005). However, there are broad categories of potential response, which 
we describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive 
behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing, 
interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
    Changes in dive behavior can vary widely and may consist of 
increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as 
changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., Frankel 
and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et 
al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a, 2013b). Variations in dive behavior 
may reflect interruptions in biologically significant activities (e.g., 
foraging) or they may be of little biological significance. The impact 
of an alteration to dive behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure 
depends on what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the 
type and magnitude of the response.
    Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with 
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed 
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary 
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency, 
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as 
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to 
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al., 
2001; Nowacek et al., 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 
2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness 
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic 
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between 
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history 
stage of the animal.
    Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors 
and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure 
can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a 
flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates 
in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute 
stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may 
either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and 
signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in 
understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise 
when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic 
sound exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 2005, 2006; Gailey et 
al., 2007; Gailey et al., 2016).
    Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple 
modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and 
singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic 
noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to 
compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased 
vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of 
potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have 
been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al., 
2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), while right whales 
have been observed to shift the frequency content of their calls upward 
while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic 
noise (Parks et al., 2007). In some cases, animals may cease sound 
production during production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994).
    Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or 
migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other 
stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance 
in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, gray whales 
are known to change direction--deflecting from customary migratory 
paths--in order to avoid noise from airgun surveys (Malme et al.,

[[Page 22633]]

1984). Avoidance may be short-term, with animals returning to the area 
once the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996; 
Stone et al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et al., 2007). 
Longer-term displacement is possible, however, which may lead to 
changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species 
in the affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does 
not occur (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann 
et al., 2006).
    A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a 
directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound 
source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in 
the intensity of the response (e.g., directed movement, rate of 
travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine 
mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight 
responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and 
Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight response could range from 
brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the 
signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings 
(Evans and England, 2001). However, it should be noted that response to 
a perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and 
Reeves, 2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may 
influence the response.
    Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more 
subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to 
diversion of focus and attention (i.e., when a response consists of 
increased vigilance, it may come at the cost of decreased attention to 
other critical behaviors such as foraging or resting). These effects 
have generally not been demonstrated for marine mammals, but studies 
involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown that increased 
vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp and 
Livoreil). In addition, chronic disturbance can cause population 
declines through reduction of fitness (e.g., decline in body condition) 
and subsequent reduction in reproductive success, survival, or both 
(e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 
1998). However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported that increased vigilance 
in bottlenose dolphins exposed to sound over a five-day period did not 
cause any sleep deprivation or stress effects.
    Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, 
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption 
of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound 
exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one 
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). 
Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not 
recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe 
unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et 
al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day 
substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic 
activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple 
days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either 
exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further, 
exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive 
behavioral responses.
    Stress Responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be 
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination 
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, 
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950; 
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most 
economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral 
avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses 
to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and 
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short 
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an 
animal's fitness.
    Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that 
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction, 
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been 
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune 
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated 
with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
    The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does 
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of 
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores 
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such 
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious 
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient 
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, 
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of 
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves 
sufficient to restore normal function.
    Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal 
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through 
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals 
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; 
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to 
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects 
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker, 2000; 
Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations 
(e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found 
that noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 
associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These 
and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine 
mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to 
acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be 
classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS 
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003).
    Auditory Masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or 
interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or 
discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for 
intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection, 
predator avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; Erbe et al., 
2016). Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by 
another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or 
higher intensity, and may occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., 
snapping shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 
shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise 
source to mask biologically important sounds depends on the 
characteristics of both the noise source and the signal of interest 
(e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, temporal variability, direction), in 
relation to each other and to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., 
sensitivity, frequency range, critical ratios, frequency 
discrimination, directional discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), 
and existing ambient noise and propagation conditions.
    Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing 
significant

[[Page 22634]]

masking could also be impaired from maximizing their performance 
fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident 
(masking) sound is man-made, it may be considered harassment when 
disrupting or altering critical behaviors. It is important to 
distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from 
masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking 
(without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological 
function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a 
potential behavioral effect.
    The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important 
in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-
frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation 
sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection 
of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important 
natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. 
The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be 
considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (e.g., 
Clark et al., 2009) and may result in energetic or other costs as 
animals change their vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 2000; 
Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt 
et al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in situations where the signal 
and noise come from different directions (Richardson et al., 1995), 
through amplitude modulation of the signal, or through other 
compensatory behaviors (Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can be tested 
directly in captive species (e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild populations 
it must be either modeled or inferred from evidence of masking 
compensation. There are few studies addressing real-world masking 
sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in the wild (e.g., 
Branstetter et al., 2013).
    Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and 
can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the 
population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency 
ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than 
three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial 
periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping 
(Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially 
chronic and lower-frequency signals (e.g., from vessel traffic), 
contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
    Potential Effects of the Activity--As described previously (see 
``Description of Active Acoustic Sound Sources''), the Navy proposes to 
conduct pile driving, including impact and vibratory driving. The 
effects of pile driving on marine mammals are dependent on several 
factors, including the size, type, and depth of the animal; the depth, 
intensity, and duration of the pile driving sound; the depth of the 
water column; the substrate of the habitat; the standoff distance 
between the pile and the animal; and the sound propagation properties 
of the environment. With both types of pile driving, it is likely that 
the onset of pile driving could result in temporary, short term changes 
in an animal's typical behavioral patterns and/or avoidance of the 
affected area.
    These behavioral changes may include changing durations of 
surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction 
and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of 
certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible 
startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or 
jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located; and/
or flight responses (Richardson et al., 1995).
    The biological significance of many of these behavioral 
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected 
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral 
modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the 
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant 
behavioral modifications that could lead to effects on growth, 
survival, or reproduction, such as drastic changes in diving/surfacing 
patterns or significant habitat abandonment are extremely unlikely in 
this area (i.e., shallow waters in modified industrial areas).
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and 
their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals 
(hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to 
predict (Southall et al., 2007).
    Whether impact or vibratory driving, sound sources would be active 
for relatively short durations, with relation to potential for masking. 
The frequencies output by pile driving activity are lower than those 
used by most species expected to be regularly present for communication 
or foraging. We expect insignificant impacts from masking, and any 
masking event that could possibly rise to Level B harassment under the 
MMPA would occur concurrently within the zones of behavioral harassment 
already estimated for vibratory and impact pile driving, and which have 
already been taken into account in the exposure analysis.

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    The proposed activities 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. The proposed 
activities could also affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion 
above), but meaningful impacts are unlikely. There are no known 
foraging hotspots, or other ocean bottom structures of significant 
biological importance to marine mammals present in the marine waters in 
the vicinity of the project areas. Therefore, the main impact issue 
associated with the proposed activity would be temporarily elevated 
sound levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, as 
discussed previously in this preamble. The most likely impact to marine 
mammal habitat occurs from pile driving effects on likely marine mammal 
prey (i.e., fish) near the six installations. Impacts to the immediate 
substrate during installation and removal of piles are anticipated, but 
these would be limited to minor, temporary suspension of sediments, 
which could impact water quality and visibility for a short amount of 
time, but which would not be expected to have any effects on individual 
marine mammals. Impacts to substrate are therefore not discussed 
further.
    Effects to Prey--Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on 
the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species (e.g., 
crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, zooplankton). Marine mammal prey varies 
by species, season, and location and, for some, is not well documented. 
Here, we describe studies regarding the effects of noise on known 
marine mammal prey.
    Fish utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their 
environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator 
avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., Zelick et al., 1999; Fay, 2009). 
Depending on their hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory structures, 
which vary among species, fishes hear sounds using pressure and 
particle motion sensitivity capabilities and detect the motion of 
surrounding water (Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects of noise on 
fishes depends on the overlapping frequency range, distance

[[Page 22635]]

from the sound source, water depth of exposure, and species-specific 
hearing sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. Key impacts to fishes may 
include behavioral responses, hearing damage, barotrauma (pressure-
related injuries), and mortality.
    Fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or 
intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as 
flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp 
sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local 
distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the 
physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (e.g., 
feeding, spawning, migration), and other environmental factors. 
Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish 
may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies 
have documented effects of pile driving on fish, although several are 
based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction 
projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 
2009). Several studies have demonstrated that impulse sounds might 
affect the distribution and behavior of some fishes, potentially 
impacting foraging opportunities or increasing energetic costs (e.g., 
Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 
1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 2017). However, some 
studies have shown no or slight reaction to impulse sounds (e.g., Pena 
et al., 2013; Wardle et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009; Cott 
et al., 2012). More commonly, though, the impacts of noise on fish are 
temporary.
    SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish 
and fish mortality. However, in most fish species, hair cells in the 
ear continuously regenerate and loss of auditory function likely is 
restored when damaged cells are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen et 
al. (2012a) showed that a TTS of 4 to 6 dB was recoverable within 24 
hours for one species. Impacts would be most severe when the individual 
fish is close to the source and when the duration of exposure is long. 
Injury caused by barotrauma can range from slight to severe and can 
cause death, and is most likely for fish with swim bladders. Barotrauma 
injuries have been documented during controlled exposure to impact pile 
driving (Halvorsen et al., 2012b; Casper et al., 2013).
    The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the 
project areas would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The 
duration of fish avoidance of an area after pile driving stops is 
unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and 
behavior is anticipated. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey 
species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the expected 
short daily duration of individual pile driving events and the 
relatively small areas being affected. It is also not expected that the 
industrial environment around the terminal and nearby Naval 
installation provides important fish habitat or harbors significant 
amounts of forage fish.
    The area likely impacted by the activities is relatively small 
compared to the available habitat in inland waters in the region. Any 
behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed area would still leave 
significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in 
the nearby vicinity. As described in the preceding, the potential for 
Navy construction to affect the availability of prey to marine mammals 
or to meaningfully impact the quality of physical or acoustic habitat 
is considered to be insignificant. Effects to habitat will not be 
discussed further in this document.

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 B harassment only, in the form 
of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals 
resulting from exposure to pile driving. Based on the nature of the 
activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures 
(i.e., shutdown measures--discussed in detail below in Proposed 
Mitigation section), Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor 
proposed to be authorized.
    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 proposed take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic 
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above 
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be 
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS 
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
    Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly 
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from 
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by 
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving 
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral 
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, 
Ellison et al., 2011). Based on what the available science indicates 
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is 
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a 
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the 
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are 
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B 
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above 
received levels of 120 dB re 1 [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

[[Page 22636]]

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 proposed 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: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.

                     Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
             Hearing group              ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Impulsive                         Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans...........  Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB;   Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
                                          LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans...........  Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB;   Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
                                          LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans..........  Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB;   Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
                                          LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater).....  Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB;   Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
                                          LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater)....  Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB;   Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
                                          LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
  calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
  thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has
  a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National
  Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating
  frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ``flat'' is
  being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
  hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the
  designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and
  that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be
  exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and duration, duty cycle). When possible, it is
  valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
  exceeded.

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds.
    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.
    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 the installations 
considered here (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 respected 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.

[[Page 22637]]



                                  Table 4--Estimated Pile Driving Source Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Sound pressure (dB re: 1 [micro]Pa)
                                                     Pile size   -----------------------------------------------
                     Method                          (inches)         SPL \1\
                                                                      (peak)       SPL (rms) \1\      SEL \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact..........................................              12             192             177             167
                                                              24             207             194             178
Vibratory.......................................              12             171             155             155
                                                              24             178             165             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.

    The source levels presented in Table 4 are those proposed by Kitsap 
Transit and correspond with those found in Caltrans (2015). However, 
because NMFS recently proposed regulations for the U.S. Navy at 
multiple sites throughout Puget Sound, including NBK Bremerton located 
across Sinclair Inlet, NMFS also evaluated source levels used in that 
proposed rule. The source level provided in the Navy's proposed rule 
(83 FR 9366; March 5, 2018) for impact pile driving 24-in steel piles 
is slightly higher than that being used for this proposed IHA. Kitsap 
Transit proposed a source level of 178 dB SEL for impact pile driving 
24-in steel piles in their application while the Navy proposed (and 
NMFS included in the proposed rule) a source level of 181 dB SEL. 
However, we accept Kitsap Transit's proposed source levels for two 
reasons. First, the Navy excluded three projects for which data from 
24-in pile driving was available due to a low number of pile strikes 
and because these projects produced lower SEL values than the two 
projects considered in the proposed rule. Overall, the mean SEL per any 
one pile for the two projects considered by the Navy (Bainbridge Island 
and Friday Harbor) ranged from 176 to 185 dB; however, the three 
projects not considered (Bangor Test Pile Program, Conoco-Phillips 
dock, and Deep Water-Tongue Point Facility Pier Repairs) produced SELs 
ranging from 168 to 177 dB SEL. Second, we accept Kitsap Transit's 
proposed source levels because they would employ bubble curtains during 
all impact pile driving which is known to reduce noise levels but we 
are not accounting for that attenuation in this proposed IHA. Kitsap 
Transit's proposed source levels for impact pile driving 12-in steel 
piles and all vibratory pile driving and pile removal correspond to or 
are slightly greater than those in Caltrans (2015) and the Navy's 
proposed rule; therefore, we apply them here.
    When NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition 
of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically 
challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new 
thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help 
predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine 
mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that 
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for 
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going 
to be overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of 
overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way 
to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling 
methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to 
quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the 
output where appropriate. For 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.

    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.

[[Page 22638]]

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 proposed to implement shut-down zones 
mirroring these calculated outputs to avoid Level A harassment. We have 
slightly modified them and believe these modifications woulwhile we 
have proposed simWe Table 6 have also provided the area ensonified to 
the Level B harassment threshold in Table 6; these areas have been 
truncated to account for land.

                                                          Table 6--Distances to Level A and B Harassment Thresholds and Area Ensonified
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Distance to Level A (meters)
                             Method                                  Pile size   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------     Level B      Level B area
                                                                     (inches)      LF cetaceans    MF cetaceans    HF cetaceans       Phocids        Otariids        (meters)         (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, Dall's 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.........................            0.89             n/a
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take Calculation and Estimation

    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
    Kitsap Transit did not request, and we are not proposing, to 
authorize Level A take of any species. The User Spreadsheet does 
calculate distances at which Level A take could occur for all pile 
activity. The largest resulting distances are for the installation of 
24-in piles. The calculated distance represents the distance at which 
an animal would have to remain while exposed to the installation of two 
piles (with time in between to reset the hammer to the next pile) at 
1,000 strikes per pile. In addition, only eight 24-in piles are to be 
installed for the project. The harbor porpoise Level A harassment 
distance is 876 m; however, harbor porpoise are likely transiting 
through the area, if present at all. Harbor seals may remain in the 
area. Therefore, with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation 
measures, we do not believe there is a likely potential for Level A 
take for any species. Further, no take (either Level A or Level B) of 
humpback whales, gray whales, and killer whales was requested or is 
proposed to be authorized 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 proposed mitigation and monitoring measures 
(see Mitigation and Monitoring sections).
    The take calculation for harbor seal, Steller sea lion, and harbor 
porpoise exposures is derived using the following equation: Level B 
exposure 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 ensonifed zone for that day was used. For example, harbor seal 
exposures due to 12 inch pile driving are calculated as 1.22 animals/
km\2\ x 6.5 km\2\ x 4 days = 32 exposures. Harbor seal exposures due to 
installing 24 in. piles is 1.22 animals/km\2\ x 19.2 km\2\ x 8 days = 
187 exposures. Finally, harbor seal exposures due to pile removal is 
1.22 animals/km\2\ x 14.3 km\2\ x 5 days = 87 exposures. Although we 
anticipate some seals may be exposed more than once, we consider each 
exposure to constitute a take. Therefore, total estimated take is 306 
harbor seals. This 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 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.
    The total estimated take for all species incidental to 17 days of 
pile driving is provided in Table 8.

[[Page 22639]]



                    Table 8--Estimated Take, by Species and Stock, Incidental to Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Total take      Percent of
                  Species                                   Stock                    (Level B)         stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal................................  Southern Puget Sound...............             306            19.5
Steller sea lion...........................  Eastern DPS........................              10            0.01
California sea lion........................  U.S................................           1,173             0.4
Harbor Porpoise............................  Washington Inland Waters...........             224             2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS 
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to 
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic 
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such 
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 
216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. 
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being 
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the 
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented 
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as 
planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability 
implemented as planned). and;
    (2) the practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

    Kitsap Transit has proposed 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 which can also 
be found in the draft proposed IHA text provided at the end of this 
document.
    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 proposes to shut down pile driving if marine mammals 
for which they requested take enter the Level A harassment zones as 
calculated in Table 6. However, these distances represent a very long 
duration (6 hours for pile driving plus an unknown amount of time to 
re-set piles) during vibratory pile driving. Therefore, we have 
adjusted the shutdown zones to a more practicable level. We also 
incorporate the shutdown zones corresponding to Level B harassment for 
humpback whales, gray whales, and killer whales. Kitsap Transit shall 
implement shutdown zones as identified in Table 9 to avoid Level A take 
of seals, sea lions, and harbor porpoise as well as Level A and Level B 
take of humpback whales, gray whales, and killer whales. Kitsap Transit 
shall also implement a minimum shutdown zone of a 10 m radius around 
the pile.

       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, Gray whale,                  136           1,848           2,154          10,000           4,612
 Killer whale...................
Harbor porpoise.................             160             875              13              60              28
Harbor seal.....................              73             390          \1\ 10              25              11
Steller sea lion, California sea          \1\ 10              29          \1\ 10          \1\ 10          \1\ 10
 lion...........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NMFS is proposing a minimum 10 m shutdown zone 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 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 
and 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the

[[Page 22640]]

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 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 all impact pile 
driving. We note the estimated source levels used to calculate Level A 
harassment zones did not consider any reduction in noise from use of 
this bubble curtain (i.e., the Level A harassment isopleths consider 
unattenuated impact pile driving source levels).
    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 proposed measures, NMFS 
has preliminarily determined that the proposed 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.

Proposed 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).
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
    For all pile driving activities, at least one protected species 
observer (PSOs) shall be stationed at the on-shore vantage point at the 
outer portion of the pier to be retained to monitor and implement 
shutdown or delay procedures, when applicable, through communication 
with the equipment operator.
    If water conditions exceed a Beaufort level 2, or if visibility is 
limited by rain or fog, an additional on-shore observer will be 
positioned at the Bremerton Marina and/or a monitor will patrol the 
monitoring zone in a boat.
    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.
     Where a team of three or more PSOs are required, a lead 
observer or monitoring coordinator shall be designated. The lead 
observer must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer 
during construction.
     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 mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); 
and marine mammal behavior.
     Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with 
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals 
observed in the area as necessary.
    Kitsap Transit would also be required to submit an annual report 
summarizing their monitoring efforts, number of animals taken, any 
implementation of mitigation measures (e.g., shut downs)

[[Page 22641]]

and abide by reporting requirements contained within the draft IHA at 
the end of this document.

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, in the form of Level B harassment 
(behavioral disturbance) only from underwater sounds generated from 
pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individual marine mammals 
are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving is happening. No 
serious injury or mortality would be expected even in the absence of 
the proposed mitigation measures. Further, while Level A harassment 
potential is calculated, it is based on long exposure durations (6 
hours of vibratory pile driving and 2,000 pile strikes); therefore, the 
true Level A harassment distances, if any, are likely closer than those 
provided in Table 6. Further, the potential for injury is s is expected 
to be essentially eliminated through implementation of the planned 
mitigation measures--use of the bubble curtain for impact driving steel 
piles, soft start (for impact driving), and shutdown zones. Impact 
driving, as compared with vibratory driving, has source characteristics 
(short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and much sharper rise time 
to reach those peaks) that are potentially injurious or more likely to 
produce severe behavioral reactions. 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 in 
implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury.
    We anticipate individuals exposed to pile driving noise generated 
at the Annapolis Ferry Terminal will, at most, simply move away from 
the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of pile 
driving. 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 from behavioral harassment. 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 
involve 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 preliminary 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;
     As a result of the nature of the activity in concert with 
the planned mitigation requirements, injury is not anticipated for any 
species;
     The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist 
of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior;
     There is no significant habitat within the industrialized 
project areas, including known areas or features of special 
significance for foraging or reproduction; and
     The proposed 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 proposed monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily 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 2 percent of the stock of Steller sea lions, California sea lions, 
and harbor porpoise and less than 20 percent for harbor seals (see 
Table X). We note that harbor seals takes likely represent multiple 
exposures of fewer individuals. The amount of take proposed is 
considered relatively small percentages and we preliminarily 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 proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the 
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small 
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size 
of the affected species or stocks.

[[Page 22642]]

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine 
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has 
preliminarily 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 
Protected Resources Division Office, whenever we propose to authorize 
take for endangered or threatened species.
    No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for 
authorization or expected to result 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 has determined that formal consultation under section 7 
of the ESA is not required for this action.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to Kitsap Transit for conducting pile driving and removal 
in Puget Sound over the course of 17 days, provided the previously 
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are 
incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The 
wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA 
(if issued).
    This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid for a 
period of one year from the date of issuance.
    This IHA is valid only for pile driving associated with the 
Annapolis Ferry Dock Project, Puget Sound.
    A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of Kitsap Transit, its 
designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of 
this IHA.
    The species authorized for taking are the harbor seal (Phoca 
vitulina richardii), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus 
monteriensis), California sea lion (Zalophus californianu), and harbor 
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena vomerina).
    The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the species 
listed in Table 8. See Table 8 for numbers of take authorized.
    The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death 
of any of the species listed in condition 3(b) of the Authorization or 
any taking of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may 
result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA. 
Kitsap Transit shall conduct briefings between construction supervisors 
and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, acoustical monitoring team, 
and Kitsap Transit staff prior to the start of all pile driving, and 
when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, 
communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and 
operational procedures.

Mitigation 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.
    For all pile driving activity, Kitsap Transit shall implement 
shutdown zones as described in Table 9.
    For all pile driving activity, Kitsap Transit shall implement a 
minimum shutdown zone of a 10 m radius around the pile.
    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 
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 
and 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.
    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 reduce the transmission of impulsive noise 
into the marine environment by using a bubble curtain during all impact 
pile driving.
    If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a 
species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized 
takes are met, is observed approaching or within the Level B isopleth, 
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.

Monitoring and Reporting Measures

    Monitoring of pile driving shall be conducted by qualified PSOs 
(see below), who shall have no other assigned tasks during monitoring 
periods.
    For all pile driving activities, at least one protected species 
observer (PSOs) shall be stationed at the on-shore vantage point at the 
outer portion of the

[[Page 22643]]

pier to be retained to monitor and implement shutdown or delay 
procedures, when applicable, through communication with the equipment 
operator.
    If water conditions exceed a Beaufort level 2, or if visibility is 
limited by rain or fog, an additional on-shore observer will be 
positioned at the Bremerton Marina and/or a monitor will patrol the 
monitoring zone in a boat.
    The PSO shall access the Orca Network each morning prior to in-
water construction activities that may produce noise levels above the 
disturbance threshold and if pile removal or installation ceases for 
more than two hours.
    Kitsap Transit shall adhere to the following conditions when 
selecting observers:
    Independent PSOs shall be used (i.e., not construction personnel).
    The PSO must have prior experience working as a marine mammal 
observer during construction activities.
    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 mitigation 
(or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine 
mammal behavior.
    Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project 
personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed 
in the area as necessary.
    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, 
such as an serious injury, or mortality, Kitsap Transit shall 
immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to 
the Office of Protected Resources (301-427-8401), NMFS, and the West 
Coast Region Stranding Coordinator (1-866-767-6114), NMFS. The report 
must include the following information:
    Time and date of the incident;
    Description of the incident;
    Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort 
sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
    Description of all marine mammal observations and active sound 
source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
    Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
    Fate of the animal(s); and
    Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
    Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with Kitsap 
Transit to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the 
likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. 
Kitsap Transit may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
    In the event Kitsap Transit discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury 
or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less 
than a moderate state of decomposition), Kitsap Transit shall 
immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, 
NMFS, and the West Coast Region Stranding Coordinator, NMFS.
    The report must include the same information identified in 6(b)(i) 
of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the 
circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with Kitsap Transit to 
determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to 
the activities are appropriate.
    In the event that Kitsap Transit discovers an injured or dead 
marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or 
death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in 
the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to 
advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Kitsap Transit shall 
report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 
West Coast Region Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the 
discovery. Kitsap Transit shall provide photographs or video footage or 
other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS.
    This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the 
holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS 
determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible 
impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
    Renewals--On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a second one-year 
IHA without additional notice when (1) another year of identical or 
nearly identical activities as described in the Specified Activities 
section is planned or (2) the activities would not be completed by the 
time the IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for completion of the 
activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section, 
provided all of the following conditions are met:
    A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to 
expiration of the current IHA.
    The request for renewal must include the following:
    An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the 
initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed 
activities or include changes so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) 
that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, take estimates, 
or mitigation and monitoring requirements.
    A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required 
monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring 
results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously 
analyzed or authorized.
    Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected 
species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines 
that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the 
mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate, and 
the original findings remain valid.

Request for Public Comments

    We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and 
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for Kitsap Transit's 
proposed Annapolis Ferry Terminal upgrades. We also request comment on 
the potential for renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the 
paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data 
or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the 
request for MMPA authorization.
    On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a second one-year IHA 
without additional notice when (1) another year of identical or nearly 
identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section 
is planned or (2) the activities would not be completed by the time the 
IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for completion of the 
activities beyond that described in the Dates and

[[Page 22644]]

Duration section, provided all of the following conditions are met:
     A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days 
prior to expiration of the current IHA.
     The request for renewal must include the following:
    (1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the 
initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed 
activities or include changes so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) 
that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, take estimates, 
or mitigation and monitoring requirements.
    (2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the 
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the 
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not 
previously analyzed or authorized.
     Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the 
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS 
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, 
the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate, 
and the original findings remain valid.

    Dated: May 10, 2018.
Elaine T. Saiz,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-10385 Filed 5-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P