Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Pile Driving Activities for the Restoration of Pier 62, Seattle Waterfront, Elliott Bay, 30120-30145 [2018-13803]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30120-30145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13803]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XG291


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Pile Driving Activities for the 
Restoration of Pier 62, Seattle Waterfront, Elliott Bay

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 the Seattle Department of 
Transportation (Seattle DOT) for authorization to take marine mammals 
incidental to pile driving activities for the restoration of Pier 62, 
Seattle Waterfront, Elliott Bay in Seattle, Washington (Season 2). 
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

[[Page 30121]]

will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the 
issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will 
be summarized in the final notice of our decision.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than July 27, 
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 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities 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: Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the applications 
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in 
this document, may be obtained online at. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. 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, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any 
marine mammal.
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering (Level B harassment).

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act 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.

Summary of Request

    On January 27, 2018, NMFS received a request from the Seattle DOT 
for a second IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving 
activities for the restoration of Pier 62, Seattle Waterfront, Elliott 
Bay in Seattle, Washington. A revised request was submitted on May 18, 
2018 which was deemed adequate and complete. Seattle DOT's request is 
for take of 12 species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment and 
Level A harassment (three species only). Neither Seattle DOT nor NMFS 
expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, 
therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
    NMFS previously issued an IHA to Seattle DOT for related work for 
Season 1 of this activity (82 FR 47176; October 11, 2017). Seattle DOT 
complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting) of the previous IHA and information regarding their 
monitoring results may be found in the Description of Marine Mammals in 
the Area of Specified Activities and Estimated Take sections.
    This proposed IHA would cover the second season of work for the 
Pier 62 Project for which Seattle DOT obtained a prior IHA (82 FR 
47176; October 11, 2017) and intends to request take authorization for 
subsequent facets of the project. The second season of the larger 
project is expected to primarily involve the remaining pile driving for 
Pier 62 and Pier 63. If the Seattle DOT encounters delays due to poor 
weather conditions, difficult pile driving, or other unanticipated 
challenges, an additional in-water work season may be necessary. If so, 
a separate IHA would be prepared for the third season of work.

Description of Specified Activities

Overview

    The proposed project will replace Pier 62 and make limited 
modifications to Pier 63 on the Seattle waterfront of Elliott Bay, 
Seattle, Washington. The existing piers are constructed of creosote-
treated timber piles and treated timber decking, which are failing. The 
proposed project would demolish and remove the existing timber piles 
and decking of Pier 62, and replace them with concrete deck planks, 
concrete pile caps, and steel piling. The majority of the timber pile 
removal required by the project occurred during the 2017-2018 in-water 
work season (Season 1).
    The footprint of Pier 62 will remain as it currently is, with a 
small amount of additional over-water coverage (approximately 3,200 
square feet) created by a new float system added to the south side of 
Pier 62. This float

[[Page 30122]]

system is intended for moorage of transient, small-boat traffic, and 
will not be designed to accommodate mooring or berthing for larger 
vessels. This includes removing 815 timber piles, and will require 
installation of 180 steel piles for Pier 62. To offset the additional 
over-water coverage associated with the new float system, approximately 
3,700 square feet of Pier 63 will be removed. This includes removing 65 
timber piles, and will require installation of nine steel piles to 
provide structural support for the remaining portion of Pier 63.

Dates and Duration

    In-water construction for this application is proposed from August 
1, 2018 to February 28, 2019. Pile removal and installation will occur 
during daylight hours, typically during a work shift of eight hours or 
less. Timber pile removal for the remaining piles of the Pier 62 
Project is estimated to occur on 10 days during the 2018-2019 in-water 
work window. Pile installation will occur via vibratory and impact 
hammers. Vibratory hammer use is estimated to occur on up to 53 days, 
and impact hammer use may occur on up to 64 days, for a total of up to 
117 days of pile installation. Therefore, the total number of working 
days for the project is 127. It is expected that many of the pile 
installation days will involve both a vibratory and an impact hammer, 
resulting in fewer cumulative days of pile installation. It is 
anticipated that the contractor will complete the pile installation 
during the 2018-2019 in-water work window. In-water work may occur 
within a modified or shortened work window (September through February) 
to reduce or minimize effect on juvenile salmonids.

Specific Geographic Region

    Pier 62 and Pier 63 are located on the downtown Seattle waterfront 
on Elliot Bay in King County, Washington just north of the Seattle 
Aquarium (see Figure 1 from the Seattle DOT application). The project 
will occur between Pike Street and Lenora Street, an urban embayment in 
central Puget Sound. This is an important industrial region and home to 
the Port of Seattle, which ranked 8th in the top 10 metropolitan port 
complexes in the U.S. in 2015. This area includes the proposed 
construction zone, Elliott Bay, and a portion of Puget Sound.

Detailed Description of the Specific Activity

    During Season 1, Pier 62 was fully removed, including all support 
piles, structural components, and decking. The 3,700-square-foot 
portion of Pier 63 was also removed. A total of 831 piles were removed 
from Pier 62 and Pier 63 (see Table 1 below). Timber pile removal work 
in Season 2 (2018-2019 in-water work window) may occur for an estimated 
10 days (49 remaining timber piles, if the contractor encounters 
deteriorated piles that pose a safety hazard or are within the area 
where grated decking or habitat improvements are to be installed. 
Seattle DOT estimates 10 days will be needed to remove the old timber 
piles, 53 days for vibratory installation of steel piles, and 64 days 
for impact installation of steel piles for a total of 127 in-water 
construction days for both Pier 62 and Pier 63 (see Table 1 below). 
Seattle DOT expects most days for vibratory and impact installation of 
steel piles will overlap, for a total of fewer than 127 days.

                                                                           Table 3--Pile Installation and Removal Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Actual                                                                                   Single
                                           Number of  Completed during season   duration   Remaining work season      Anticipated      Hours per                          source      Additive
     Activity             Pile type          piles               1              season 1             2             duration season 2      day         Hammer type         sound     source sound
                                                                                 (days)                                                                                   levels       levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove...........  Creosote-treated              880  831 piles removed......         19  49 timber piles.......  10 days............          8  Vibratory..........      \2\ 161  ............
                    timber, 14-inch \1\.                                                                                                                                     dBRMS
                   Steel template pile,            2  .......................  .........  2.....................  Daily \3\..........  .........  Vibratory..........      \4\ 177  ............
                    24-inch.                                                                                                                                                 dBRMS
Install..........  Steel pile, 30-inch...        189  2 steel sheet piles              1  189 steel piles.......  53 days............          8  Vibratory..........      \6\ 177       \7\ 180
                                                       installed.                                                 64 days \8\........          8  Impact.............        dBRMS         dBRMS
                                                                                                                                                                           \9\ 189      \10\ 189
                                                                                                                                                                             dBRMS         dBRMS
                   Steel template pile,            2  .......................  .........  2.....................  Daily \3\..........  .........  Vibratory..........      \4\ 177  ............
                    24-inch.                                                                                                                                                 dBRMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. Assumed to be 14-inch diameter.
2. Hydroacoustic monitoring during Pier 62 Season 1 showed unweighted RMS ranging from 140 dB to 169 dB, the 75th percentile of these values is 161 dBRMS and was used to calculate thresholds.
3. The two template piles will be installed and removed daily. The time associated with this activity is included in the overall 8-hour pile driving day associated with installation of the 30-
  inch steel piles.
4. Assumed to be no greater than vibratory installation of the 30-inch steel pile.
6. Source sound from Port Townsend Test Pile Project (WSDOT 2010).
7. For simultaneous operation of two vibratory hammers installing steel pipe piles, the 180 dBRMS value is based on identical single-source levels, adding three dB based on WSDOT rules for
  decibel addition (2018).
8. Approximately 20 percent of the pile driving effort is anticipated to require an impact hammer, which results in approximately 11 cumulative days of impact hammer activity. However, the
  impact hammer activity is sporadic, often occurring for short periods each day. A total of 64 days represents the number of days in which pile installation with an impact hammer could occur,
  with the anticipation that each day's impact hammer activity would be short.
9. Source level from Colman Dock Test Pile Project (WSDOT 2016).
10. For simultaneous operation of one impact hammer and one vibratory hammer installing 30-inch piles, the original dBRMS estimates differ by more than 10 dB, so the higher value, 189 dBRMS,
  is used based on WSDOT rules for decibel addition (2018).
RMS--root mean square: The square root of the energy divided by the impulse duration. This level is the mean square pressure level of the pulse. It has been used by NMFS to describe
  disturbance-related effects (i.e., harassment) to marine mammals from underwater impulse-type noises.
WSDOT--Washington State Department of Transportation.

    Approximately 20 percent of the pile driving effort is anticipated 
to require an impact hammer. However, the impact hammer activity is 
sporadic, often occurring for short periods each day. A total of 64 
days represents the number of days in which pile installation with an 
impact hammer could occur, with the anticipation that each day's impact 
hammer activity would be short.
    The 14-inch (in) timber piles will be removed with a vibratory 
hammer or pulled with a clamshell bucket. The 30-in steel piles will be 
installed with a vibratory hammer to the extent possible. The maximum 
extent of pile removal and installation activities are described in 
Table 1.
    An impact hammer will be used for proofing steel piles or when 
encountering obstructions or difficult ground conditions. In addition, 
a pile template will be installed to ensure the piles are placed 
properly. The template,

[[Page 30123]]

which consists of two temporary 24-inch pipe piles connected by a 
structural steel frame, is both installed and removed with a vibratory 
hammer; the contractor positions the template, installs a set of piles, 
then moves the template to a new area. Template piles typically do not 
need to be installed as deep as the structural piles; the necessary 
embedment will vary depending on the substrate conditions. The Seattle 
DOT anticipates moving the template daily, but this will not increase 
the total number of vibratory pile driving days. The contractor may 
elect to operate multiple pile crews for the Pier 62 Project. As a 
result, more than one vibratory or impact hammer may be active at the 
same time. The Seattle DOT will not operate more than two vibratory 
hammers concurrently. For the Pier 62 Project, there is a low 
likelihood that multiple impact hammers would operate in a manner that 
piles would be struck simultaneously; however, as a conservative 
approach we used multiple-source decibel rule when determining the 
Level A and B harassment zones for this project. Table 2 provides 
guidance on adding decibels to account for multiple sources (WSDOT 
2015a):

                Table 2--Multiple Source Decibel Addition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Add the following to the
    When two decibel values differ by:          higher decibel value:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-1 dB....................................  3 dB
2-3 dB....................................  2 dB
4-9 dB....................................  1 dB
>10 dB or more............................  0 dB
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Seattle DOT anticipates proofing 10 piles, spread over the 
different geological zones and construction zones of the pier 
foundation. For this proofing effort, one impact crane would be 
mobilized. In addition to proofing, if a pile reaches refusal (i.e., 
can be driven no farther) with a vibratory hammer, an impact hammer 
would be used to drive the pile to the required depth or embedment. It 
is not possible to anticipate which piles will need to be driven with 
an impact hammer.
    It is not possible to know in advance the location of the crews and 
hammers on a given day, nor how many crews will be working each day. 
The multiple-source decibel addition method does not result in 
significant increases in the noise source when an impact hammer and 
vibratory hammer are working at the same time, because the difference 
in noise sources is greater than 10 dB. For periods when two vibratory 
hammers are operating simultaneously, an increase in noise level could 
be generated, and this will be accounted for when determining Level A 
Harassment Zones (PTS isopleths) and Level B Harassment Zones for all 
marine mammal hearing groups.
    If the Seattle DOT encounters delays due to poor weather 
conditions, difficult pile driving, or other unanticipated challenges, 
an additional in-water work season may be necessary. If so, a separate 
IHA would be prepared for the third season of work. In-water work will 
occur within the designated work window (August through February).

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    The marine mammal species under NMFS's jurisdiction that have the 
potential to occur in the construction area include Pacific harbor seal 
(Phoca vitulina), northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), 
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), Steller sea lion 
(Eumetopias jubatus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Dall's 
porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), long-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus 
delphis), common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), both southern 
resident and transient killer whales (Orcinus orca), humpback whale 
(Megaptera novaengliae), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and minke 
whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) (Table 3). Of these, the southern 
resident killer whale (SRKW) and humpback whale are protected under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Pertinent information for each of these 
species is presented in this document to provide the necessary 
background to understand their demographics and distribution in the 
area.

                                        Table 3--Marine Mammal Species Potentially Present in Region of Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         ESA/ MMPA status;   Stock abundance (CV,
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock             strategic (Y/N)      Nmin, most recent       PBR     Annual M/
                                                                                                \1\          abundance survey) \2\               SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
    Gray whale......................  Eschrichtius robustus..  Eastern North Pacific..  -; N                20,990 (0.05; 20,125;         624        132
                                                                                                             2011).
Family Balaenidae:
    Humpback whale..................  Megaptera novaeangliae   California/Oregon/       E; D                1,918 (0.03; 1,876;          11.0      >=9.2
                                       novaeangliae.            Washington.                                  2017).
    Minke whale.....................  Balaenoptera             California/Oregon/       -; N                636 (0.72, 369, 2014).        3.5      >=1.3
                                       acutorostrata scammoni.  Washington.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
    Killer whale....................  Orcinus orca...........  Eastern North Pacific    -; N                240 (0.49, 162, 2014).        1.6          0
                                                                Offshore.
    Killer whale....................  Orcinus orca...........  Eastern North Pacific    E; D                83 (na, 83, 2016).....       0.14          0
                                                                Southern Resident.
    Long-beaked common dolphin......  Dephinus delphis.......  California.............  -; N                101,305 (0.49; 68,432,        657     >=35.4
                                                                                                             2014).
    Bottlenose dolphin..............  Tursiops truncatus.....  California/Oregon/       -; N                1,924 (0.54; 1,255,            11      >=1.6
                                                                Washington Offshore.                         2014).
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
    Harbor Porpoise.................  Phocoena phocoena......  Washington Inland        -; N                11,233 (0.37; 8,308;           66      >=7.2
                                                                Waters.                                      2015).

[[Page 30124]]

 
    Dall's Porpoise.................  Phocoenoides dalli.....  California/Oregon/       -; N                25,750 (0.45, 17,954,         172        0.3
                                                                Washington.                                  2014).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
 sea lions):
    California sea lion.............  Zalophus californianus.  U.S....................  -; N                296,750 (na, 153,337,       9,200        389
                                                                                                             2011).
    Steller sea lion................  Eumetopias jubatus.....  Eastern DPS............  -; N                41,638 (-; 41,638;          2,498        108
                                                                                                             2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    Harbor seal.....................  Phoca vitulina.........  Washington Northern      -; N                11,036 (0.15, -, 1999)     Undet.        9.8
                                                                Inland Waters stock.
    Northern elephant seal..........  Mirounga angustirostris  California breeding....  -; N                179,000 (na; 81,368,        4,882        8.8
                                                                                                             2010).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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 online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
  stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
 3--These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
  commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual mortality/serious injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a
  minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.

    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; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species 
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's 
website for whales (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/whales), dolphins 
and porpoises (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/dolphins-porpoises), and 
pinnipeds (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/seals-sea-lions).
    Table 3 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
Elliott Bay 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 (2017). 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. For some species, this geographic area may extend 
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in 
the NMFS's U.S. 2017 Draft SARs for the Pacific (Carretta et al., 
2017), Alaska (Muto et al., 2017) or the 2016 SARs (Carretta et al., 
2016) if species numbers haven't changed. All values presented in Table 
3 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are 
available in the 2017 Draft SARs (Carretta et al., 2017; Muto et al., 
2017) or 2016 SARs (Carretta et al. 2016). Additional information may 
be found in the 2015 Pacific Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. 
Department of the Navy (U.S. Navy) 2015) and can also be accessed 
online at: https://nwtteis.com/Portals/NWTT/files/supporting_technical/REVISED_NWTT_FINAL_NMSDD_Technical_Report_04_MAY_2015.pdf.
    All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey 
areas are included in Table 3. As described below, all 12 species 
temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that 
take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have proposed authorizing 
it.

Summary of Season 1 Pier 62 Marine Mammal Occurrence

    Marine mammal monitoring during pile driving/removal activities 
occurred for 21 days, between December 29, 2017, and February 21, 2018. 
Throughout the Season 1 monitoring season, a total of 167 California 
sea lions and 72 harbor seals were observed, mostly at the Alki and 
Magnolia sites, but only a few were taken by Level B harassment. Eight 
California sea lions and ten harbor seals were taken by Level B 
harassment. There were no takes by Level A harassment nor any serious 
injuries or mortalities. No other species were observed.

Harbor Seal

    Individual harbor seals occur along the Elliott Bay shoreline. 
There is one documented harbor seal haulout area near Bainbridge 
Island, approximately 6 miles (9.66 km) from Pier 62. The haulout, 
which is estimated at less than 100 animals, consists of intertidal 
rocks and reef areas around Blakely Rocks and is within the area of 
potential effects but at the outer extent near Bainbridge Island 
(Jefferies et al. 2000), though harbor seals also make use of docks, 
buoys and beaches in the area. The level of use of this haulout during 
the fall and winter is unknown, but is expected to be much less than 
during the spring and summer, as air temperatures become colder than 
water temperatures, resulting in seals in general hauling out

[[Page 30125]]

less. Harbor seals are perhaps the most commonly observed marine mammal 
in the area of potential effects.
    Six harbor seals were observed (and taken) within the Level B 
Harassment/Monitoring Zone during vibratory activity during Season 1 of 
the Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. Higher numbers of harbor seals were 
observed at the Alki and Magnolia sites; however, those animals were 
outside the Level B zone for vibratory pile removal so were not 
considered as ``taken'' under the previous IHA for Season 1. The number 
of harbor seals observed from all three monitoring locations (Alki, 
Magnolia and around the construction site) combined ranged from 0 to 11 
per day, with an average of 3 harbor seals per day.
    Marine mammal monitoring also occurred on 175 days during Seasons 
1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project (EBSP), during which 
267 harbor seals were documented as takes in the Pier 62 Project area 
(Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017). Numbers of harbor seals 
observed on the project varied from zero to seven per day, with an 
average of 1, 1, 2, and 3 observed daily in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, 
respectively. Additional marine mammal monitoring results in the 
vicinity of the projects, are as follows:

    [ssquf] 2016 Seattle Test Pile Project: 56 Harbor seals were 
observed over 10 days in the area that corresponds to the upcoming 
project ZOIs. The maximum number sighted during one day was 13 
(Washington State Ferries (WSF) 2016).
    [ssquf] 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project: Six harbor seals 
were observed during this one-day project in the area that corresponds 
to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2012).
    [ssquf] 2012 Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 Project: 281 Harbor seals 
were observed over 29 days in the area that corresponds to the upcoming 
project ZOIs (HiKARI 2012).

Northern Elephant Seal

    No elephant seals were observed during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT 
Pier 62 project. Marine mammal monitoring also occurred on 175 days 
during Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the EBSP, during which no elephant 
seals were observed in the project area (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, 
and 2017). Similarly, no elephant seals were observed during monitoring 
for the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project, the 2016 Seattle Test 
Pile Project, or the 2012 Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 Project (WSF 2016).

California Sea Lion

    California sea lions are often observed in the area of potential 
effects. There are four documented haulout sites near Bainbridge 
Island, approximately six miles from Pier 62, and two documented 
haulout sites between Bainbridge Island and Magnolia (Jefferies et al. 
2000). The nearest documented California sea lion haulout sites are 3 
km (2 miles) southwest of Pier 62, although sea lions also make use of 
docks and buoys in the area.
    Eight California sea lions were observed (and taken) within the 
Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zone during vibratory activity during 
Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. Higher numbers of 
California sea lions were observed at the Alki and Magnolia sites; 
however, those animals were outside the Level B zone for vibratory pile 
removal so were not considered as ``taken'' under the previous IHA for 
Season 1. The number of sea lions observed from all three monitoring 
locations (Alki, Magnolia and around the construction site) combined 
ranged from 0 to 13 per day, with an average of 8 sea lions per day.
    Marine mammal monitoring also occurred on 175 days during Seasons 
1, 2, 3, and 4 of the EBSP, during which 951 California sea lions were 
documented as takes in the project area (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, 
and 2017). California sea lions were frequently observed (average seven 
per day in 2014 and 2015, three per day in 2016 and 2017, and a maximum 
of 15 over a day) hauled out on two navigational buoys within the 
project area (near Alki Point) and swimming along the shoreline. 
Additional marine mammal monitoring results in the vicinity of the 
projects, are as follows:

    [ssquf] 2016 Seattle Test Pile project: 12 California sea lions 
were observed over 10 days in the area that corresponds to the upcoming 
project ZOIs. The maximum number sighted during one day was four (WSF 
2016).
    [ssquf] 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project: 15 California sea 
lions were observed during this one-day project in the area that 
corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2012).
    [ssquf] 2012 Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 project: 382 California sea 
lions were observed over 29 days in the area that corresponds to the 
upcoming project ZOIs. The maximum number sighted during one day was 
37; however seals, may have been double counted during these 
observations (HiKARI 2012).

Steller Sea Lion

    Steller sea lions are a rare visitor to the Pier 62 area of 
potential effects. Steller sea lions use haulout locations in Puget 
Sound. The nearest haulout to the project area is located approximately 
six miles away (9.66 km). This haulout is composed of net pens offshore 
of the south end of Bainbridge Island. The population of Steller sea 
lions at this haulout has been estimated at less than 100 individuals 
(Jeffries et al. 2000).
    No steller sea lions were observed during Season 1 of the Seattle 
DOT Pier 62 project. Marine mammal monitoring occurred on 175 days 
during Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the EBSP, during which three Steller 
sea lions were observed and documented as takes in the project area 
(Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017).
    No Steller sea lions were observed during monitoring for the 2012 
Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project or the 2016 Seattle Test Pile 
Project (WSF 2016).

Killer Whale

    The Eastern North Pacific SRKW and West Coast Transient (transient) 
stocks of killer whale may be found near the project site. The SRKW 
live in three family groups known as the J, K and L pods. The Southern 
Residents are listed as endangered under the ESA. Transient killer 
whales generally occur in smaller (less than 10 individuals), less 
structured pods (NMFS 2013). According to the Center for Whale Research 
(CWR) (2015), they tend to travel in small groups of one to five 
individuals, staying close to shorelines, often near seal rookeries 
when pups are being weaned. The transient killer whale sightings have 
become more common since mid-2000. Unlike the SRKW pods, transients may 
be present in an area for hours or days as they hunt pinnipeds.
    A long-term database maintained by the Whale Museum contains 
sightings and geospatial locations of SRKWs, among other marine 
mammals, in inland waters of Washington State (Osborne 2008). Data are 
largely based on opportunistic sightings from a variety of sources 
(i.e., public reports, commercial whale watching, Soundwatch, Lime Kiln 
State Park land-based observations, and independent research reports), 
but the database is regarded as a robust but difficult to quantify 
inventory of occurrences. The data provide the most comprehensive 
assemblage of broad-scale habitat use by the SRKW in inland waters.
    Based on reports from 1990 to 2008, the greatest number of unique 
killer whale sighting-days near or in the area

[[Page 30126]]

of potential effects occurred from November through January, although 
observations were made during all months except May (Osborne 2008). 
Most observations were of SRKWs passing west of Alki Point (82 percent 
of all observations), which lies on the edge or outside the area of 
potential effects; this pattern is potentially due to the high level of 
human disturbance or highly degraded habitat features currently found 
within Elliott Bay. J Pod, with an estimated 23 members, is the pod 
most likely to appear year-round near the San Juan Islands, in the 
lower Puget Sound near Seattle, and in Georgia Strait at the mouth of 
the Fraser River. J Pod tends to frequent the west side of San Juan 
Island in mid to late spring (CWR 2011, 2017).
    An analysis of sightings in 2011 described an estimated 93 
sightings of SRKWs near the area of potential effects (Whale Museum 
2011). During this same analysis period, 12 transient killer whales 
were also observed near the area of potential effects. The majority of 
all sightings in this area are of groups of killer whales moving 
through the main channel between Bainbridge Island and Elliott Bay and 
outside the area of potential effects (Whale Museum 2011). The purely 
descriptive format of these observations makes it impossible to discern 
what proportion of the killer whales observed entered the area of 
potential effects; however, it is assumed that individuals do enter 
this area on occasion.
    No killer whales were observed during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT 
Pier 62 project. Marine mammal monitoring also occurred on 175 days 
during Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 (2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017) of the EBSP, 
during which two killer whales were documented as takes in the project 
area (unknown if SRKW or transient), and one pod of six whales was also 
observed in Elliott Bay more than 30 minutes before or after pile 
driving activity (no take documented; Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, 
2017). This pod of six whales were not identified as SRKW or 
transients.
    During the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project, 0 SRKW were observed 
over 10 days in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs 
(WSF 2016). During the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project, 0 SRKW 
were observed during this one day project in the area that corresponds 
to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2012). On February 5, 2016, a pod of 
up to 7 transients were reported in the area (Orca Network Archive 
Report 2016a).

Long-Beaked Common Dolphin

    No long-beaked common dolphins were observed during Season 1 of the 
Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. Marine mammal monitoring also occurred on 
175 days during Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 (2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017) of 
the EBSP, during which no long-beaked common dolphins were observed in 
the project area (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017).
    No long-beaked common dolphins were observed during monitoring for 
the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project, the 2016 Seattle Test Pile 
Project, or the 2012 Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 project. However, there 
were reported sightings in the Puget Sound in the summer of 2016. 
Beginning on June 16, long-beaked common dolphins were observed near 
Victoria, British Columbia. Over the following weeks, a pod of 15 to 20 
(including a calf) was observed in central and southern Puget Sound. 
They were positively identified as long-beaked common dolphins (Orca 
Network 2016a). This is the first confirmed observation of a pod of 
long-beaked common dolphins in Washington waters--NMFS states that as 
of 2012, long-beaked common dolphins had not been observed during 
surveys in Washington waters (Carretta et al. 2016). Two individual 
long-beaked common dolphins were observed in 2011, one in August and 
one in September (Whale Museum 2015).

Bottlenose Dolphin

    NOAA offshore surveys from 1991 to 2014 resulted in no sightings 
during study transects off the Oregon or Washington coasts (NOAA 
2017d). However, in October 2017, multiple sightings of a bottlenose 
dolphin were reported to Orca Network throughout the Puget Sound and in 
Elliott Bay. Two bottlenose dolphins were observed in Elliott Bay in 
one week of monitoring (WSDOT 2017) and a group of seven dolphins were 
observed in 2017 and were positively identified as part of the CA 
coastal stock (Cascadia Research Collective, 2017). It is acknowledged 
that bottlenose dolphins could occur within the project area.
    No bottlenose dolphins were observed during Season 1 of the Seattle 
DOT Pier 62 project. In addition, no bottlenose dolphins were observed 
during monitoring for the EBSP, the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile 
Project or the 2016 Seattle Test Pile Project (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 
2016, and 2017; WSF 2012, 2016).

Gray Whale

    Gray whale sightings are typically reported in February through May 
and include an observation of a gray whale off the ferry terminal at 
Pier 52 heading toward the East Waterway in March 2010 (CWR 2011). 
Three gray whales were observed near the project area during 2011 
(Whale Museum 2011), but the narrative format of the observations make 
it difficult to discern whether these individuals entered the area of 
potential effects. It is assumed that gray whales might rarely occur in 
the area of potential effects.
    No gray whales were observed during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT 
Pier 62 project. No gray whales were observed during monitoring for 
Seasons 1, 2,3, or 4 of the EBSP (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 
2017), the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project, the 2016 Seattle 
Test Pile Project, or the 2012 Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 Project (Anchor 
QEA 2014, 2015, 2016; WSF 2016a).

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 3. 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).
    Humpback whales are only rare visitors to Puget Sound. There is 
evidence of increasing numbers in recent years (Falcone et al. 2005). A 
rare encounter with one and possibly two humpbacks occurred in Hood 
Canal (well away from the area of potential effects) as recently as 
February 2012 (Whale Museum 2012). Humpbacks do not visit Puget Sound 
every year and are considered rare in the area of potential effects 
(Whale Museum 2011); however, they have the potential to occur at least 
during the Pier 62 Project construction period.
    No humpback whales were observed during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT 
Pier 62 project. Marine mammal monitoring

[[Page 30127]]

also occurred on 175 days during Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 (2014, 2015, 
2016, and 2017) of the EBSP, during which two humpback whales were 
observed in the project area (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017). 
In addition, no humpback whales were observed during monitoring for the 
2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project, the 2016 Seattle Test Pile 
Project, or the 2012 Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 Project (WSF 2016a).

Minke Whale

    Minke whales are relatively common in the San Juan Islands and 
Strait of Juan de Fuca (especially around several of the banks in both 
the central and eastern Strait), but are relatively rare in Puget Sound 
(WSF 2016a). No minke whales were observed during Season 1 of the 
Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. No minke whales were observed during 
monitoring for Season 1, 2, 4, or 4 of the EBSP, the 2012 Seattle Slip 
2 Batter Pile Project, the 2016 Seattle Test Pile Project, or the 2012 
Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 Project (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016; WSF 
2016).

Harbor Porpoise and Dall's Porpoise

    No harbor porpoise or Dall's porpoise were observed during Season 1 
of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. Marine mammal monitoring occurred 
on 175 days during Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 (2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017) 
of the EBSP, during which one harbor porpoise was observed and 
documented as a take in the project area; no Dall's porpoises were 
observed (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016. 2017).
    During the 2012 Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 Project, five harbor 
porpoises and one Dall's porpoise were observed over 29 days in the 
area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs, with a maximum of 
three observed in one day (HiKARI 2012). Neither harbor porpoise nor 
Dall's porpoise were observed during monitoring for the 2012 Seattle 
Slip 2 Batter Pile Project or the 2016 Seattle Test Pile Project (WSF 
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). 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 (2016a) described 
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. 
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 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):

    [ssquf] Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing 
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 hertz (Hz) and 35 
kilohertz (kHz);
    [ssquf] Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked 
whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur 
between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
    [ssquf] 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;
    [ssquf] Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized 
hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz; 
and
    [ssquf] Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions): 
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 and Holt, 
2013).
    For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency 
ranges, please see NMFS (2016a) for a review of available information. 
Twelve marine mammal species (8 cetacean and 4 pinniped (2 otariid and 
2 phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the 
proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 3. Of the cetacean 
species that may be present, three are classified as low-frequency 
cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), three are classified as mid-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid species), and two 
are classified as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor and Dall's 
porpoise).

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and 
their habitat. The ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section 
later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the 
number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. 
The ``Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination'' section will 
consider the content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by 
Incidental Harassment'' section, and the ``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.
    The Seattle DOT's Pier 62 Project using in-water pile driving and 
pile removal could adversely affect marine mammal species and stocks by 
exposing them to elevated noise levels in the vicinity of the activity 
area.
    Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may 
result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift 
(TS)--an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise 
(Finneran et al. 2005). Factors that influence the amount of threshold 
shift include the amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal 
pattern, and energy distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of 
hearing threshold shift normally decreases over time following 
cessation of the noise exposure. The amount of threshold shift just 
after exposure is the initial threshold shift. If the threshold shift 
eventually returns to zero (i.e., the threshold returns to the pre-
exposure value), it is a temporary threshold shift (Southall et al. 
2007).
    Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)--When animals 
exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an 
animal to detect

[[Page 30128]]

them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound for long 
duration, it is referred to as TS. An animal can experience temporary 
threshold shift (TTS) or permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last 
from minutes or hours to days (i.e., there is complete recovery), can 
occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a 
temporary loss of hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and 
10 kHz), and can be of varying amounts (for example, an animal's 
hearing sensitivity might be reduced initially by only 6 dB or reduced 
by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, but some recovery is possible. PTS can 
also occur in a specific frequency range and amount as mentioned above 
for TTS.
    For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive 
bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless 
porpoise (Finneran et al., 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010a, 2010b; 
Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; Lucke et al., 2009; Mooney et al., 2009a, 
2009b; Popov et al., 2011a, 2011b; Kastelein et al., 2012a; Schlundt et 
al., 2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, 2004). For pinnipeds in water, data 
are limited to measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an elephant seal, 
and California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et al., 
2012b).
    Lucke et al. (2009) found a TS of a harbor porpoise after exposing 
it to airgun noise with a received SPL at 200.2 dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 
[mu]Pa, which corresponds to a sound exposure level (SEL) of 164.5 dB 
re: 1 [mu]Pa\2\ s after integrating exposure. Because the airgun noise 
is a broadband impulse, one cannot directly determine the equivalent of 
rms SPL from the reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a 
conservative conversion factor of 16 dB for broadband signals from 
seismic surveys (McCauley et al. 2000) to correct for the difference 
between peak-to-peak levels reported in Lucke et al. (2009) and rms 
SPLs, the rms SPL for TTS would be approximately 184 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa, 
and the received levels associated with PTS (Level A harassment) would 
be higher. However, NMFS recognizes that TTS of harbor porpoises is 
lower than other cetacean species empirically tested (Finneran and 
Schlundt 2010; Finneran et al. 2002; Kastelein and Jennings 2012).
    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with 
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes 
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree 
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and 
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS 
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious 
(similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a 
marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively 
small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs 
during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many 
competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer 
duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical 
for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious 
impacts. Also, depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects 
of PTS on an animal could range in severity, although it is considered 
generally more serious because it is a permanent condition. Of note, 
reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been 
observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall 
et al. 2007), so one can infer that strategies exist for coping with 
this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.
    Masking--In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not 
high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for 
marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark 
et al. 2009). Acoustic masking is when other noises such as from human 
sources interfere with animal detection of acoustic signals such as 
communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds 
important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances, 
marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being 
severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their 
performance fitness in survival and reproduction.
    Masking occurs at the frequency band that the animals utilize. 
Therefore, since noise generated from vibratory pile driving activity 
is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect 
on high frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). 
However, lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect 
detection of communication calls and other potentially important 
natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. It may also affect 
communication signals when they occur near the noise band and thus 
reduce the communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al. 2009) and 
cause increased stress levels (e.g., Foote et al. 2004; Holt et al. 
2009).
    Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial 
scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or 
even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects 
both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term 
chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent 
science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased 
by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of sound pressure 
level) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of 
these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand 2009). For 
Seattle DOT's Pier 62 Project, noises from vibratory pile driving and 
pile removal contribute to the elevated ambient noise levels in the 
project area, thus increasing potential for or severity of masking. 
Baseline ambient noise levels in the vicinity of project area are high 
due to ongoing shipping, construction and other activities in the Puget 
Sound.
    Behavioral disturbance--Finally, marine mammals' exposure to 
certain sounds could lead to behavioral disturbance (Richardson et al., 
1995), such as: changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of 
blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/
increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral 
activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response 
or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); 
avoidance of areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight 
responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or 
rookeries).
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and 
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et 
al., 2007). Currently NMFS uses a received level of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms) to predict the onset of behavioral harassment from impulse noises 
(such as impact pile driving), and 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for 
continuous noises (such as vibratory pile driving). For the Seattle 
DOT's Pier 62 Project, both of these noise levels are considered for 
effects analysis because Seattle DOT plans to use both impact and 
vibratory pile driving, as well as vibratory pile removal.
    The biological significance of many of these behavioral 
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected 
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral 
modification could be biologically significant if the change affects 
growth, survival, and/or reproduction, which depends on the severity, 
duration, and context of the effects.

[[Page 30129]]

    Habitat--The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are 
associated with elevated sound levels produced by pile driving and 
removal associated with marine mammal prey species. However, other 
potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance 
are also possible. Prey species for the various marine mammals include 
marine invertebrates and fish species. Short-term effects would occur 
to marine invertebrates during removal of existing piles. This effect 
is expected to be minor and short-term on the overall population of 
marine invertebrates in Elliott Bay. Construction will also have 
temporary effects on salmonids and other fish species in the project 
area due to disturbance, turbidity, noise, and the potential 
resuspension of contaminants. All in-water work will occur during the 
designated in-water work window, to minimize effects on juvenile 
salmonids with the exception of some Chinook salmon that may be found 
along the seawall into October. Additionally, marine resident fish 
species are only present in limited numbers along the seawall during 
the in-water work season and primarily occur during the summer months, 
when work would not be occurring (Anchor QEA 2012).
    SPLs from impact pile driving has the potential to injure or kill 
fish in the immediate area. These few isolated fish mortality events 
are not anticipated to have a substantial effect on prey species 
population or their availability as a food resource for marine mammals.
    Studies also suggest that larger fish are generally less 
susceptible to death or injury than small fish. Moreover, elongated 
forms that are round in cross section are less at risk than deep-bodied 
forms. Orientation of fish relative to the shock wave may also affect 
the extent of injury. Open water pelagic fish (e.g., mackerel) seem to 
be less affected than reef fishes. The results of most studies are 
dependent upon specific biological, environmental, explosive, and data 
recording factors.
    The huge variation in fish populations, including numbers, species, 
sizes, and orientation and range from the detonation point, makes it 
very difficult to accurately predict mortalities at any specific site 
of detonation. Most fish species experience a large number of natural 
mortalities, especially during early life-stages, and any small level 
of mortality caused by the Seattle DOT's impact pile driving will 
likely be insignificant to the population as a whole.
    For non-impulsive sound such as that of vibratory pile driving, 
experiments have shown that fish can sense both the strength and 
direction of sound (Hawkins 1981). Primary factors determining whether 
a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially react to it, are the 
frequency of the signal and the strength of the signal in relation to 
the natural background noise level.
    The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior 
is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to 
react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the 
detection level of 120 dB (Ona 1988); however, the response threshold 
can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition 
(Engas et al. 1993).
    During construction activity of the Pier 62 Project, only a small 
fraction of the available habitat would be ensonified at any given 
time. Disturbance to fish species would be short-term and fish would 
return to their pre-disturbance behavior once the pile driving activity 
ceases. Thus, the proposed construction would have little, if any, 
impact on the abilities of marine mammals to feed in the area where 
construction work is proposed.
    Finally, the time of the proposed construction activity would avoid 
the spawning season of the ESA-listed salmonid species between March 
and July.
    Short-term turbidity is a water quality effect of most in-water 
work, including pile driving. Cetaceans are not expected to be close 
enough to the Pier 62 Project to experience turbidity, and any 
pinnipeds will be transiting the terminal area and could avoid 
localized areas of turbidity. Therefore, the impact from increased 
turbidity levels is expected to be discountable to marine mammals.
    For these reasons, any adverse effects to marine mammal habitat in 
the area from the Seattle DOT's proposed Pier 62 would not be 
significant.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which informed both NMFS's 
consideration of whether the number of takes is ``small'' and the 
negligible impact determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent 
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as 
exposure to pile driving activities has the potential to result in 
disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There 
is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to 
result, primarily for high frequency species due to larger predicted 
auditory injury zones. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-
frequency species and most pinnipeds. The proposed mitigation and 
monitoring measures (i.e., shutdown zones, use of a bubble curtain, 
etc. as discussed in detail below in ``Proposed Mitigation'' section), 
are expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent 
practicable. 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 estimates.

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

[[Page 30130]]

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 root mean square (rms) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-
driving, drilling) sources and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-
explosive impulsive (e.g., impact pile driving sources. Seattle DOT's 
proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile 
driving and removal) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and 
therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) are applicable.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS's Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (NMFS, 2016a) 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). 
Seattle DOT's proposed activity includes the use of continuous 
(vibratory pile driving and removal) and impulsive (impact pile 
driving) sources.
    These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the 
best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both 
the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are 
provided in Table 4 below. The references, analysis, and methodology 
used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 
Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/underwater-acoustic-thresholds-onset-permanent-and-temporary-threshold-shiftshttps://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.

                     Table 4--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   PTS onset thresholds
             Hearing group              ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Impulsive                         Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans...........  Lpk,flat: 219 dB..........  LE,LF,24h: 199 dB
                                         LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.........
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans...........  Lpk,flat: 230 dB..........  LE,MF,24h: 198 dB
                                         LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.........
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans..........  Lpk,flat: 202 dB..........  LE,HF,24h: 173 dB
                                         LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.........
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW)..................  Lpk,flat: 218 dB..........  LE,PW,24h: 201 dB
(Underwater)...........................  LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.........
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW).................  Lpk,flat: 232 dB..........  LE,OW,24h: 219 dB
(Underwater)...........................  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 durations, duty cycle). When possible, it
  is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
  exceeded.

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that fed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds.
    Background noise is the sound level that would exist without the 
proposed activity (pile driving and removal, in this case), while 
ambient sound levels are those without human activity (NOAA 2009). The 
marine waterway of Elliott Bay is very active, and human factors that 
may contribute to background noise levels include ship traffic. Natural 
actions that contribute to ambient noise include waves, wind, rainfall, 
current fluctuations, chemical composition, and biological sound 
sources (e.g., marine mammals, fish, and shrimp; Carr et al. 2006). 
Background noise levels were compared to the relevant threshold levels 
designed to protect marine mammals to determine the Level B Harassment 
Zones for noise sources. Based on hydroacoustic monitoring conducted 
during Season 1 of the Pier 62 Project to determine background noise in 
the vicinity of the project, the background level of 124 dB rms was 
used to calculate the attenuation for vibratory pile driving and 
removal in Season 2 (Greenbusch Group 2018). Although NMFS's harassment 
threshold is typically 120 dB for continuous noise, recent site-
specific measurements collected by The Greenbusch Group (2018) as 
required by the Season 1 IHA indicate that ambient sound levels are 
typically higher than this sound level and ranged from 117 dB to 145 
dB. Therefore, we used the, 124 dB rms (also the same noise level as 
Season 1), as the relevant threshold for Season 2 of the Seattle DOT 
Pier 62 project, assuming that any noise generated by the project below 
124 dB would be subsumed by the existing background noise and have 
little likelihood of causing additional behavioral disturbance.
    The source level of vibratory removal of 14-in timber piles is 
based on hydroacoustic monitoring measurements conducted at the Pier 62 
project site during Season 1 vibratory removal (Greenbusch Group 2018). 
The recorded source level ranged from 140 to 169 dB rms re 1 
micropascal ([mu]Pa) at 10 meters (m) from the pile, with the 75th 
percentile at 161 dB rms. This level, 161 dB rms, was chosen as the 
source value for vibratory timber removal in Season 2 because it is a 
conservative estimate of potential noise generation; 75 percent of the 
timber pile removal noise generated in Season 1 was on average lower 
than 161 dB rms. The sound source levels for installation of the 30-in 
steel piles and 24-in template piles are based on surrogate data 
compiled by WSDOT. This value was also used for other pile driving 
projects (e.g., WSDOT Seattle

[[Page 30131]]

Multimodal Construction Project--Colman Dock (82 FR 31579; July 7, 
2017)) in the same area as the Seattle Pier 62 project. In February of 
2016, WSDOT conducted a test pile project at Colman Dock. The measured 
results from Colman Dock were used for that project and also here to 
provide source levels for the prediction of isopleths ensonified over 
thresholds for the Seattle Pier 62 project. The results showed that the 
sound pressure level (SPL) root-mean-square (rms) for impact pile 
driving of a 36-in steel pile is 189 dB re 1 [micro]Pa at 14 m from the 
pile (WSDOT 2016b). This value is also used for impact driving of the 
30-in steel piles, which is a precautionary approach. Source level of 
vibratory pile driving of 36-in steel piles is based on test pile 
driving at Port Townsend in 2010 (Laughlin 2011). Recordings of 
vibratory pile driving were made at a distance of 10 m from the pile. 
The results show that the SPLrms for vibratory pile driving of 36-in 
steel pile was 177 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (WSDOT 2016a). The source sound 
level of 177 dB is used for vibratory steel installation of 30-in piles 
and 24-in template piles. The template pile activity occurs in 
conjunction with vibratory installation of 30-in steel piles. As such, 
the template pile activity is conservatively included as part of 30-in 
vibratory steel installation for the purposes of estimating take and 
monitoring the project activities. Sound generated by template pile 
activity (removal and installation of 24-in steel piles) is expected to 
be quieter than sound generated during vibratory steel installation of 
30-in piles, because the piles are smaller and do not need to be driven 
as deep as structural, permanent 30-in steel piles.
    The method of incidental take requested is Level B acoustical 
harassment of marine mammals within the 160 dB rms disturbance 
threshold (impact pile driving); the 120 dB rms disturbance threshold 
(vibratory pile driving); and the 120 dB rms disturbance threshold for 
vibratory removal of piles. Therefore, three different Level B 
Harassment/Monitoring Zones were established and will be in place 
during pile driving installation or removal (Table 5). Measured ambient 
noise levels in the area are 124 dB; therefore, NMFS only considers 
take likely to occur in the area ensonified above 124 dB, as pile 
driving noise below 124 dB would likely be masked or their impacts 
diminished such that any reactions would not be considered take as a 
result of the high ambient noise levels.
    For the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones, sound waves propagate 
in all directions when they travel through water until they dissipate 
to background levels or encounter barriers that absorb or reflect their 
energy, such as a landmass. Therefore, the area of the Level B 
Harassment/Monitoring Zones was determined using land as the boundary 
on the north, east and south sides of the project. On the west, land 
was also used to establish the zone for vibratory driving. From Alki on 
the south and Magnolia on the north, a straight line of transmission 
was established out to Bainbridge Island. For impact driving (and 
vibratory removal), sound dissipates much quicker and the impact zone 
stays within Elliott Bay. Pile-related construction noise would extend 
throughout the nearshore and open water environments to just west of 
Alki Point and a limited distance into the East Waterway of the Lower 
Duwamish River, a highly industrialized waterway. Because landmasses 
block in-water construction noise, a ``noise shadow'' created by Alki 
Point is expected to be present immediately west of this feature (refer 
to Seattle DOT's application for maps depicting the Level B Harassment/
Monitoring Zones).

             Table 5--Level B Zone Harassment/Monitoring Zones Descriptions and Duration of Activity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Level B
                                                   Construction       Level B       harassment        Days of
         Sound source              Activity           method       threshold (m)   zones (km\2\)     activity
                                                                                        \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................  Removal of 14-in  Vibratory \1\..           1,848             4.8              10
                                Timber Piles.
2............................  Installation of   Vibratory \1\..          54,117              91              53
                                30[dash]in
                                Steel Piles and
                                Temporary 24-in
                                Template Steel
                                Piles.
3............................  Installation of   Impact.........           2,929             2.3              64
                                30[dash]in
                                Steel Piles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ The Level B thresholds for vibratory installation and removal were calculated to 124 dB rms as the actual
  ambient noise level rather than 120 dB.
\2\ The Level B Harassment Zones are not based on the distances given but represent actual ensonified area given
  the surrounding land configuration of Elliott Bay.

    When NMFS Technical Guidance (NMFS 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 harassment 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 vibratory 
and impact pile driving, NMFS's 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. Inputs used in 
the User Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths/Level A Harassment 
Zones are reported below.
    The PTS isopleths were identified for each hearing group for impact 
and vibratory installation and removal methods that will be used in the 
Pier 62 Project. The PTS isopleth distances were calculated using the 
NMFS acoustic threshold calculator (NMFS 2016), with inputs based on 
measured and surrogate noise measurements taken during the EBSP and 
from WSDOT, and estimating conservative working durations (Table 6 and 
Table 7).

[[Page 30132]]



  Table 6--NMFS Technical Acoustic Guidance User Spreadsheet Input To Predict PTS Isopleths/Level A Harassment
                                            [User Spreadsheet Input]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Sound source 1  Sound source 2  Sound source 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   (A) Vibratory   (A) Vibratory   (E.1) Impact
                      Spreadsheet Tab Used                         pile driving    pile driving    pile driving
                                                                     (removal)    (installation)  (installation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Level (rms SPL)..........................................      \a\ 161 dB      \b\ 180 dB  ..............
Source Level (Single Strike/shot SEL)...........................  ..............  ..............      \c\ 176 dB
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz)...............................             2.5             2.5               2
(a) Number of strikes in 1 h....................................  ..............  ..............              20
(a) Activity Duration (h) within 24-h period....................               8               8               4
Propagation (xLogR).............................................              15              15              15
Distance of source level measurement (meters) [dagger]..........              10              10              14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Greenbusch Group 2018. Pier 62 Project--Draft Acoustic Monitoring Season 1 (2017/2018) Report. Prepared for
  City of Seattle Department of Transportation. April 9, 2018.
\b\ Source level for 30-in steel piles was from test pile driving at Port Townsend Ferry Terminal in 2010.
  SPLrms for vibratory pile driving was 177 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. and 3 dB was added for use of two hammers.
\c\ Source information is from the Underwater Sound Level Report: Colman Dock Test Pile Project 2016.


    Table 7--NMFS Technical Acoustic Guidance User Spreadsheet Output for Predicted PTS Isopleths and Level A
                                        Harassment Daily Ensonified Areas
                                            [User Spreadsheet Output]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              PTS isopleth (meters)
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Sound source type         Low-frequency   Mid-frequency   High-frequency       Phocid          Otariid
                                   cetaceans       cetaceans        cetaceans        pinnipeds       Pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--Vibratory (pile removal)...            27.3             2.4              40.4            16.6             1.2
2--Vibratory (installation)...           504.8            44.7             746.4           306.8            21.5
3--Impact (installation)......            88.6             3.2             105.6            47.4             3.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Level A Harassment Daily ensonified area (km\2\) \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory (pile removal)......        0.001171       0.0000091          0.002564        0.000433       0.0000023
Vibratory (installation)......        0.400275        0.003139          0.875111        0.147853        0.000726
Impact (installation).........        0.012331        0.000016          0.017517        0.003529     1.92423E-05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\a\ Daily ensonified areas were divided by two to only account for the ensonified area within the water and not
  over land.

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and Estimation

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that informed the take 
calculation and we describe how the marine mammal occurrence 
information is brought together to produce a quantitative take 
estimate. In some cases (e.g., harbor seals and California sea lions) 
we used local monitoring to calculate estimated take; however, We also 
present take estimates (where available) using the species density data 
from the 2015 Pacific Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 
2015), as a comparison for estimated take of marine mammals. For harbor 
porpoise, we estimated take using the density estimates provided in 
Jefferson et al., 2016 as this is the best available density 
information for this species.
    Where species density is available, take estimates are based on 
average marine mammal density in the project area multiplied by the 
area size of ensonified zones within which received noise levels exceed 
certain thresholds (i.e., Level A and B harassment) from specific 
activities, then multiplied by the total number of days such activities 
would occur.
    Unless otherwise described, incidental take is estimated by the 
following equation:

Incidental take estimate = species density * zone of influence * days 
of pile-related activity

    However, adjustments were made for nearly every marine mammal 
species, whenever their local abundance is known through monitoring 
during Season 1 activities and other monitoring efforts. In those 
cases, the local abundance data was used for take calculations for the 
authorized take instead of general animal density (see below).
Harbor Seal
    The take estimate for harbor seals for Pier 62 is based on local 
seal abundance information using the maximum number of seals (13) 
sighted in one day during the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project multiplied 
by the total of 127 pile driving days for the Seattle DOT Pier 62 
Project Season 2 for 1,651 seals. Fifty-three of the 127 days of 
activity would involve installation by vibratory pile driving, which 
has a much larger Level A Harassment Zone (306.8 m) than the Level A 
Harassment Zones for vibratory removal (16.6 m) and impact pile driving 
(47.4 m). Harbor seals may be difficult to observe at greater 
distances, therefore, during vibratory pile driving, it may not be 
known how long a seal is present in the Level A Harassment Zone. We 
estimate that four instances of harbor seals may occur by Level A 
harassment during these 53 days. Four instances of potential take by 
Level A harassment was based the local

[[Page 30133]]

observational data for harbor seals, the larger ensonified area during 
vibratory pile driving for installation, and our best professional 
judgment that an animal would remain within the injury zone for 
prolonged exposure of intense noise. The instances of take by Level B 
harassment (1,651 seals) was adjusted to exclude those already counted 
for instances of take bye Level A harassment, so the proposed 
authorized instances of take by Level B harassment is 1,647 harbor 
seals.
    As a comparison, using U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. 
Navy 2015) for the inland waters of Puget Sound, potential take of 
harbor seal is shown in Table 8. Based on these calculations, instances 
of take by Level A is estimated at 10 harbor seals from vibratory pile 
driving and instances of take by Level B is estimated at 6,107 harbor 
seals from all sound sources. However, observational data from previous 
projects on the Seattle waterfront have documented only a fraction of 
what is calculated using the Navy density estimates for Puget Sound. 
For example, between zero and seven seals were observed daily for the 
EBSP and 56 harbor seals were observed over 10 days in the area with 
the maximum number of 13 harbor seals sighted during the 2016 Seattle 
Test Pile project (WSF 2016). During marine mammal monitoring for 
Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 Project, 10 harbor seals were 
observed within the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zone during vibratory 
activity. Project activities in Season 1, primarily timber vibratory 
removal, had a smaller Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zone than 
vibratory steel installation (the primary activity for Seasons 2), so 
it is expected that harbor seal observations and takes in Season 2 will 
be greater and will more closely resemble observational data from other 
monitoring efforts such as EBSP and Seattle Test Pile Project.

                                       Table 8--Harbor Seal Estimated Take Based on NMSDD Presented for Comparison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Species       Level A ZOI     Level B ZOI       Days of     Estimated take
           Sound source                 density         (km\2\)         (km\2\)        activity         Level A            Estimated take Level B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................           1.219        0.000176             4.8              10               0  58.
2.................................           1.219        0.147853              91              53              10  5,879 (*Adjusted 5,869).
3.................................           1.219        0.003529             2.3              64               0  180.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
km\2\--square kilometers.
* Number of Level B takes was adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A takes.

Northern Elephant Seal
    For the Northern elephant seal, the Whale Museum (as cited in WSDOT 
2016a) reported one sighting in the relevant area between 2008 and 
2014. In addition, based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. 
Navy 2015), potential take of northern elephant seal is expected to be 
zero. Therefore, the Seattle DOT is requesting authorization for an 
instance of take by Level B harassment of one northern elephant seal.
California Sea Lion
    The take estimate of California sea lions for Pier 62 is based on 
Season 1 marine mammal monitoring for the Seattle DOT Pier 62 Project 
and four seasons of local sea lion abundance information from the EBSP. 
Marine mammal visual monitoring during the EBSP indicates that a 
maximum of 15 sea lions were observed in a day during 4 years of 
project monitoring (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017). Based on a 
total of 127 pile driving days for the Seattle Pier 62 project Season 
2, it is estimated that up to 1,905 California sea lions (15 sea lions 
multiplied by 127 days) could be exposed to noise levels associated 
with ``take.'' Since the calculated Level A Harassment Zones of 
otariids are all very small (Table 7), we do not consider it likely 
that any sea lions would be taken by Level A harassment. Therefore, all 
California sea lion takes estimated here are expected to be takes by 
Level B harassment and NMFS proposes to authorize instances of take by 
Level B harassment of 1,905 California sea lions.
    As a comparison, using the U.S. Navy species density estimates 
(U.S. Navy 2015) for the inland waters of Washington, including Eastern 
Bays and Puget Sound, potential take of California sea lion is shown in 
Table 9. The estimated instances of take by Level B harassment is 636 
California sea lions. However, the Seattle DOT believes that this 
estimate is unrealistically low, based on local marine mammal 
monitoring.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Species       Level A ZOI     Level B ZOI       Days of        Estimated       Estimated
                      Sound source                            density         (km\2\)         (km\2\)        activity      Level A take    Level B take
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................          0.1266        2.26E-06             4.8              10               0               6
2.......................................................          0.1266        0.000726              91              53               0             611
3.......................................................          0.1266     1.92423E-05             2.3              64               0              19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
km \2\--square kilometers.

Steller Sea Lion
    No local monitoring data of Steller sea lions is available. 
Therefore, the estimated take for Steller sea lions is based on U.S. 
Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), and is shown in Table 
10. Since the calculated Level A Harassment Zones of otariids are all 
very small (Table 7), we do not consider it likely that any Steller sea 
lions would be taken by Level A harassment. The Seattle DOT is 
requesting authorization instances of take by Level B harassment of 185 
Steller sea lions.

[[Page 30134]]



                                    Table 10--Steller Sea Lion Estimated Take Based on NMSDD Presented for Comparison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Species       Level A ZOI     Level B ZOI       Days of        Estimated       Estimated
                      Sound source                            density         (km\2\)         (km\2\)        activity      Level A take    Level B take
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................          0.0368        2.26E-06             4.8              10               0               2
2.......................................................          0.0368        0.000726              91              53               0             178
3.......................................................          0.0368     1.92423E-05             2.3              64               0               5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
km \2\--square kilometers.

Southern Resident Killer Whale
    The take estimate of SRKW for Pier 62 is based on local data and 
information from the Center for Whale Research (CWR). J-pod is the pod 
most likely to appear in the lower Puget Sound near Seattle with a 
group size of approximately 23 SRKW in 2017, 24 in 2016, and 29 in 
2015. (CWR 2017). Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize instances of 
take by Level B harassment of 23 SRKW based on a single occurrence of 
one pod (i.e., J Pod--23 individuals) that would be most likely to be 
seen near Seattle. Since the Level A Harassment Zones of mid-frequency 
cetaceans are small (Table 7), we do not consider it likely that any 
SRKW would be taken by Level A harassment.
    The Seattle DOT will coordinate with the Orca Network and the CWR 
in an attempt to avoid all take of SRKW, but it may be possible that a 
group may enter the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones before Seattle 
DOT could shut down due to the larger size of the Level B Harassment/
Monitoring Zones particularly during vibratory pile driving 
(installation).
    As a comparison, using the U.S. Navy species density estimates 
(U.S. Navy 2015) the density for the SRKW is variable across seasons 
and across the range. The inland water density estimates vary from 
0.000000 to 0.000090/km\2\ in summer, 0.001461 to 0.004760/km\2\ in 
fall, and 0.004761 to 0.020240/km\2\ in winter. Therefore, estimated 
takes as shown in Table 11 are based on the highest density estimated 
during the winter season (0.020240/km\2\) for the SRKW population. With 
the variable winter density, estimates can range from 24 to 102 SRKW, 
with the upper take estimate greater than the estimated population 
size.

         Table 11--Southern Resident Killer Whale Estimated Take Based on NMSDD Presented for Comparison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Estimated
  Sound source   Species density    Level A ZOI      Level B ZOI        Days of      Estimated Level    Level B
                                      (km\2\)          (km\2\)          activity          A take         take
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              1         0.020240        0.0000091              4.8               10                0      1
              2         0.020240         0.003139               91               53                0     98
              3         0.020240         0.000016              2.3               64                0      3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
km\2\--square kilometers.

Transient Killer Whale
    The take estimate of transient killer whales for Pier 62 is based 
on local data. Seven transients were reported in the project area (Orca 
Network Archive Report 2016a). Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize 
instances of take by Level B harassment of 42 transient killer whales, 
which would cover up to 2 groups of up to 7 transient whales entering 
into the project area and remaining there for three days. Since the 
Level A Harassment Zones of mid-frequency cetaceans are small (Table 
7), we do not consider it likely that any transient killer whales would 
be taken by Level A harassment.
    As a comparison, based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. 
Navy 2015), potential take of transient killer whale is shown in Table 
12. As with the SRKW, the density estimate of transient killer whales 
is variable between seasons and regions. Density estimates range from 
0.000575 to 0.001582/km\2\ in summer, from 0.001583 to 0.002373/km\2\ 
in fall, and from 0.000575 to 0.001582/km\2\ in winter. Work could 
occur throughout summer, fall and winter, so the highest estimate, fall 
density, was used to conservatively estimate take. For instances of 
take by Level B harassment, this results in a take estimate of twelve 
SRKW. However, the Seattle DOT believes that this estimate is low based 
on local data of seven transients that were reported in the area (Orca 
Network Archive Report 2016a).

                                 Table 12--Transient Killer Whale Estimated Take Based on NMSDD Presented for Comparison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Species       Level A ZOI     Level B ZOI       Days of        Estimated       Estimated
                      Sound source                            density         (km\2\)         (km\2\)        activity      Level A take    Level B take
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................        0.002373        0.000004             4.8              10               0               0
2.......................................................        0.002373        0.003139              91              53               0              12
3.......................................................        0.002373        0.000016             2.3              64               0               0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
km\2\--square kilometers.


[[Page 30135]]

Long-beaked Common Dolphin
    The take estimate of Long-beaked common dolphin for Pier 62 is 
based on local monitoring data.. In 2016, the Orca Network (2016c) 
reported a pod of up to 20 long-beaked common dolphins. Therefore, the 
Seattle DOT is requesting authorization for instances of take by Level 
B harassment of 20 long-beaked common dolphins. Since the Level A 
Harassment Zones of mid-frequency cetaceans are all very small (Table 
7), we do not consider it likely that the long-beaked common dolphin 
would be taken by Level A harassment. Based on U.S. Navy species 
density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential instances take of long-
beaked common dolphin is expected to be zero; therefore, we believe it 
more appropriate to use local monitoring data.
Bottlenose Dolphin
    The take estimate of bottlenose dolphin for Pier 62 is based on 
local monitoring data. In 2017 the Orca Network (2017) reported 
sightings of a bottlenose dolphin in Puget Sound and in Elliott Bay, 
and WSDOT observed two bottlenose dolphins in one week during 
monitoring for the Colman Dock Multimodal Project (WSDOT 2017). In 
addition, a group of seven dolphins were observed in 2017 and were 
positively identified as part of the CA coastal stock (Cascadia 
Research Collective, 2017). Bottlenose dolphins typically travel in 
groups of 2 to 15 in coastal waters (NOAA 2017). Therefore, the Seattle 
DOT is requesting instances of takes by Level B harassment of seven 
bottlenose dolphins. Since the Level A Harassment Zones of mid-
frequency cetaceans are all very small (Table 7), we do not consider it 
likely that the common bottlenose dolphin would be taken by Level A 
harassment. Based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 
2015), instances of potential take by Level B harassment of bottlenose 
dolphin is expected to be zero; therefore, we believe it more 
appropriate to use local monitoring data.
Harbor Porpoise
    Species density estimates from Jefferson et al. (2016), is the best 
available density data available for the potential take of harbor 
porpoise and is shown in Table 13. Instances of take by Level A 
harassment is estimated at 32 harbor porpoises and instances of take by 
Level B harassment is estimated at 3,431 exposures to harbor porpoises. 
Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize instances take by Level A 
harassment of 32 harbor porpoises and instances of take by Level B 
harassment of 3,431 harbor porpoises.

                                       Table 13--Harbor Porpoise Estimated Take Based on Jefferson et al., (2016)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Species       Level A ZOI     Level B ZOI       Days of        Estimated
           Sound source                 density         (km\2\)         (km\2\)        activity      Level A take          Estimated Level B take
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................            0.69        0.002564             4.8              10               0  33.
2.................................            0.69        0.875111              91              53              32  3,328 (* Adjusted 3,296).
3.................................            0.69        0.017517             2.3              64               0  102.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
km\2\--square kilometers
* Number of Level B takes was adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A takes. Take is instances not individuals.

Dall's Porpoise
    No local monitoring data of Dall's porpoise is available. 
Therefore, the estimated instances of take for Dall's porpoise is based 
on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), as shown in 
Table 14. Based on these calculations, NMFS proposes to authorize 
instances of take by Level A harassment of two Dall's porpoise and 
instances take by Level B harassment of 196 Dall's porpoise.

                                    Table 14--Dall's Porpoise Estimated Take Based on NMSDD Presented for Comparison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Species       Level A ZOI     Level B ZOI       Days of        Estimated
          Sound source               density          (km2)           (km2)         activity      Level A take            Estimated Level B take
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................           0.039        0.002564             4.8              10               0  2.
2..............................           0.039        0.875111              91              53               2  190 (* Adjusted 188).
3..............................           0.039        0.017517             2.3              64               0  6.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
km2--square kilometers.
* Number of Level B takes was adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A takes.

Humpback Whale
    Based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), 
potential take of humpback whale is shown in Table 15. Although the 
standard take calculations would result in an estimated take of less 
than one humpback whale, to be conservative, the Seattle DOT is 
requesting authorization for instances of take by Level B harassment of 
five humpback whales based on take during previous work in Elliott Bay 
where two humpback whales were observed, including one take, during the 
175 days of work during the previous four years (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 
2016, and 2017). Since the Level A Harassment Zones of low-frequency 
cetaceans are smaller during vibratory removal (27.3 m) or impact 
installation (88.6 m) compared to the Level A Harassment Zone for 
vibratory installation (504.8 m) (Table 7), we do not consider it 
likely that any humpbacks would be taken by Level A harassment during 
removal or impact installation. We also do not believe any humpbacks 
would be taken during vibratory installation due to the ability to see 
humpbacks easily during monitoring and additional coordination with the 
Orca Network and the CWR which would enable the work to be shut down 
before a humpback would be taken by Level A harassment.

[[Page 30136]]



                                     Table 15--Humpback Whale Estimated Take Based on NMSDD Presented for Comparison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Species       Level A ZOI     Level B ZOI       Days of        Estimated       Estimated
                      Sound source                            density          (km2)           (km2)         activity      Level A take    Level B take
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................         0.00001        0.001171             4.8              10               0               0
2.......................................................         0.00001        0.400275              91              53               0               0
3.......................................................         0.00001        0.012331             2.3              64               0               0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
km2--square kilometers.

Gray Whale
    No local monitoring data of gray whales is available. Therefore, 
the instances of estimated take for gray whales is based on U.S. Navy 
species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), as shown in Table 16. 
Therefore, the Seattle DOT is requesting authorization for instances of 
take by Level B harassment of four gray whales. Since the Level A 
Harassment Zones of low-frequency cetaceans are smaller during 
vibratory removal (27.3 m) or impact installation (88.6 m) compared to 
the Level A Harassment Zone for vibratory installation (504.8 m) (Table 
7), we do not consider it likely that any gray whales would be taken by 
Level A harassment during removal or impact installation. We also do 
not believe any gray whales would be taken by Level A harassment during 
vibratory installation due to the ability to see gray whales easily 
during monitoring and additional coordination with the Orca Network and 
the CWR, which would enable the work to be shut down before a gray 
whale would be taken by Level A harassment.

                                       Table 16--Gray Whale Estimated Take Based on NMSDD Presented for Comparison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Species       Level A ZOI     Level B ZOI       Days of        Estimated       Estimated
                      Sound source                            density          (km2)           (km2)         activity      Level A take    Level B take
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................         0.00051        0.001171             4.8              10               0               0
2.......................................................         0.00051        0.400275              91              53               0               3
3.......................................................         0.00051        0.012331             2.3              64               0               1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
km2--square kilometers.

Minke Whale
    Between 2008 and 2014, the Whale Museum (as cited in WSDOT 2016a) 
reported one sighting in the relevant area. To be conservative the 
Seattle DOT is requesting authorization for instances of take by Level 
B harassment of two minke whales, based on previous sightings in the 
construction area by the Whale Museum. Based on the low probability 
that a minke whale would be observed during the project and then also 
enter into a Level A zone, we do not consider it likely that any minke 
whales would be taken by Level A harassment. As a comparison, based on 
U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), the instance of 
potential take of minke whales is expected to be zero (Table 17).

                                      Table 17--Minke Whale Estimated Take Based on NMSDD Presented for Comparison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Species       Level A ZOI    Level B ZO I       Days of        Estimated       Estimated
                      Level B zone                            density          (km2)           (km2)         activity      Level A take    Level B take
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................         0.00003        0.001171             4.8              10               0               0
2.......................................................         0.00003        0.400275              91              53               0              <1
3.......................................................         0.00003        0.012331             2.3              64               0               0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
km2--square kilometers.

    The summary of the authorized take by Level A and Level B 
Harassment is described below in Table 18.

                                    Table 18--Summary of Requested Incidental Take by Level A and Level B Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Authorized
               Species                   Stock size     Level A take    Authorized Level B take    Authorized total take          % of population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina).          11,036               4  1,647 \a\...............  1,651...................  14.96.
Northern elephant seal (Mirounga              179,000               0  1 \b\...................  1.......................  Less than 1.
 angustirostris).
California sea lion (Zalophus                 296,750               0  1,905 \c\...............  1,905...................  Less than 1.
 californianus).
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)          41,638               0  185.....................  185.....................  Less than 1.

[[Page 30137]]

 
Southern resident killer whale DPS                 83               0  23 (single occurrence of  23 (single occurrence of  27.1.
 (Orcinus orca).                                                        one pod) \d\.             one pod).
Transient killer whale (Orcinus orca)             240               0  42 \e\..................  42......................  17.5.
Long-beaked common dolphin (Dephinus          101,305               0  20 \f\..................  20......................  Less than 1.
 capensis).
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops                    1,924               0  7 \g\...................  7.......................  Less than 1.
 truncatus).
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)..          11,233              32  3,431...................  3,463...................  30.82.
Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli).          25,750               2  196.....................  198.....................  Less than 1.
Humpback whale (Megaptera                       1,918               0  5 \h\...................  5.......................  Less than 1.
 novaengliae).
Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus)...          20,990               0  4.......................  4.......................  Less than 1.
Minke whale (Balaenoptera                         636               0  2 \i\...................  2.......................  Less than 1.
 acutorostrata).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\a\ The take estimate is based on a maximum of 13 seals observed on a given day during the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project. The number of Level B takes
  was adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A takes.
\b\ The take estimate is based on The Whale Museum (as cited in WSDOT 2016a) reporting one sighting of a northern elephant seal in the area between 2008
  and 2014.
\c\ The take estimate is based on a maximum of 15 California sea lions observed on a given day during 4 monitoring seasons of the EBSP project.
\d\ The take estimate is based on a single occurrence of one pod of SRKW (i.e., J-pod of 24 SRKW) that would be most likely to be seen near Seattle.
\e\ The take estimate is based on local data which is greater than the estimates produced using the Navy density estimates.
\f\ The take estimate is based on the Orca Network (2016c) reporting a pod of up to 20 long-beaked common dolphins.
\g\ The take estimate is based on local data. A group of seven dolphins were observed in Puget Sound in 2017 and were positively identified as part of
  the CA coastal stock (Cascadia Research Collective, 2017). .
\h\ The take estimate is based on take during previous work in Elliott Bay, where two humpback whales were observed and is greater than what was
  calculated using 2015 Navy density estimates.
\i\ The take estimate is based on The Whale Museum (as cited in WSDOT 2016a) reporting one sighting in the relevant area. Although the take calculations
  would result in an estimated take of less than one minke whale, to be conservative the Seattle DOT is requesting take of two minke whales.

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.
    Several measures for mitigating effects on marine mammals and their 
habitat from the pile installation and removal activities at Pier 62 
are described below.

Timing Restrictions

    All work will be conducted during daylight hours.

Pre-Construction Briefing

    Seattle DOT shall conduct briefings for construction supervisors 
and crews, the monitoring team, and Seattle DOT staff prior to the 
start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the 
work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, 
the marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.

Bubble Curtain

    A bubble curtain will be used during pile driving activities with 
an impact hammer to reduce sound levels. Seattle DOT has stated as part 
of their specified activity that they and has agreed to employ a bubble 
curtain during impact pile driving of steel piles and will implement 
the following bubble curtain performance standards:
    (i) The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around 100 
percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column.
    (ii) The lowest bubble curtain ring will be deployed on or as close 
to the mudline for the full circumference of

[[Page 30138]]

the ring as possible, without causing turbidity.
    (iii) Seattle DOT will require that construction contractors train 
personnel in the proper balancing of air flow to the bubblers, and will 
require that construction contractors submit an inspection/performance 
report for approval by Seattle DOT within 72 hours following the 
performance test. Corrections to the attenuation device to meet the 
performance standards will occur prior to impact driving.

Shutdown Zones

    Shutdown Zones will be implemented to protect marine mammals from 
Level A harassment (Table 20 below). The PTS isopleths described in 
Table 7 were used as a starting point for calculating the shutdown 
zones; however, Seattle DOT will implement a minimum shutdown zone of a 
10 m radius around each pile for all construction methods for all 
marine mammals. Therefore, in some cases the shutdown zone will be 
slightly larger than was calculated for the PTS isopleths as described 
in Table 7 (i.e., for mid-frequency cetaceans and otariid pinnipeds). 
Outside of any Level A take authorized, if a marine mammal is observed 
at or within the Shutdown Zone, work will shut down (stop work) until 
the individual has been observed outside of the zone, or has not been 
observed for at least 15 minutes for all marine mammals. 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.

          Table 20--Shutdown Zones for Various Pile Driving Activities for Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Shutdown Zones (meters)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Sound source type                                              High-
                                   Low-frequency   Mid-frequency     frequency        Phocid          Otariid
                                     cetaceans       cetaceans       cetaceans       pinnipeds       pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--Vibratory (pile removal).....              27              10              40              17              10
2--Vibratory (installation).....             505              45             746             307              22
3--Impact (installation)........              89              10             106              47              10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Shutdown Measures

    For in-water heavy machinery activities other than pile driving, if 
a marine mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease and vessels 
shall reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage 
and safe working conditions.
    Seattle DOT will implement shutdown measures if the cumulative 
total number of individuals observed within the Level B Harassment/
Monitoring Zones (below in Table 21) for any particular species reaches 
the number authorized under the IHA and if such marine mammals are 
sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the 
Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zone during in-water construction 
activities.

Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones

    Seattle DOT will monitor the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones as 
described in Table 21.

                Table 21--Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones for Various Pile Driving Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Level B       Level B ZOI
                  Activity                           Construction method           threshold (m)       (km2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal of 14-in Timber Piles..............  Vibratory..........................           1,848             4.8
Installation of 30[dash]in Steel Piles.....  Vibratory..........................          54,117              91
Installation of 30[dash]in Steel Piles.....  Impact.............................           2,929             2.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soft-Start for Impact Pile Driving

    Each day at the beginning of impact pile driving or any time there 
has been cessation or downtime of 30 minutes or more without impact 
pile driving, Seattle DOT will use the soft-start technique by 
providing an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 
percent energy, followed by a 30-secondwaiting period, then two 
subsequent three-strike sets.

Additional Coordination

    The project team will monitor and coordinate with local marine 
mammal networks on a daily basis (i.e., Orca Network and/or the CWR) 
for sightings data and acoustic detection data to gather information on 
the location of whales prior to pile removal or pile driving 
activities. The project team will also coordinate with WSF to discuss 
marine mammal sightings on days when pile driving and removal 
activities are occurring on their nearby projects. Marine mammal 
monitoring will be conducted to collect information on the presence of 
marine mammals within the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones for this 
project. In addition, reports will be made available to interested 
parties upon request. With this level of coordination in the region of 
activity, Seattle DOT will get real-time information on the presence or 
absence of whales before starting any pile driving or removal 
activities.
    During Season 1, Seattle DOT carried out additional voluntary 
mitigation measures during pile driving and

[[Page 30139]]

removal activities to minimize impacts from noise on the Seattle 
Aquarium's captive marine mammals as well as for air and water quality 
concerns. These measures were successfully coordinated and implemented, 
and Seattle DOT will implement the same measures during Season 2 work, 
as follows:
    1. If aquarium animals are determined by the Aquarium veterinarian 
to be distressed, Seattle DOT will coordinate with Aquarium staff to 
determine appropriate next steps, which may include suspending pile 
driving work for 30 minutes, provided that suspension does not pose a 
safety issue for the Pier 62 project construction crews.
    2. Seattle DOT will make reasonable efforts to take at least one 
regularly scheduled 20-minute break in pile driving each day.
    3. Seattle DOT will regularly communicate with the Aquarium staff 
when pile driving is occurring.
    4. Seattle DOT will further coordinate with the Aquarium to 
determine appropriate methods to avoid and minimize impacts to water 
quality.
    5. Seattle DOT does not anticipate the project resulting in impacts 
associated with airborne dust. If, during construction, odors 
associated with the project are an issue, Seattle DOT will coordinate 
with its contractor to determine appropriate mitigation measures.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's mitigation measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of 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 
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.
    Marine mammal monitoring will be conducted at all times during in-
water pile driving and pile removal activities in strategic locations 
around the area of potential effects as described below:
    [ssquf] During pile removal or installation with a vibratory 
hammer, three to four monitors would be used, positioned such that each 
monitor has a distinct view-shed and the monitors collectively have 
overlapping view-sheds (refer to Appendix A, Figures 1-3 of the Seattle 
DOT's application).
    [ssquf] During pile driving activities with an impact hammer, one 
monitor, based at or near the construction site, will conduct the 
monitoring.
    [ssquf] In the case(s) where visibility becomes limited, additional 
land-based monitors and/or boat-based monitors may be deployed.
    [ssquf] Monitors will record take when marine mammals enter the 
relevant Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones based on type of 
construction activity.
    [ssquf] If a marine mammal approaches a Shutdown Zone, the 
observation will be reported to the Construction Manager and the 
individual will be watched closely. If the marine mammal crosses into a 
Shutdown Zone, a stop-work order will be issued. In the event that a 
stop-work order is triggered, the observed marine mammal(s) will be 
closely monitored while it remains in or near the Shutdown Zone, and 
only when it moves well outside of the Shutdown Zone or has not been 
observed for at least 15 minutes for pinnipeds and small cetaceans and 
30 minutes for large whales will the lead monitor allow work to 
recommence.

Protected Species Observers

    Seattle DOT will employ NMFS-approved protected species observers 
(PSOs) to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its Pier 62 Project. The 
PSOs will observe and collect data on marine mammals in and around the 
project area for 30 minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after 
all pile removal and pile installation work. NMFS-approved PSOs will 
meet the following requirements:
    1. Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are 
required.
    2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer.
    3. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree 
in biological science or related field) or training for experience.
    4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one 
observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring 
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer.
    5. NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
    6. PSOs will monitor marine mammals around the construction site 
using high-quality binoculars (e.g., Zeiss, 10 x 42 power) and/or 
spotting scopes. Due to the different sizes of the Level B Harassment/
Monitoring Zones from different pile sizes, several different Level B 
Harassment/Monitoring Zones and different monitoring protocols 
corresponding to a specific pile size will be established.
    7. If marine mammals are observed, the following information will 
be documented:
    (A) Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
    (B) Construction activities occurring during each observation 
period;
    (C) Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
    (D) Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
    (E) Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine 
mammals;
    (F) Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns,

[[Page 30140]]

including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile 
driving activity;
    (G) Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and 
distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
    (H) Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
    (I) Other human activity in the area.

Acoustic Monitoring

    In addition, acoustic monitoring will occur on up to six days per 
in-water work season to evaluate, in real time, sound production from 
construction activities and will capture all hammering scenarios that 
may occur under the proposed project. Background noise recordings (in 
the absence of pile-related work) will also be made during the study to 
provide a baseline background noise profile. Acoustic monitoring will 
follow NMFS's 2012 Guidance Documents: Sound Propagation Modeling to 
Characterize Pile Driving Sounds Relevant to Marine Mammals; Data 
Collection Methods to Characterize Impact and Vibratory Pile Driving 
Source Levels Relevant to Marine Mammals; and Data Collection Methods 
to Characterize Underwater Background Sound Relevant to Marine Mammals 
in Coastal Nearshore Waters and Rivers of Washington and Oregon.
    The results and conclusions of the acoustic monitoring will be 
summarized and presented to NMFS with recommendations on any 
modifications to this plan or Shutdown Zones.

Reporting Measures

Marine Mammal Monitoring Report
    Seattle DOT will submit a draft marine mammal monitoring report 
within 90 days after completion of the in-water construction work, the 
expiration of the IHA (if issued), or 60 days prior to the requested 
date of issuance of any subsequent IHA, whichever sooner. The report 
would include data from marine mammal sightings as described: Date, 
time, location, species, group size, and behavior, any observed 
reactions to construction, distance to operating pile hammer, and 
construction activities occurring at time of sighting and environmental 
data for the period (i.e., wind speed and direction, sea state, tidal 
state, cloud cover, and visibility). The marine mammal monitoring 
report will also include total takes, takes by day, and stop-work 
orders for each species. NMFS will have an opportunity to provide 
comments on the report, and if NMFS has comments, Seattle DOT will 
address the comments and submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days.
    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, 
such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, 
Seattle DOT would immediately cease the specified activities and 
immediately report the incident to the Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS and the NMFS' West Coast 
Stranding Coordinator. The report must include the following 
information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the 
incident;
     Name and type of vessel involved;
     Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
     Description of the incident;
     Status of all sound source use in the 24 hrs preceding the 
incident;
     Water depth;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
     Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 
hrs 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) (if 
equipment is available).
    Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Seattle DOT 
to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Seattle DOT may not resume 
their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or 
telephone.
Reporting of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
    In the event that Seattle DOT discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or 
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than 
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), 
Seattle DOT will immediately report the incident to the Permits and 
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS and the 
NMFS' West Coast Stranding Coordinator. The report must include the 
same information identified in the paragraph above. Activities may 
continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS 
would work with Seattle DOT to determine whether modifications in the 
activities are appropriate.
    In the event that Seattle DOT discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO 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), Seattle DOT will report the 
incident to the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS and the NMFS Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the 
NMFS' West Coast Stranding Coordinator within 24 hrs of the discovery. 
Seattle DOT would provide photographs or video footage (if available) 
or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS. 
Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the 
incident.
Acoustic Monitoring Report
    Seattle DOT will submit an Acoustic Monitoring Report within 90 
days after completion of the in-water construction work or the 
expiration of the IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. The report 
will provide details on the monitored piles, method of installation, 
monitoring equipment, and sound levels documented during both the sound 
source measurements and the background monitoring. NMFS will have an 
opportunity to provide comments on the report or changes in monitoring 
for a third season (if needed), and if NMFS has comments, Seattle DOT 
will address the comments and submit a final report to NMFS within 30 
days. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft 
report will be considered final. Any comments received during that time 
will be addressed in full prior to finalization of the report.

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

[[Page 30141]]

(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).
    No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized for the 
Pier 62 Project (Season 2). Takes that are anticipated and authorized 
are expected to be limited to short-term Level A and Level B 
(behavioral) harassment. Marine mammals present in the vicinity of the 
action area and taken by Level A and Level B harassment would most 
likely show overt brief disturbance (startle reaction) and avoidance of 
the area from elevated noise levels during pile driving and pile 
removal. However, many marine mammals showed no observable changes 
during Season 1 of the Pier 62 project and similar project activities 
for the EBSP.
    A fair number of instances of takes are expected to be repeat takes 
of the same animals. This is particularly true for harbor porpoise, 
because they generally use subregions of Puget Sound, and the abundance 
of the Seattle sub-region from the Puget Sound Study was estimated to 
be 147 animals, which is much lower than the calculated take. Very few 
harbor porpoises have been observed during past projects in Elliott Bay 
(ranging from one to five harbor porpoises).
    There are two endangered species that may occur in the project 
area, humpback whales and SRKW. However, few humpbacks are expected to 
occur in the project area and few have been observed during previous 
projects in Elliott Bay. SRKW have occurred in small numbers in the 
project area. Seattle DOT will shut down in the Level B Harassment/
Monitoring Zones should they meet or exceed the take of one occurrence 
of one pod (J-pod, 24 whales).
    There is ESA-designated critical habitat in the vicinity of Seattle 
DOT's Pier 62 Project for SRKW. However, this IHA is authorizing the 
harassment of marine mammals, not the production of sound, which is 
what would result in adverse effects to critical habitat for SRKW.
    There is one documented harbor seal haulout area near Bainbridge 
Island, approximately 6 miles (9.66 km) from Pier 62. The haulout, 
which is estimated at less than 100 animals, consists of intertidal 
rocks and reef areas around Blakely Rocks and is at the outer edge of 
potential effects at the outer extent near Bainbridge Island (Jefferies 
et al. 2000). The recent level of use of this haulout is unknown. 
Harbor seals also make use of docks, buoys, and beaches in the project 
area, as noted in marine mammal monitoring reports for Season 1 of the 
Pier 62 Project and for the EBSP (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 
2017).The observational data from previous projects on the Seattle 
waterfront have documented only a fraction of what is calculated using 
the Navy density estimates for Puget Sound; therefore, we believe the 
actual take will be much lower than the calculated take. Similarly, the 
nearest Steller sea lion haulout to the project area is located 
approximately 6 miles away (9.66 km) and is also on the outer edge of 
potential effects. This haulout is composed of net pens offshore of the 
south end of Bainbridge Island. There are four documented California 
sea lion haulout areas near Bainbridge Island as well, approximately 
six miles from Pier 62, and two documented haulout areas between 
Bainbridge Island and Magnolia (Jefferies et al. 2000). The haulouts 
consist of buoys and floats, and some are within the area of potential 
effects, but at the outer extent, and some are just outside the area of 
potential effects (Jefferies et al. 2000). California sea lions were 
also frequently observed during marine mammal monitoring for Season 1 
of the Pier 62 project (average of eight sea lions) at the Alki 
monitoring site and were frequently observed resting on two buoys in 
the southwest area of Elliott Bay. California sea lions were also 
frequently observed during the EBSP (average seven per day in 2014 and 
2015, and three per day in 2016 and 2017; Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, 
and 2017), resting on two navigational buoys within the project area 
(near Alki Point) and swimming along the shoreline near the project.
    The project also is not expected to have significant adverse 
effects on affected marine mammal habitat, as analyzed in the 
``Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their 
Habitat'' section. Project activities would not permanently modify 
existing marine mammal habitat. The activities may kill some fish and 
cause other fish to leave the area temporarily, thus impacting marine 
mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging 
range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the 
relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts 
to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-
term negative consequences. Therefore, given the consideration of 
potential impacts to marine mammal prey species and their physical 
environment, Seattle DOT's Pier 62 Project would not adversely affect 
marine mammal habitat.
    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily 
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity 
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stocks through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
     No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or 
authorized.
     Takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to 
be limited to short-term Level B harassment (behavioral) and a small 
number of takes of Level A harassment for three species.
     The project also is not expected to have significant 
adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat.
     There are no known important feeding or pupping areas. 
There are haulouts for California sea lions, harbor seals and Steller 
sea lions. However, they are at the most outer edge of the potential 
effects and approximately 6.6 miles from Pier 62. There are no other 
known important areas for marine mammals.
     For nine of the twelve species, take is less than one 
percent of the stock abundance. Instances of take for the other three 
species (harbor seals, killer whales, and harbor porpoise) range from 
about 15-31 percent of the stock abundance. One occurrence of J-pod of 
SRKW would account for 29 percent of the stock abundance. However, when 
the fact that a fair number of these instances are expected to be 
repeat takes of the same animals is considered, particularly for harbor 
porpoise, the number of individual marine mammals taken is 
significantly lower.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation 
measures, NMFS 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.

[[Page 30142]]

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 factors may be 
considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of 
the activities.
    Take of nine of the twelve species is less than one percent of the 
stock abundance. Instances of take for the SRKW and transient killer 
whales, harbor seals, and harbor porpoise ranges from about 15-31 
percent of the stock abundance. However, when the fact that a fair 
number of these instances are expected to be repeat takes of the same 
animals is considered, the number of individual marine mammals taken is 
significantly lower. Specifically, for example, Jefferson et al., 2016 
conducted harbor porpoise surveys in eight regions of Puget Sound, and 
estimated an abundance of 147 harbor porpoise in the Seattle area 
(1,798 porpoise in North Puget Sound and 599 porpoise in South Puget 
Sound). While individuals do move between regions, we would not 
realistically expect that 3000+ individuals would be exposed around the 
pile driving for the Seattle DOT's Pier 62 Project. Considering these 
factors, as well as the general small size of the project area as 
compared to the range of the species affected, the numbers of marine 
mammals estimated to be taken are small proportions of the total 
populations of the affected species or stocks. Further, for SRKW we 
acknowledge that 27.1 percent of the stock is authorized to be taken by 
Level B harassment, but we believe that a single, brief incident of 
take of one group of any species represents take of small numbers for 
that species. We believe transient killer whales also represents small 
numbers, as the estimated take is very conservative. Estimated take was 
derived on local data of seven transients that were observed. However 
to be conservative, it was assumed that up to two groups of seven 
transient killer whales may pass through Elliott Bay and stay in the 
area for up to three days for a total of 42 takes (17.5 percent of the 
stock). We also believe harbor seal take represents small numbers. 
Although 14.96 percent of the stock is authorized, the estimated take 
was based on a maximum number of harbor seals observed in a day (13) 
and is therefore conservative as to what has been observed previously. 
Observations from Season 1 of the Pier 62 project ranged from 0 to 11 
harbor seals daily. Based on the analysis contained herein of the 
proposed activity (including the 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 sizes of the affected species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine 
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has 
preliminary 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 ESA of 1973 (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 Regional Office (WCRO), 
whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened 
species.
    NMFS is proposing to authorize take of SRKW and humpback whales, 
which are listed under the ESA. The Permit and Conservation Division 
has requested initiation of Section 7 consultation with the West Coast 
Regional Office for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the 
ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the 
proposed issuance of the authorization.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to Seattle DOT for conducting piledriving activities at 
Pier 62 (Season 2), Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington from August 2018 
through February 2019, 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).
    The proposed IHA language is provided next.
    1. This Authorization is valid from August 1, 2018, through 
February 28, 2019.
    2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with 
in-water construction work at the Seattle Department of 
Transportation's (Seattle DOT) Pier 62 Project (Season 2) in Elliott 
Bay, Seattle, Washington.
    3. General Conditions
    (a) The species authorized for taking, by Level A harassment and 
Level B harassment, and in the numbers shown in Table 18 are: Harbor 
seal (Phoca vitulina), northern elephant seal (Mirounga 
angustirostris), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), Steller 
sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), 
Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), long-beaked common dolphin 
(Delphinus capensis), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), both 
southern resident killer whale (SRKW) and transient killer whale 
(Orcinus orca), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), gray whale 
(Eschrichtius robustus), and minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata).
    (b) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the 
following acoustic sources and from the following activities:
    [ssquf] Impact pile driving;
    [ssquf] Vibratory pile driving; and
    [ssquf] Vibratory pile removal
    4. Prohibitions
    The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the 
species listed under condition 3(a) above and by the numbers listed in 
Table 18 of this notice. The taking by serious injury or death of these 
species or the taking by harassment, injury or death of any other 
species of marine mammal is prohibited unless separately authorized or 
exempted under the MMPA and may result in the modification, suspension, 
or revocation of this Authorization.
    5. Mitigation Measures
    The holder of this Authorization shall be required to implement the 
following mitigation measures:
(a) Timing Restriction
    In-water construction work shall occur only during daylight hours.
(b) Pre-Construction Briefing
    Seattle DOT shall conduct briefings for construction supervisors 
and crews, the monitoring team, and Seattle DOT staff prior to the 
start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the 
work, in order to explain

[[Page 30143]]

responsibilities, communication procedures, the marine mammal 
monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
(c) Bubble Curtain
    A bubble curtain shall be used during pile driving activities with 
an impact hammer and will be conducted using the following bubble 
curtain performance standards:
    (i) The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around 10 
percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column.
    (ii) The lowest bubble curtain ring shall be deployed on or as 
close to the mudline for the full circumference of the ring as 
possible, without causing turbidity.
    (iii) Seattle DOT shall require that construction contractors train 
personnel in the proper balancing of air flow to the bubblers, and 
shall require that construction contractors submit an inspection/
performance report for approval by Seattle DOT within 72 hours 
following the performance test. Corrections to the attenuation device 
to meet the performance standards shall occur prior to impact driving.
(d) Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones
    Seattle DOT shall implement the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones 
as described in Table 5 of this notice.
(e) Shutdown Zones
    (i) Seattle DOT shall implement shutdown measures if a marine 
mammal is detected within or approaching the Shutdown Zones as outlined 
in Table 7. Seattle DOT shall implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m 
radius around each pile for all construction methods for all marine 
mammals.
    (ii) If a marine mammal is observed at or within the Shutdown Zone, 
work shall stop until the individual has been observed outside of the 
zone, or has not been observed for at least 15 minutes for all marine 
mammals.
    (iii) 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).
    (iv) 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.
(f) Additional Shutdown Measures
    (i) For in-water heavy machinery activities other than pile 
driving, if a marine mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease 
and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum level required to 
maintain steerage and safe working conditions.
    (ii) Seattle DOT shall implement shutdown measures if the 
cumulative total of individuals observed within the Level B Harassment/
Monitoring Zones for any particular species exceeds the number 
authorized under the IHA and if such marine mammals are sighted within 
the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B 
Harassment/Monitoring Zones during in-water construction activities.
(g) Soft-Start for Impact Pile Driving
    Each day at the beginning of impact pile driving or any time there 
has been cessation or downtime of 30 minutes or more without pile 
driving, contractors shall initiate soft-start for impact hammers by 
providing an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 
percent energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then two 
subsequent three-strike sets.
(h) Additional Coordination
    The project team shall monitor and coordinate with local marine 
mammal sighting networks (i.e., The Orca Network and/or The Center for 
Whale Research) on a daily basis for sightings data and acoustic 
detection data to gather information on the location of whales prior to 
initiating pile removal or pile removal activities. The project team 
shall also coordinate with WSF to discuss marine mammal sightings on 
days when pile driving and removal activities are occurring on their 
nearby projects. In addition, reports shall be made available to 
interested parties upon request. With this level of coordination in the 
region of activity, Seattle DOT shall obtain real-time information on 
the presence or absence of whales before starting any pile driving or 
removal activities.
    In addition, to minimize impacts from noise on the Seattle 
Aquarium's captive marine mammals as well as for air and water quality 
concerns, Seattle DOT shall implement the following:
    (i) If aquarium animals are determined by the Aquarium veterinarian 
to be distressed, Seattle DOT shall coordinate with Aquarium staff to 
determine appropriate next steps, which may include suspending pile 
driving work for 30 minutes, provided that suspension does not pose a 
safety issue for the Pier 62 project construction crews.
    (ii) Seattle DOT shall make reasonable efforts to take at least one 
regularly scheduled 20-minute break in pile driving each day.
    (iii) Seattle DOT shall regularly communicate with the Aquarium 
staff when pile driving is occurring.
    (iv) Seattle DOT shall further coordinate with the Aquarium to 
determine appropriate methods to avoid and minimize impacts to water 
quality.
    (v) Seattle DOT does not anticipate the project resulting in 
impacts associated with airborne dust. If, during construction, odors 
associated with the project are an issue, Seattle DOT shall coordinate 
with its contractor to determine appropriate mitigation measures.
    6. Monitoring
(a) Protected Species Observers
    Seattle DOT shall employ NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine 
mammal monitoring for its construction project. NMFS-approved PSOs 
shall meet the following qualifications.
    (i) Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are 
required.
    (ii) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer.
    (iii) Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate 
degree in biological science or related field) or training for 
experience.
    (iv) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one 
observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring 
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer.
    (v) NMFS shall require submission and approval of observer CVs.
(b) Monitoring Protocols
    PSOs shall be present on site at all times during pile removal and 
driving. Marine mammal visual monitoring will be conducted for 
different Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones based on different sizes 
of piles being driven or removed.
    (i) A 30-minute pre-construction marine mammal monitoring shall be 
required before the first pile driving or pile removal of the day. A 
30-minute post-construction marine mammal monitoring shall be required 
after the last pile driving or pile removal of the

[[Page 30144]]

day. If the constructors take a break between subsequent pile driving 
or pile removal for more than 30 minutes, then additional 30-minute 
pre-construction marine mammal monitoring shall be required before the 
next start-up of pile driving or pile removal.
    (ii) During pile removal or installation with a vibratory hammer, 
three to four monitors shall be used, positioned such that each monitor 
has a distinct view-shed and the monitors collectively have overlapping 
view-sheds.
    (iii) During pile driving activities with an impact hammer, one 
monitor, based at or near the construction site, shall conduct the 
monitoring.
    (iv) Where visibility becomes limited, additional land-based 
monitors and/or boat-based monitors shall be deployed.
    (v) Monitors shall record take when marine mammals enter their 
relevant Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones based on type of 
construction activity.
    (vi) If a marine mammal approaches a Shutdown Zone, the observation 
shall be reported to the Construction Manager and the individual shall 
be watched closely. If the marine mammal crosses into a Shutdown Zone, 
a stop-work order shall be issued. In the event that a stop-work order 
is triggered, the observed marine mammal(s) shall be closely monitored 
while it remains in or near the Shutdown Zone, and only when it moves 
well outside of the Shutdown Zone or has not been observed for at least 
15 minutes for pinnipeds and small cetaceans and 15 minutes for large 
whales will the lead monitor allow work to recommence.
    (vii) PSOs shall monitor marine mammals around the construction 
site using high-quality binoculars (e.g., Zeiss, 10 x 42 power) and/or 
spotting scopes.
    (viii) If marine mammals are observed, the following information 
shall be documented:
    (A) Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
    (B) Construction activities occurring during each observation 
period;
    (C) Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
    (D) Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
    (E) Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine 
mammals;
    (F) Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, 
including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile 
driving activity;
    (G) Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and 
distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
    (H) Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
    (I) Other human activity in the area.
    (ix) Acoustic Monitoring--Seattle DOT shall conduct acoustic 
monitoring up to six days per in-water work season to evaluate, in real 
time, sound production from construction activities and shall capture 
all hammering scenarios that may occur under the planned project. 
Background noise recordings (in the absence of pile-related work) shall 
also be made during the study to provide a baseline background noise 
profile. Acoustic monitoring shall follow NMFS's 2012 Guidance 
Documents: Sound Propagation Modeling to Characterize Pile Driving 
Sounds Relevant to Marine Mammals; Data Collection Methods to 
Characterize Impact and Vibratory Pile Driving Source Levels Relevant 
to Marine Mammals; and Data Collection Methods to Characterize 
Underwater Background Sound Relevant to Marine Mammals in Coastal 
Nearshore Waters and Rivers of Washington and Oregon.
    7. Reporting
(a) Marine Mammal Monitoring
    (i) Seattle DOT shall submit a draft marine mammal monitoring 
report within 90 days after completion of the in-water construction 
work, the expiration of the IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. 
The report shall include data from marine mammal sightings as described 
in 6(b)(viii).The marine mammal monitoring report shall also include 
total takes, takes by day, and stop-work orders for each species.
    (ii) If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report shall 
be considered the final report. Any comments received during that time 
shall be addressed in full prior to finalization of the report.
    (iii) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity 
clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by 
the IHA (if issued), such as an injury (Level A harassment) of 
unauthorized species, or serious injury, or mortality of any species, 
Seattle DOT shall immediately cease the specified activities and 
immediately report the incident to the Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS and the NMFS' West Coast 
Stranding Coordinator. The report must include the following 
information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the 
incident;
     Name and type of vessel involved;
     Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
     Description of the incident;
     Status of all sound source use in the 24 hrs preceding the 
incident;
     Water depth;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
     Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 
hrs 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) (if 
equipment is available).
    Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with Seattle DOT 
to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Seattle DOT shall not 
resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or 
telephone.
(b) Reporting of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
    (i) In the event that Seattle DOT discovers an injured or dead 
marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury 
or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less 
than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next 
paragraph), Seattle DOT shall immediately report the incident to the 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS 
and the NMFS' West Coast Stranding Coordinator. The report must include 
the same information identified in 7(a)(iii). Activities may continue 
while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS shall work 
with Seattle DOT to determine whether modifications in the activities 
are appropriate.
    (ii) In the event that Seattle DOT discovers an injured or dead 
marine mammal, and the lead PSO 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), Seattle DOT shall report the 
incident to the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS and the NMFS Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the 
NMFS' West Coast Stranding Coordinator within 24 hrs of the discovery. 
Seattle DOT shall provide photographs or video footage (if available) 
or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS. 
Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the 
incident.

[[Page 30145]]

(c) Acoustic Monitoring Report
    Seattle DOT shall submit an Acoustic Monitoring Report within 90 
days after completion of the in-water construction work, expiration of 
the IHA (if issued), or 60 days prior to the requested date of issuance 
of any subsequent IHA, whichever sooner. The report shall provide 
details on the monitored piles, method of installation, monitoring 
equipment, and sound levels documented during both the sound source 
measurements and the background monitoring. NMFS shall have an 
opportunity to provide comments on the report or changes in monitoring 
for the second season, and if NMFS has comments, Seattle DOT shall 
address the comments and submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days. 
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft report 
shall be considered final. Any comments received during that time shall 
be addressed in full prior to finalization of the report.
    8. 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.
    9. A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of each 
contractor who performs the construction work at the Pier 62 Project.

Request for Public Comments

    We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and 
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed pile 
driving activities by Seattle DOT. 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 subsequent 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 subsequent 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:
    (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.

Elaine T. Saiz,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-13803 Filed 6-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P