Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to In-Water Construction at Two Ferry Facilities on Bainbridge Island, Washington, 58313-58329 [2022-20701]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices Gaithersburg, MD 20899, Appointment Expires: 12/31/22 Elizabeth Mackey (C) (alternate), Chief Safety Officer, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, Appointment Expires: 12/31/22 Paula Patrick (C), Strategic Advisor to Enterprise Services, Department of Commerce Enterprise Services, Washington, DC 20230, Appointment Expires: 12/31/24 Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. Alicia Chambers, NIST Executive Secretariat. [FR Doc. 2022–20799 Filed 9–23–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–13–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [RTID 0648–XC362] Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to In-Water Construction at Two Ferry Facilities on Bainbridge Island, Washington National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization (IHA). AGENCY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an IHA to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Ferries Division to incidentally harass marine mammals during two in-water construction projects on Bainbridge Island, Washington: the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal Overhead Loading Replacement Project and Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility Slip F Improvement Project. DATES: This authorization is effective from September 16, 2022 through September 15, 2023. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Fowler, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: https:// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. In case of problems accessing SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Sep 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 these documents, please call the contact listed above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. 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 proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA is provided to the public for review. Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other ‘‘means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact’’ on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as ‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below. Summary of Request On February 15, 2022, NMFS received a request from WSDOT for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal Overhead Loading Replacement Project (the Bainbridge Project) and Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility Slip F Improvement Projects (the Eagle Harbor Project) in Bainbridge Island, Washington. The application was deemed adequate and complete on July 25, 2022. WSDOT’s request is for take of 12 species of marine mammal by Level B harassment and, for a subset of these species (harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli)), Level A harassment. Neither WSDOT nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 58313 Description of Proposed Activity Overview The WSDOT Ferries Division (WSF) operates and maintains 19 ferry terminals and 1 maintenance facility, all of which are located in either Puget Sound or the San Juan Islands. Two projects are planned to be conducted: replacement of the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal overhead loading structure and improvement of the Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility Slip F. Both of the projects are located within Eagle Harbor on Bainbridge Island, Washington, would be completed within the same in-water work season, would have overlapping ensonified areas, and use the same information to estimate marine mammal takes. Therefore, WSDOT submitted one application for a single IHA to cover both projects. The purpose of the Bainbridge Project is to replace the seismically vulnerable timber trestle and fixed steel portions of the overhead loading structure at the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal. The purpose of the Eagle Harbor Project is to improve the maintenance efficiency of the facility. The facility has six vessel slips whose purpose is to maintain the WSF system’s vessels. Dates and Duration Due to in-water work timing restrictions established by NMFS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, construction in the projects area is limited each year from August 1 through February 15. Both the Bainbridge Project and the Eagle Harbor Project would be constructed during the 2022 to 2023 inwater work season. For the Bainbridge Project, in-water construction is expected to occur on up to 57 days (Table 1). For the Eagle Harbor Project, in-water construction is expected to occur on up to 31 days (Table 2). Specific Geographic Region Both projects are located within Eagle Harbor on Bainbridge Island, Washington, approximately 9 miles (mi; 14.5 kilometers (km)) west of Seattle, Washington. The Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility is approximately 0.25 mi (0.4 km) southwest of the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal. Eagle Harbor contains a mix of commercial docks, public marinas, private docks, and undeveloped waterfront properties. The harbor extends 2 mi (1.2 km) west from the mouth of the harbor, which is approximately 900 feet (ft; 274.3 meters (m)) wide and is bounded by Wing Point to the north and Bill Point to the south. A large underwater sand bar extends to the southeast from Wing Point. Water E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 58314 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices depths within Eagle Harbor are up to 50 ft (15.2 m) but outside the harbor, water depths between Bainbridge Island and Seattle can be over 700 ft (213.4 m). n eny Ball!bridgehrry1'i!lrmlnld 8agleHarbor~F~· 13 Figure 1 -- Location of Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal and Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility in Puget Sound Detailed Description of Specific Activity Bainbridge Project The proposed project elements for the Bainbridge Project include: 1. Using vibratory and impact hammers to install 31 24-inch (in) steel pipe piles for 2 temporary work platforms to support construction equipment; 2. Using vibratory and impact hammers to install four 24-in steel pipe piles for a temporary walkway to maintain overhead loading operations while the new walkway is constructed; 3. Using vibratory and impact hammers to install 14 30-in and 12 36in steel pipe piles to support the new permanent walkway; 4. Using a vibratory hammer to remove 76 creosote-treated 12-in timber piles and using a saw to cut one 4.5 ft (1.4 m) diameter concrete drill shaft at the mudline that supported the existing overhead loading walkway; and 5. Using a vibratory hammer to remove all steel pipe piles installed for the temporary walkway and work platforms. TABLE 1—PROPOSED PILE DRIVING FOR THE BAINBRIDGE PROJECT Duration per pile (minutes) Install or remove Method Temporary work platform and temporary walkway. 24-in Steel ................. Install ......................... Vibratory .................... 39 30 4 10 24-in Steel ................. Remove ..................... Install ......................... Impact ....................... Vibratory .................... Vibratory .................... 39 39 6 30 30 30 4 4 2 10 10 3 30-in Steel ................. Install ......................... Impact ....................... Vibratory .................... Impact ....................... Vibratory .................... Impact ....................... Vibratory .................... 6 4 4 12 12 76 30 30 30 30 30 15 2 2 2 2 2 15 3 2 2 6 6 5 Total Temporary Piles Installed and Removed ......................................................................... Total Permanent Piles Installed ................................................................................................. Total Timber Piles Removed ..................................................................................................... 39 26 76 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ New Overhead Loading Structure. Old Overhead Loading Structure Removal. VerDate Sep<11>2014 36-in Steel ................. Install ......................... 12-in Timber .............. Remove ..................... 16:43 Sep 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 Piles per day Duration (days) Pile size and type EN26SE22.000</GPH> Number of piles Project element 58315 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices TABLE 1—PROPOSED PILE DRIVING FOR THE BAINBRIDGE PROJECT—Continued Project element Pile size and type Install or remove Method Total Duration (days) ................................................................................................................. Eagle Harbor Project The proposed project elements for the Eagle Harbor Project include: 1. Using vibratory and impact hammers to install nine 24-in steel pipe piles and two 3-in steel pipe piles to Number of piles Duration per pile (minutes) Piles per day ........................ ........................ ........................ support a new trestle and vehicle transfer span; 2. Using a vibratory hammer to install eight 36-in steel reaction piles and four 36-in steel fender piles for two new steel wingwalls; 3. Using a vibratory hammer to install eight 30-in steel reaction piles and two Duration (days) 57 36-in fender piles for two new fixed dolphins; and 4. Using a vibratory hammer to remove 186 12-in timber piles and 4 18in steel pipe piles that supported existing walkways, timber pile dolphins, and a U-float. TABLE 2—PROPOSED PILE DRIVING FOR THE EAGLE HARBOR PROJECT Duration per pile (minutes) Number of piles Duration (hours) Rate per day Duration (days) Project element Pile size and type Install or remove Method Timber Walkway Pile Removal. Timber Dolphin Removal. Temporary Relocated Float. 12-in Timber ....... Remove .............. Vibratory ............. 52 15 13 15 4 12-in Timber ....... Remove .............. Vibratory ............. 134 15 33.5 15 9 18-in Steel .......... Install .................. Vibratory ............. 4 30 4 4 1 U-Float Removal Trestle and Transfer Span. 18-in Steel .......... 24-in Steel .......... Remove .............. Remove .............. Install .................. Vibratory ............. Vibratory ............. 4 4 9 30 30 30 3 4 4.5 4 4 4 1 1 3 36-in Steel .......... Install .................. 30-in Steel .......... 36-in Steel .......... 30-in Steel .......... Install .................. Install .................. Install .................. Impact ................. Vibratory ............. Impact ................. Vibratory ............. Vibratory ............. Vibratory ............. 9 2 2 8 4 4 30 30 30 30 30 30 4.5 1 1 4 2 2 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 1 1 2 1 1 36-in Steel .......... 30-in Steel .......... 36-in Steel .......... Install .................. Install .................. Install .................. Vibratory ............. Vibratory ............. Vibratory ............. 1 4 2 30 30 30 5 2 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 Total Piles Removed ...................................................................................... Total Piles Installed ........................................................................................ Total Duration (days) ..................................................................................... 194 38 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 31 Wingwall .............. Intermediate Dolphin. Outer Dolphin ...... A detailed description of the planned construction project was provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (87 FR 48623; August 10, 2022). Since that time, no changes have been made to the planned construction activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the description of the specific activity. Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting). analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of the notice of proposed IHA, and requested that interested persons submit relevant information, suggestions, and comments. This proposed notice was available for a 30-day public comment period. During the public comment period, the United States Geological Survey provided a letter stating that it had no comment. No other comments were received. Comments and Responses A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue an IHA to WSDOT was published in the Federal Register on August 10, 2022 (87 FR 48623). That notice described, in detail, WSDOT’s activities, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activities, and the anticipated effects on marine mammals. In that notice, we requested public input on the request for authorization described therein, our Changes From the Proposed IHA to Final IHA VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Sep 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 No changes have been made to the authorization itself, but NMFS has added a clarification in Table 6 of this notice to note that the source levels listed for impact pile driving are attenuated measurements, and has corrected the reference for the source levels for impact pile driving. See Table 6. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, incorporated here by reference, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS’ Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 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’ website (https:// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). Table 3 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 58316 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices be authorized for this activity, and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. 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’ SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is expected to occur, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks 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’ 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 NMFS’ U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs. All values presented in Table 3 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 2021 SARs (Carretta et al., 2022; Muto et al., 2022). TABLE 3—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES Common name Scientific name Stock I ESA/ MMPA status; strategic (Y/N) 1 I Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, most recent abundance survey) 2 Annual M/SI 3 PBR I I Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) Family Eschrichtiidae: Gray whale ......................... Eschrichtius robustus ................ Eastern N Pacific ...................... Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals): Minke whale ........................ Balaenoptera acutorostrata ...... California/Oregon/Washington .. -, -, N I -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 2016). I 915 (0.792, 509, 2018) ... 801 4.1 131 I ≥ 0.59 Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) Family Delphinidae: Long-Beaked Common Dolphin. Bottlenose Dolphin ............. Pacific White-Sided Dolphin Delphinus capensis ................... California ................................... -, -, N Tursiops truncatus .................... Lagenorhynchus obliquidens .... California Coastal ..................... California/Oregon/Washington .. -, -, N -, -, N Killer Whale ........................ Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): Harbor Porpoise ................. Orcinus orca ............................. West Coast Transient ............... -, -, N Phocoena phocoena ................. Washington Inland Waters ....... -, -, N Dall’s Porpoise .................... Phocoenoides dalli .................... California/Oregon/Washington .. -, -, N 668 ≥29.7 2.7 279 ≥2.0 7 3.5 0.4 66 ≥7.2 99 ≥0.66 257,606 (N/A,233,515, 2014). 43,201 5 (see SAR, 43,201, 2017). 14,011 >320 2,592 112 11,036 6 (UNK, UNK, 1999). 187,386 (N/A, 85,369, 2013). UND 9.8 5,122 13.7 83,379 (0.216, 69,636, 2018). 453 (0.06, 346, 2011) ..... 34,999 (0.222, 29,090, 2018). 349 4 (N/A, 349, 2018) .... 11,233 (0.37, 8,308, 2015). 16,498 (0.61, 10,286, 2019). Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions): California Sea Lion ............. Zalophus californianus .............. U.S. ........................................... -, -, N Steller Sea Lion .................. Eumetopias jubatus .................. Eastern ...................................... -, -, N Family Phocidae (earless seals): Harbor Seal ........................ Phoca vitulina ........................... -, -, N Northern Elephant Seal ...... Mirounga angustirostris ............ Washington Northern Inland Waters. California Breeding ................... -, -, N 1 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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports-region. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 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. 4 Based on counts of individual animals identified from photo-identification catalogues. Surveys for abundance estimates of these stocks are conducted infrequently. 5 Best estimate of pup and non-pup counts, which have not been corrected to account for animals at sea during abundance surveys. 6 The abundance estimate for this stock is greater than eight years old and is therefore not considered current. PBR is considered undetermined for this stock, as there is no current minimum abundance estimate for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimates, as these represent the best available information for use in this document. As indicated above, all 12 species (with 12 managed stocks) in Table 3 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. While humpback whales (Megaptera VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Sep 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 novaeangliae) and killer whales from the Southern Resident stock are known to occur in Puget Sound, in consideration of the proposed requirements described in the Mitigation and Monitoring and PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Reporting sections of this notice, WSDOT has determined that take of these species is unlikely to occur and has therefore not requested take of humpback whales or Southern Resident killer whales. NMFS has concurred with E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices this determination and no take of these species is anticipated or authorized. A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by WSDOT’s projects, including brief introductions to species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (87 FR 48623; August 10, 2022); since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for these descriptions. 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. 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, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges 58317 (behavioral response data, anatomical modeling, etc.). Note that no direct measurements of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 4. TABLE 4—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS [NMFS, 2018] Hearing group Generalized hearing range * Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ......................................................................................................................... Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) .............................................. High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L. australis). Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) ....................................................................................................................... Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) .................................................................................................. 7 Hz to 35 kHz. 150 Hz to 160 kHz. 275 Hz to 160 kHz. 50 Hz to 86 kHz. 60 Hz to 39 kHz. * Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’ hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation). The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range (Hemila¨ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information. Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat The effects of underwater noise from WSDOT’s construction activities have the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the project areas. The Federal Register notice of proposed IHA (87 FR 48623; August 10, 2022) included a discussion of the effects of underwater noise from WSDOT’s activities on marine mammals and their habitat. That information and analysis is incorporated by reference into the final IHA determination and is not repeated here; please refer to the notice of proposed authorization (87 FR 48623; August 10, 2022). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Sep 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 Estimated Take This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through the IHA, which will inform both NMFS’ consideration of ‘‘small numbers,’’ and the negligible impact determinations. 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 will primarily be by Level B harassment (in the form of behavioral disturbance and temporary threshold shift (TTS)), as use of the acoustic sources (i.e., vibratory or impact pile driving and removal) have the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns and cause a PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 temporary loss in hearing sensitivity for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result for porpoises and harbor seals because predicted auditory injury zones are larger. The mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of the taking to the extent practicable. As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the authorized take numbers are estimated. For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, 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) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 58318 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the factors considered here in more detail and present the authorized take numbers. Acoustic Thresholds NMFS recommends the use of 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 permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). Thresholds have also been developed to identify the pressure levels above which animals may incur different types of tissue damage (non-acoustic Level A harassment or mortality) from exposure to pressure waves from explosive detonation. Thresholds have also been developed identifying the received level of in-air sound above which exposed pinnipeds would likely be behaviorally harassed. Level B Harassment—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 or exposure context (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the source), the environment (e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area, predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to predict (e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021; Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-meansquared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 micropascal (re 1 mPa)) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 mPa for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources. WSDOT’s planned activities include the use of continuous (vibratory hammer) and impulsive (impact hammer) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) thresholds are applicable. Level A harassment—NMFS’ Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). WSDOT’s activities include the use of impulsive (impact hammer) and non-impulsive (vibratory hammer) sources. These thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS’ 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance. TABLE 5—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level) Hearing group Impulsive Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell 1: 3: 5: 7: 9: Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: 219 230 202 218 232 dB; dB; dB; dB; dB; Non-impulsive LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................... LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................ LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................ LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ....................... LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. * Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered. Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI, 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. Ensonified Area Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss coefficient. The sound field in the project areas is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected by sound VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Sep 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 generated by the primary components of the project (i.e., impact and vibratory pile driving). In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds for the methods and piles being used in these projects, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from previous pile driving at the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal (impact installation of 24-in steel piles) and Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility (impact installation of 30-in steel piles), PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 as well as pile driving at other locations within Puget Sound to develop source levels for the various pile types, sizes, and methods for the two projects (Table 6). A source level for vibratory driving of 18-in steel piles is not available so it is conservatively assumed to be equivalent to the source level for 24-in steel piles. E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 58319 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices TABLE 6—EXPECTED PROJECT SOUND SOURCE LEVELS Source level measurement distance (m) Pile type and size (in) Method Source level (dB re 1 μPa) 12-in timber ............................ 18-in and 24-in steel .............. 152 dB rms ............................ 166 dB rms ............................ 10 10 176 dB rms ............................ 6 WSDOT (2020) 1. 36-in steel ............................... 24-in steel ............................... Vibratory removal ................... Vibratory installation and removal. Vibratory installation and removal. Vibratory installation .............. Impact installation .................. 10 10 WSDOT (2020) 1. WSDOT (2020) 2. 30-in steel ............................... Impact installation .................. 10 WSDOT (2020) 2. 36-in steel ............................... Impact installation .................. 184 dB rms ............................ 206 dB peak, 179 dB SEL, 195 dB rms. 194 dB peak, 182 dB SEL, 184 dB rms. 205 dB peak, 178 dB SEL, 191 dB rms. 10 WSDOT (2020) 2. 30-in steel ............................... Reference Greenbusch Group (2018). WSDOT (2020) 1. 1 WSDOT 2 Bubble Biological Assessment Manual Table 7–15. curtain-attenuated source levels from WSDOT Biological Assessment Manual Table 7–14. Level B Harassment Zones Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is: TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2) Where: TL = transmission loss in dB B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical spreading equals 15 R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile, and R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement The recommended TL coefficient for most nearshore environments is the practical spreading value of 15. This value results in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions, which is the most appropriate assumption for WSDOT’s planned activities in the absence of specific modelling. The Level B harassment zones for WSDOT’s planned activities are shown in Table 7. Level A Harassment Zones The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the Technical Guidance that can be used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For stationary sources such as pile installation and removal, the optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance for the duration of the activity, it would be expected to incur PTS. The isopleths generated by the User Spreadsheet used the same TL coefficient as the Level B harassment zone calculations (i.e., the practical spreading value of 15). Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet (e.g., number of piles per day, duration and/or strikes per pile) are presented in Tables 1 and 2, and the resulting isopleths are reported below in Table 7. TABLE 7—LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES Pile size/type Level A harassment zone (m) Pile driving method LF cetaceans 12-in timber ........... 18-in steel ............. 24-in steel ............. 30-in steel ............. 36-in steel ............. 24-in steel ............. 30-in steel ............. 36-in steel ............. Vibratory removal Vibratory installation/removal. Vibratory installation/removal. Vibratory installation/removal. Vibratory installation. Impact installation Impact installation Impact installation Phocids Level B harassment zone (m) MF cetaceans HF cetaceans 4.1 23.4 0.4 2.1 6.1 34.5 2.5 14.2 0.2 1.0 a 11,659 27.1 2.4 40.1 16.5 1.2 a 11,659 65.1 5.8 96.2 39.5 2.8 a b 32,470 485.1 43.0 717.2 294.9 20.7 a b 184,785 784.8 1,359.6 795.9 27.9 48.4 28.3 934.8 1,619.5 948.0 420.0 727.6 425.9 30.6 53.0 31.0 c 2,154 a Distance Otariids a 1,360 c 398 c 1,166 to 120 dB rms threshold. to Level B harassment threshold without obstruction; however for these projects, 13,345 m is the maximum in-water distance until land is reached. c Distance to 160 dB rms threshold. b Distance VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Sep 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 58320 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and Estimation In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information, that will inform the quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization. Unless otherwise specified, the term ‘‘pile driving’’ in this section, and all following sections, may refer to either pile installation or removal. WSDOT first estimated take for both projects using the areas ensonified above the Level B harassment threshold and density estimates for marine mammals in Puget Sound. Density estimates for all species except harbor porpoises were from the U.S. Navy’s Marine Species Density Database (MSDD) for the Northwest Training and Testing (NWTT) Study Area (U.S. Navy, 2019). For harbor porpoises, WSDOT used the density estimate from Evenson (2016) as it was considered more conservative than the density estimate for harbor porpoises from the NWTT MSDD. However, for all species except harbor seals and harbor porpoises, WSDOT did not consider the resulting take estimates to be realistic (i.e., either over- or underestimated take). Instead, WSDOT compiled monitoring results from pile driving between August 2017 and February 2021 at the Seattle Ferry Terminal Multimodal Project at Colman Dock (WSDOT, 2021) (Table 8). Because the Level B harassment zones from vibratory pile driving at Colman Dock extended to or near the Bainbridge Island shoreline, and because the Level B harassment zones from vibratory pile driving at the Bainbridge Ferry Terminal and Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility extend to the Seattle shoreline, WSDOT considered the monitoring results from the Seattle Multimodal Project to be the most relevant and comprehensive sightings data available for the project areas. Based on the Seattle Multimodal Project monitoring results, WSDOT used their best professional judgement to estimate the number of marine mammals that may be taken incidental to the planned activities. NMFS has carefully reviewed WSDOT’s analysis and concludes that it represents an appropriate and accurate method for estimating incidental take caused by WSDOT’s activities. TABLE 8—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY AND SIGHTINGS Density/km2 Species Harbor Seal ................................................................ Northern Elephant Seal ............................................. California Sea Lion .................................................... Steller Sea Lion ......................................................... Unidentified pinniped ................................................. Killer Whale Southern Resident ................................. Killer Whale Transient ................................................ Gray Whale ................................................................ Minke Whale .............................................................. Unidentified large whale ............................................ Unidentified small whale ............................................ Harbor Porpoise ......................................................... Dall’s Porpoise ........................................................... Pacific White-sided Dolphin ....................................... Long-beaked Common Dolphin ................................. Common Bottlenose Dolphin ..................................... Unidentified dolphin/porpoise ..................................... Gray Whale WSDOT estimated that up to 20 Level B harassment takes of gray whales could result from each project, for a total of 40 gray whale takes by Level B harassment. In consideration of the infrequent occurrence of gray whales in the project areas, the mitigation and monitoring measures that WSDOT is required to comply with, including marine mammal monitoring and coordination with Orca Network that would alert WSDOT to the presence of large whales in the project area (see Mitigation), and given the size and visibility of gray whales, WSDOT will be able to detect gray whales and stop work before gray whales can enter the Level A harassment zones. Therefore, it is unlikely that any gray whales would be taken by Level A harassment. No take of gray whales by VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Sep 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 Sightings total 3.91 0.01 0.0152–0.2211 0.0010–0.0478 N/A 0.000009–0.007828 0.001582–0.002373 0.000086 0.00045 N/A N/A 0.58 0.00045 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A Average sightings/day (372 days) 1,939 1 2,625 100 118 297 47 4 1 2 10 413 8 2 2 6 42 Take requested and authorized Maximum one-day sightings 5.21 0.003 7.05 0.27 N/A 0.80 0.13 0.011 0.003 N/A N/A 1.11 0.02 0.005 0.005 0.02 N/A 43 1 38 10 9 26 20 1 1 1 9 40 5 2 1 2 5 Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes N/A. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. N/A. N/A. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. N/A. Level A harassment is requested or authorized. No take of minke whales by Level A harassment is requested or authorized. Minke Whale Long-Beaked Common Dolphin WSDOT estimated that up to 20 Level B harassment takes of minke whales could result from each project, for a total of 40 minke whale takes by Level B harassment. Like gray whales, in consideration of the infrequent occurrence of minke whales in the project areas, the mitigation and monitoring measures that WSDOT is required to comply with, including marine mammal monitoring and coordination with Orca Network (see Mitigation), and given the size and visibility of minke whales, WSDOT will be able to detect minke whales and stop work before minke whales can enter the Level A harassment zones. Therefore, it is unlikely that any minke whales would be taken by Level A harassment. WSDOT estimated that up to 20 Level B harassment takes of long-beaked common dolphins could result from each project, for a total of 40 longbeaked common dolphin takes by Level B harassment. The Level A harassment zones for mid-frequency cetaceans are all less than 50 m. Given the visibility of long-beaked common dolphins, WSDOT will be able to cease pile driving before long-beaked common dolphins can enter the Level A harassment zone. No take of longbeaked common dolphins by Level A harassment is requested or authorized. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Bottlenose Dolphin WSDOT estimated that up to 20 Level B harassment takes of bottlenose E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 58321 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices dolphins could result from each project, for a total of 40 bottlenose dolphin takes by Level B harassment. The Level A harassment zones for mid-frequency cetaceans are all less than 50 m. Given the visibility of bottlenose dolphins, WSDOT will be able to cease pile driving before bottlenose dolphins can enter the Level A harassment zone. No take of bottlenose dolphins by Level A harassment is requested or authorized. Pacific White-Sided Dolphin WSDOT estimated that up to 20 Level B harassment takes of Pacific whitesided dolphins could result from each project, for a total of 40 Pacific whitesided dolphin takes by Level B harassment. The Level A harassment zones for mid-frequency cetaceans are all less than 50 m. Given the visibility of Pacific white-sided dolphins, WSDOT will be able to cease pile driving before Pacific white-sided dolphins can enter the Level A harassment zone. No take of Pacific white-sided dolphins by Level A harassment is requested or authorized. Killer Whale (Transient) WSDOT estimated that up to 60 Level B harassment takes of transient killer whales could result from each project, for a total of 120 killer whale takes by Level B harassment. The Level A harassment zones for mid-frequency cetaceans are all less than 50 m. Given the visibility of killer whales, WSDOT will be able to cease pile driving before killer whales can enter the Level A harassment zone. No take of killer whales by Level A harassment is requested or authorized. As stated above, no take of Southern Resident killer whales is expected or authorized. Harbor Porpoise To estimate the number of harbor porpoises that may be taken by Level B harassment from the two projects, WSDOT calculated the area ensonified above the Level B harassment threshold for each pile size, type, and method for both projects. WSDOT then multiplied the estimated density of harbor porpoises in the area (0.58 per km2; Evenson 2016) by the ensonified area and the expected days of work for each project element (Table 9). TABLE 9—ESTIMATED TAKE OF HARBOR PORPOISES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT Pile size, type, and method 12-in 18-in 24-in 30-in 36-in 24-in 30-in 36-in Bainbridge ensonified area (km2) Bainbridge days of work Eagle Harbor ensonified area (km2) Eagle Harbor days of work Bainbridge takes by Level B harassment by pile size, type, and method Eagle Harbor takes by Level B harassment by pile size, type, and method timber vibratory ............................... steel vibratory ................................. steel vibratory ................................. steel vibratory ................................. steel vibratory ................................. steel impact ..................................... steel impact ..................................... steel impact ..................................... 0.5 N/A 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.9 0.4 0.9 5 0 2 23 6 13 2 6 0.8 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 0.87 N/A 0.87 13 3 3 4 4 3 0 1 3 0 3 320 84 17 3 8 6 27 40 53 53 2 0 1 Total .................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 298 183 The areas ensonified above the Level A harassment threshold for highfrequency cetaceans has been omitted from the areas ensonified above the Level B harassment threshold presented in Table 9. For impact installation of 30in steel piles, the Level A harassment zone for high-frequency cetaceans is approximately 1,620 m. To estimate the number of harbor porpoises that may be present within the Level A harassment zone, WSDOT used the average sightings rate from the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock (0.691 harbor porpoises per day; Table 8) multiplied by the days of impact pile driving expected for each project (27 days for the Bainbridge Project and 8 days for the Eagle Harbor Project) to estimate that 19 and 6 harbor porpoises may be taken by Level A harassment from the Bainbridge Project and Eagle Harbor Project, respectively. Therefore, WSDOT requested, and NMFS has authorized, a total of 25 takes of harbor porpoises by Level A harassment. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Sep 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 California Sea Lion multiplied by the days of work for each project (57 days for the Bainbridge Project and 31 days for the Eagle Harbor Project) to estimate that 402 and 219 California sea lions may be taken by Level B harassment from the Bainbridge Project and Eagle Harbor Project, respectively, for a total of 621 takes of California sea lions by Level B harassment. The largest Level A harassment zone for otariid pinnipeds is 53 m. WSDOT would be required to implement a 60 m shutdown zone for otariids for all pile driving activities. At that close range, WSDOT will be able to detect California sea lions and implement the required shutdown measures before California sea lions can enter the Level A harassment zone. Therefore, no takes of California sea lions by Level A harassment are requested or authorized. Over the course of 372 days of monitoring for the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock, the average number of California sea lions observed per day was 7.05 (Table 8). WSDOT used that average sightings rate Steller Sea Lion WSDOT estimated that 180 Level B harassment takes of Steller sea lions could result from each project, for a total of 360 Steller sea lion takes by Level B harassment. The largest Level A Dall’s Porpoise WSDOT estimated that up to 20 Level B harassment takes of Dall’s porpoises could result from each project, for a total of 40 Dall’s porpoise takes by Level B harassment. For impact installation of 30-in steel piles, the Level A harassment zone for high-frequency cetaceans is approximately 1,620 m. Dall’s porpoises are considered rare in the project area and are unlikely to be present within the Level A harassment zones but WSDOT conservatively estimates that no more than 5 Dall’s porpoises could enter the Level A harassment zones of each project. Therefore, WSDOT requested, and NMFS has authorized, a total of 10 takes of Dall’s porpoises by Level A harassment. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 58322 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices harassment zone for otariid pinnipeds is 53 m. WSDOT would be required to implement a 60 m shutdown zone for otariids for all pile driving activities. At that close range, WSDOT will be able to detect Steller sea lions and implement the required shutdown measures before Steller sea lions can enter the Level A harassment zone. Therefore, no takes of Steller sea lions by Level A harassment are requested or authorized. Harbor Seal To estimate the number of harbor seals that may be taken by Level B harassment from the two projects, WSDOT calculated the area ensonified above the Level B harassment threshold for each pile size, type, and method for both projects. WSDOT then multiplied the estimated density of harbor seals in the area (3.91 per km2; Navy, 2019) by the ensonified area and the expected days of work for each project element (Table 10). In total, WSDOT estimates that 3,450 harbor seals may be taken by Level B harassment. TABLE 10—ESTIMATED TAKE OF HARBOR SEALS BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT Bainbridge ensonified area (km2) Pile size, type, and method 12-in 18-in 24-in 30-in 36-in 24-in 30-in 36-in Bainbridge days of work Eagle Harbor ensonified area (km2) Eagle Harbor days of work Bainbridge takes by pile size, type, and method Eagle Harbor takes by pile size, type, and method timber vibratory ............................... steel vibratory ................................. steel vibratory ................................. steel vibratory ................................. steel vibratory ................................. steel impact ..................................... steel impact ..................................... steel impact ..................................... 1.5 N/A 24.0 24.0 24.0 2.0 1.3 2.0 5 0 2 23 6 13 2 6 1.6 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 1.66 N/A 1.66 13 3 3 4 4 3 0 1 30 0 188 2,158 563 102 10 47 81 188 283 377 377 20 0 7 Total .................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 2,117 1,333 The areas ensonified above the Level A harassment threshold for phocid pinnipeds has been omitted from the areas ensonified above the Level B harassment threshold presented in Table 10. For impact installation of 30in steel piles, the Level A harassment zone for phocid pinnipeds is approximately 728 m. To estimate the number of harbor seals that may be present within the Level A harassment zone, WSDOT used the average sightings rate from the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock (5.21 harbor seals per day; Table 8) multiplied by the days of impact pile driving expected for each project (27 days for the Bainbridge Project and 8 days for the Eagle Harbor Project) to VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Sep 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 estimate that 141 and 42 harbor seals may be taken by Level A harassment from the Bainbridge Project and Eagle Harbor Project, respectively. Therefore, WSDOT requested, and NMFS has authorized, a total of 183 takes of harbor seals by Level A harassment. Northern Elephant Seal Individual elephant seals have occasionally been reported in central Puget Sound (e.g., Orca Network, 2020), but are considered rare in the project areas. WSDOT estimated that up to 10 Level B harassment takes of northern elephant seals could result from each project, for a total of 20 northern elephant seal takes by Level B harassment. The largest Level A PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 harassment zone (728 m) occurs during impact installation of 30-in steel pipe piles (Table 7). It is unlikely that northern elephant seals would be found within this zone, and even more unlikely that northern elephant seals would be found within the Level A harassment zones for vibratory pile driving (up to 295 m). However, even if northern elephant seals were encountered in the project areas, at that close range, WSDOT will be able to detect them and implement the required shutdown measures before any northern elephant seals can enter the Level A harassment zones. Therefore, no take of northern elephant seals by Level A harassment is requested or authorized. E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 58323 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices TABLE 11—AUTHORIZED TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT FROM THE BAINBRIDGE PROJECT BY SPECIES AND STOCK Authorized take by Level B harassment Species Stock Gray whale ................................................................... Minke whale .................................................................. Killer whale ................................................................... Bottlenose dolphin ........................................................ Long-beaked common dolphin ..................................... Pacific white-sided dolphin ........................................... Harbor porpoise ............................................................ Dall’s porpoise .............................................................. California sea lion ......................................................... Steller sea lion .............................................................. Northern elephant seal ................................................. Harbor seal ................................................................... Eastern North Pacific .................................................... California/Oregon/Washington ...................................... West Coast Transient ................................................... California Coastal ......................................................... California ....................................................................... ....................................................................................... Washington Inland Waters ........................................... California/Oregon/Washington ...................................... U.S. ............................................................................... Eastern ......................................................................... California Breeding ....................................................... Washington Northern Inland Waters ............................ 20 20 60 20 20 20 298 20 402 180 10 2,117 Authorized take by Level A harassment 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 5 0 0 0 141 TABLE 12—AUTHORIZED TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT FROM THE EAGLE HARBOR PROJECT BY SPECIES AND STOCK Authorized take by Level B harassment Species Stock Gray whale ................................................................... Minke whale .................................................................. Killer whale ................................................................... Bottlenose dolphin ........................................................ Long-beaked common dolphin ..................................... Pacific white-sided dolphin ........................................... Harbor porpoise ............................................................ Dall’s porpoise .............................................................. California sea lion ......................................................... Steller sea lion .............................................................. Northern elephant seal ................................................. Harbor seal ................................................................... Eastern North Pacific .................................................... California/Oregon/Washington ...................................... West Coast Transient ................................................... California Coastal ......................................................... California ....................................................................... ....................................................................................... Washington Inland Waters ........................................... California/Oregon/Washington ...................................... U.S. ............................................................................... Eastern ......................................................................... California Breeding ....................................................... Washington Northern Inland Waters ............................ 20 20 60 20 20 20 183 20 219 180 10 1,333 Authorized take by Level A harassment 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 42 TABLE 13—TOTAL AUTHORIZED TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES AND STOCK AND PERCENT OF TAKE BY STOCK Authorized take by Level A harassment Species Stock Gray whale ........................................ Minke whale ...................................... Killer whale ........................................ Bottlenose dolphin ............................ Long-beaked common dolphin ......... Pacific white-sided dolphin ............... Harbor porpoise ................................ Dall’s porpoise .................................. California sea lion ............................. Steller sea lion .................................. Northern elephant seal ..................... Harbor seal ....................................... Eastern North Pacific ....................... California/Oregon/Washington ......... West Coast Transient ...................... California Coastal ............................. California .......................................... California/Oregon/Washington ......... Washington Inland Waters ............... California/Oregon/Washington ......... U.S. .................................................. Eastern ............................................. California Breeding ........................... Washington Northern Inland Waters 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 the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Sep 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 10 0 0 0 183 attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the 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 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Authorized take by Level B harassment 40 40 120 40 40 40 481 40 621 360 20 3,450 Total authorized take 40 40 120 40 40 40 506 50 621 360 20 3,633 Percent of stock 0.2 11.0 34.4 8.8 3.2 0.2 5.0 0.3 0.24 0.83 0.01 32.9 feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the 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)). E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 58324 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices 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, NMFS considers two primary factors: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and (2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost and impact on operations. Shutdown Zones Before the commencement of in-water construction activities, WSDOT must establish shutdown zones for all activities. The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). Pile driving would also not commence until all marine mammals are clear of their respective shutdown zones. Shutdown zones are established in consideration of the Level A harassment zones and therefore typically vary based on the activity type and marine mammal hearing group. However, rather than establishing different shutdown zones for each hearing group for each project element, WSDOT proposed, and NMFS has included in the authorization, simplified shutdown zones and only one or two shutdown zones for each hearing group to implement across all project elements (Table 14). For example, the 720 m shutdown zone for low-frequency and high-frequency cetaceans for all vibratory pile driving activities encompasses both the largest Level A harassment zone for highfrequency cetaceans (717.2 m; see Table 7) and the largest Level A harassment zone for low-frequency cetaceans (485.1 m; see Table 7). This conservatively protects animals in both hearing groups, simplifies analysis and monitoring, and presents minimal risks to implementing the project, as marine mammals in these hearing groups are unlikely to be present within 720 m of the construction site during pile driving activities. For impact pile driving, WSDOT must retain the 720 m shutdown zone for high-frequency cetaceans but increase the shutdown zone for low-frequency cetaceans to 2,175 m which encompasses the largest Level B harassment zone for impact pile driving, and is also the required shutdown zone for preventing take of unauthorized species (e.g., Southern Resident killer whales, humpback whales) (Table 14). The Level A harassment zones for high-frequency cetaceans from impact pile driving are all greater than 720 m (Table 7), thus any high-frequency cetacean that enters the Level A harassment zone beyond 720 m must be recorded as taken by Level A harassment. At minimum, the shutdown zone for all hearing groups and all activities is 10 m. For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving (e.g., standard barges, etc.), if a marine mammal comes within 10 m, operations must cease and vessels must reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions. This type of work could include, for example, the movement of the barge to the pile location or positioning of the pile on the substrate via a crane. WSDOT must also establish shutdown zones for all marine mammals for which take has not been authorized or for which incidental take has been authorized but the authorized number of takes has been met. These zones are equivalent to the Level B harassment zones for each activity (see Table 14). WSDOT must also implement shutdown measures for Southern Resident killer whales and humpback whales. If Southern Resident killer whales or humpback whales are sighted within the vicinity of the project areas and are approaching the Level B harassment zone (see Table 14), WSDOT must shut down the pile driving equipment to avoid possible take of these species. If a killer whale approaches the Level B harassment zone during pile driving, and it is unknown whether it is a Southern Resident killer whale or a transient killer whale, it must be assumed to be a Southern Resident killer whale and WSDOT would implement the shutdown measure. If a Southern Resident killer whale, unidentified killer whale, or humpback whale enters the Level B harassment zone undetected, in-water pile driving must be suspended until the whale exits the Level B harassment zone, or 15 minutes have elapsed with no sighting of the animal, to avoid further Level B harassment. TABLE 14—SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR THE BAINBRIDGE AND EAGLE HARBOR PROJECTS Shutdown zone (m) Southern Resident killer whales, humpback whales, and other unauthorized species Pile type and method LF cetacean 12-in 18-in 24-in 30-in 36-in 24-in 30-in 36-in timber vibratory ......................... steel vibratory ........................... steel vibratory ........................... steel vibratory ........................... steel vibratory ........................... steel impact ............................... steel impact ............................... steel impact ............................... a 13,345 MF cetacean 720 720 720 720 720 2,175 2,175 2,175 HF cetacean 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Phocids 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 Otariids 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 m is the maximum distance sound can travel before reaching land. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Sep 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 2,175 a 13,345 a 13,345 a 13,345 a 13,345 2,175 2,175 2,175 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices Protected Species Observers The placement of protected species observers (PSOs) during all pile driving activities (described in the Monitoring and Reporting section) must ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible. Should environmental conditions deteriorate such that the entire shutdown zone would not be visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile driving must be delayed until the PSO is confident marine mammals within the shutdown zone could be detected. Monitoring for Level A and Level B Harassment PSOs must monitor the Level B harassment zones to the extent practicable, and all of the Level A harassment zones. Monitoring zones provide utility for observing by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring zones enable observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project areas outside the shutdown zones and thus prepare for a potential cessation of activity should the animal enter the shutdown zone. Pre-Activity Monitoring Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs must observe the shutdown and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone is considered cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within the zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zones listed in Table 14, pile driving activity must be delayed or halted. If pile driving is delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity must not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zones or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal. When a marine mammal for which Level B harassment take is authorized is present in the Level B harassment zone, activities may begin and Level B harassment take must be recorded. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of the shutdown zones would commence. 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). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Sep 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 Coordination With Local Marine Mammal Research Network Prior to the start of pile driving for the day, the PSOs must contact the Orca Network to find out the location of the nearest marine mammal sightings. The Local Marine Mammal Research Network consists of a list of over 600 (and growing) residents, scientists, and government agency personnel in the United States and Canada. Sightings are called or emailed into the Orca Network and immediately distributed to other sighting networks including: the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, the Center for Whale Research, Cascadia Research, the Whale Museum Hotline, and the British Columbia Sightings Network. Sightings information collected by the Orca Network includes detection by hydrophone. The SeaSound Remote Sensing Network is a system of interconnected hydrophones installed in the marine environment of Haro Strait (west side of San Juan Island) to study orca communication, in-water noise, bottom fish ecology, and local climatic conditions. A hydrophone at the Port Townsend Marine Science Center measures average in-water sound levels and automatically detects unusual sounds. These passive acoustic devices allow researchers to hear when different marine mammals come into the region. This acoustic network, combined with the volunteer visual sighting network allows researchers to document presence and location of various marine mammal species. Soft Start Soft-start procedures are used to provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors are required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the hammer at reduced energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced-energy strike sets. Soft start must be implemented at the start of each day’s impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer. Bubble Curtain A bubble curtain must be employed during impact installation or proofing of steel piles, unless the piles are driven in the dry, or water is less than 3 ft (0.9 m) in depth. A noise attenuation device is not required during vibratory pile driving. If a bubble curtain or similar PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 58325 measure is used, it must distribute air bubbles around 100 percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column. Any other attenuation measure must provide 100 percent coverage in the water column for the full depth of the pile. The lowest bubble ring must be in contact with the mudline for the full circumference of the ring. The weights attached to the bottom ring must ensure 100 percent mudline contact. No parts of the ring or other objects may prevent full mudline contact. Based on our evaluation of the applicant’s proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has 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. 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 while conducting the activities. 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 activity; 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 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 58326 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors; • How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks; • Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of marine mammal habitat); and • Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness. Visual Monitoring Marine mammal monitoring during pile driving activities must be conducted by PSOs meeting NMFS’ standards and in a manner consistent with the following: • Independent PSOs (i.e., not construction personnel) who have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods must be used; • At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization; • Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience; and • Where a team of three or more PSOs is required, a lead observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead observer must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer during construction. PSOs must have the following additional qualifications: • Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols; • Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors; • Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations; • Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including, but not limited to, the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior; and • Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Sep 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 During impact driving of all steel piles, and during vibratory removal of timber piles, WSDOT must have three PSOs stationed to monitor the project area: one at the construction site, one across Eagle Harbor looking toward the construction site, and one on board the Seattle-Bainbridge ferry. For vibratory driving of all steel piles, WSDOT must have five PSOs to monitor the project area: three at the locations described for impact pile driving, with one additional PSO stationed on the Seattle waterfront and one stationed on Alki Beach looking west toward Bainbridge Island. Monitoring must be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after all in water construction activities. In addition, observers must record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and must document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed. 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 30 minutes. Reporting A draft marine mammal monitoring report must be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for the project, or other projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The marine mammal report must include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report must include: • Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring; • Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including: (a) How many and what type of piles were driven or removed and the method (i.e., impact or vibratory); and (b) the total duration of time for each pile (vibratory driving) number of strikes for each pile (impact driving); • PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring; and • Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance. For each observation of a marine mammal, the following must be reported: PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 • Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and activity at time of sighting; • Time of sighting; • Identification of the animal(s) (e.g., genus/species, lowest possible taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO confidence in identification, and the composition of the group if there is a mix of species; • Distance and location of each observed marine mammal relative to the pile being driven or hole being drilled for each sighting; • Estimated number of animals (min/ max/best estimate); • Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, group composition, etc.); • Description of any marine mammal behavioral observations (e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling), including an assessment of behavioral responses thought to have resulted from the activity (e.g., no response or changes in behavioral state such as ceasing feeding, changing direction, flushing, or breaching); • Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment zones, by species; and • Detailed information about implementation of any mitigation (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of specified actions that ensued, and resulting changes in behavior of the animal(s), if any. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS’ comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments. All PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data must be submitted with the draft marine mammal report. In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, WSDOT must report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) (PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov), NMFS and to the West Coast Region (WCR) regional stranding coordinator as soon as feasible. If the death or injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, WSDOT must immediately cease the specified activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the incident and determine what, if any, additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms of the IHAs. WSDOT must not resume their activities until notified by NMFS. The report must include the following information: 1. Time, date, and location (latitude/ longitude) of the first discovery (and E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices updated location information if known and applicable); 2. Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved; 3. Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead); 4. Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive; 5. If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and 6. General circumstances under which the animal was discovered. Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any impacts or responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any impacts or responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, foraging impacts affecting energetics), 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’ 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 baseline (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels). Pile driving activities from the Bainbridge and Eagle Harbor Projects have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the project activities may result in take, in the form of Level A and Level B harassment, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individuals are present in the ensonified zone when these activities are underway. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Sep 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 The authorized takes from Level A and Level B harassment would be due to potential behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized given the nature of the activities and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for harassment is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures (see Mitigation section). To avoid repetition, the majority of our analysis applies to all the species listed in Table 3, given that the anticipated effects of these projects on different marine mammal stocks are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are special circumstances for a species or stock (e.g., gray whales), they are included as a separate subsection below. NMFS has identified key factors which may be employed to assess the level of analysis necessary to conclude whether potential impacts associated with a specified activity should be considered negligible. These include (but are not limited to) the type and magnitude of taking, the amount and importance of the available habitat for the species or stock that is affected, the duration of the anticipated effect to the species or stock, and the status of the species or stock. The following factors support negligible impact determinations for all affected stocks. Take by Level A harassment is authorized for three species (harbor seals, harbor porpoise, and Dall’s porpoise) to account for the possibility that an animal could enter a Level A harassment zone prior to detection, and remain within that zone for a duration long enough to incur PTS. Any take by Level A harassment is expected to arise from, at most, a small degree of PTS, i.e., minor degradation of hearing capabilities within regions of hearing that align most completely with the energy produced by impact pile driving (i.e. the low-frequency region below 2 kilohertz (kHz)), not severe hearing impairment or impairment within the ranges of greatest hearing sensitivity. Animals would need to be exposed to higher levels and/or longer duration than are expected to occur here in order to incur any more than a small degree of PTS. Two of the three species for which Level A harassment is authorized are high-frequency cetaceans (harbor porpoise and Dall’s porpoise), and the hearing ability of the third species for which Level A harassment is authorized (harbor seal) below 2 kHz is also poor (NMFS, 2018). Given the hearing ranges of these three species, PTS incurred at PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 58327 the low frequencies of pile driving noise would not interfere either with conspecific communication or echolocation, and therefore would not be expected to impact the survival or reproductive abilities of the affected individuals, let alone the stock or population. As described above, NMFS expects that marine mammals would likely move away from an aversive stimulus, especially at levels that would be expected to result in PTS, given sufficient notice through use of soft start. WSDOT is also required to shut down pile driving activities if marine mammals approach within hearing group-specific zones (see Table 14), further minimizing the likelihood and degree of PTS that would be incurred. Even absent mitigation, no serious injury or mortality from construction activities is anticipated or authorized. Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment in the form of behavioral disruption, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as avoidance, increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006). Most likely, individuals would simply move away from the sound source and temporarily avoid the area where pile driving is occurring. If sound produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are likely to simply avoid the area while the activities are occurring, particularly as the project is located in a busy harbor with high amounts of vessel traffic, including large ferry boats. We expect that any avoidance of the project areas by marine mammals would be temporary in nature and that any marine mammals that avoid the project areas during construction would not be permanently displaced. Short-term avoidance of the project areas and energetic impacts of interrupted foraging or other important behaviors is unlikely to affect the reproduction or survival of individual marine mammals, and the effects of behavioral disturbance on individuals is not likely to accrue in a manner that would affect the rates of recruitment or survival of any affected stock. Additionally, and as noted previously, some subset of the individuals that are behaviorally harassed could also simultaneously incur some small degree of TTS for a short duration of time. However, since the hearing sensitivity of individuals that incur TTS is expected to recover completely within minutes to hours, it E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 58328 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices is unlikely that the brief hearing impairment would affect the individual’s long-term ability to forage and communicate with conspecifics, and would therefore not likely impact reproduction or survival of any individual marine mammal, let alone adversely affect rates of recruitment or survival of the species or stock. The projects are also not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals’ habitats. The project activities will not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily 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 (with no known particular importance to marine mammals), the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences. Aside from the biologically important area (BIA) for gray whales described below, there are no known areas of importance for other marine mammals, such as feeding or pupping areas, in the project area. For all species and stocks, take would occur within a limited, relatively confined area (Eagle Harbor within central Puget Sound) of the stocks’ ranges. Given the availability of suitable habitat nearby, any displacement of marine mammals from the project areas is not expected to affect marine mammals’ fitness, survival, and reproduction due to the limited geographic area that will be affected in comparison to the much larger habitat for marine mammals in Puget Sound. Level A harassment and Level B harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse impact to the marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat through use of mitigation measures described herein. Some individual marine mammals in the project areas may be present and be subject to repeated exposure to sound from pile driving on multiple days. However, these individuals would likely return to normal behavior during gaps in pile driving activity. Eagle Harbor is a busy harbor and monitoring reports from previous in-water pile driving activities along the nearby Seattle waterfront (e.g., WSDOT, 2022) indicate that marine mammals continue to remain in the greater project area throughout pile driving activities. Therefore, any behavioral effects of repeated or long duration exposures are not expected to negatively affect VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Sep 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 survival or reproductive success of any individuals. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of an overall stock is unlikely to result in any effects on rates of reproduction and survival of the stock. Gray Whales Puget Sound is part of a BIA for migrating gray whales (Calambokidis et al., 2015). While Eagle Harbor is included in the BIA, gray whales typically remain further north in Puget Sound, primarily in the waters around Whidbey Island (Calambokidis et al., 2018). Gray whales are rarely observed in central Puget Sound, and have never been documented inside Eagle Harbor. Therefore, even though the project areas overlap with the BIA, the infrequent occurrence of gray whales suggests that the projects would have minimal, if any, impact on the migration of gray whales in the BIA, and would therefore not affect reproduction or survival. There is an ongoing UME for gray whales (see the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities section of the Federal Register notice of proposed IHA (87 FR 48623; August 10, 2022)). However, we do not expect the authorized takes to exacerbate or compound upon this ongoing UME. As noted previously, no Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality of gray whales is expected or authorized, and any Level B harassment takes of gray whales would most likely be in the form of behavioral disturbance. Preliminary findings from necropsied gray whales that are considered part of the ongoing UME have shown evidence of emaciation, suggesting that impacts to feeding would be of most concern. However, the project areas have not been identified as important for feeding of gray whales. Additionally, the project areas are not considered important for breeding gray whales. Therefore the projects are unlikely to disrupt any critical behaviors (e.g., feeding, mating) or have any effect on the reproduction or survival of gray whales, even in light of the ongoing UME. In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from these activities are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival: • No mortality or serious injury is anticipated or authorized for either project; • Level A harassment is not anticipated or authorized for 9 of the 12 species. For the other three species, Level A harassment would be in the form of a slight degree of PTS; PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 • Level B harassment would be in the form of behavioral disturbance, primarily resulting in avoidance of the project areas around where impact or vibratory pile driving is occurring, and some low-level TTS that may limit the detection of acoustic cues for relatively brief amounts of time in relatively confined footprint of the activities; • Nearby areas of similar habitat value within Puget Sound are available for marine mammals that may temporarily vacate the project areas during construction activities for both projects; • Effects on species that serve as prey for marine mammals from the activities are expected to be short-term and, therefore, any associated impacts on marine mammal feeding are not expected to result in significant or longterm consequences for individuals, or to accrue to adverse impacts on their populations from either project; • The number of authorized takes by Level B harassment is relatively low for all stocks for both projects; • The ensonified areas from both projects are very small relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species and stocks, and will not adversely affect ESA-designated critical habitat, or cause more than minor impacts in any BIAS or any other areas of known biological importance; • The lack of anticipated significant or long-term negative effects to marine mammal habitat from either project; • The efficacy of the mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activities on all species and stocks for both projects; and • Monitoring reports from similar work in Puget Sound that have documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species that could be impacted by the specified activities from both projects. Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks. Small Numbers As noted previously, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (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, E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices 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. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities. For all species and stocks other than killer whales from the West Coast Transient stock, the authorized take is below one-third of the stock abundance. The authorized take of transient killer whales, as a proportion of the stock abundance is 34.4 percent, if all takes are assumed to occur for unique individuals. In reality, it is unlikely that all takes would occur to different individuals. The project area represents a small portion of the stock’s overall range (from Alaska to California (Muto et al., 2019)) and based on sightings reports from the Orca Network, it is reasonable to expect that the same individual transient killer whales would be present within the project area on multiple days during the proposed activities. Therefore, it is more likely that there will be multiple takes of a smaller number of individuals within the project area, such that the number of individuals taken would be less than one-third of the population. Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks. Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Sep 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 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 whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species. No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action. 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 action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment. This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs 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 determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. Authorization As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to WSDOT for the potential harassment of small numbers of 12 marine mammal species incidental to the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal Overhead Loading Replacement Project and Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility Slip F Improvement Project in Bainbridge Island, Washington, that includes the previously explained mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. Dated: September 20, 2022. Kimberly Damon-Randall, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2022–20701 Filed 9–23–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 58329 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [RTID 0648–XC407] Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of SEDAR 74 Post-Data Workshop Discard Mortality Webinar II for Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper. AGENCY: The SEDAR 74 assessment of Gulf of Mexico red snapper will consist of a Data workshop, a series of assessment webinars, and a Review workshop. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. DATES: The SEDAR 74 Post-Data Workshop Discard Mortality Webinar II will be held Friday, October 14, 2022, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., Eastern. ADDRESSES: Meeting address: The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar. SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571– 4366; email: Julie.neer@safmc.net. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multistep process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58313-58329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20701]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XC362]

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to In-Water Construction at Two Ferry
Facilities on Bainbridge Island, Washington

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization
(IHA).

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an IHA to the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) Ferries Division to incidentally harass marine
mammals during two in-water construction projects on Bainbridge Island,
Washington: the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal Overhead Loading
Replacement Project and Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility Slip F
Improvement Project.

DATES: This authorization is effective from September 16, 2022 through
September 15, 2023.

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

The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. 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 proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions
of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the
relevant sections below.

Summary of Request

On February 15, 2022, NMFS received a request from WSDOT for an IHA
to take marine mammals incidental to the Bainbridge Island Ferry
Terminal Overhead Loading Replacement Project (the Bainbridge Project)
and Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility Slip F Improvement Projects (the
Eagle Harbor Project) in Bainbridge Island, Washington. The application
was deemed adequate and complete on July 25, 2022. WSDOT's request is
for take of 12 species of marine mammal by Level B harassment and, for
a subset of these species (harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), harbor
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides
dalli)), Level A harassment. Neither WSDOT nor NMFS expect serious
injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA
is appropriate.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

The WSDOT Ferries Division (WSF) operates and maintains 19 ferry
terminals and 1 maintenance facility, all of which are located in
either Puget Sound or the San Juan Islands. Two projects are planned to
be conducted: replacement of the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal
overhead loading structure and improvement of the Eagle Harbor
Maintenance Facility Slip F. Both of the projects are located within
Eagle Harbor on Bainbridge Island, Washington, would be completed
within the same in-water work season, would have overlapping ensonified
areas, and use the same information to estimate marine mammal takes.
Therefore, WSDOT submitted one application for a single IHA to cover
both projects.
The purpose of the Bainbridge Project is to replace the seismically
vulnerable timber trestle and fixed steel portions of the overhead
loading structure at the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal. The purpose
of the Eagle Harbor Project is to improve the maintenance efficiency of
the facility. The facility has six vessel slips whose purpose is to
maintain the WSF system's vessels.

Dates and Duration

Due to in-water work timing restrictions established by NMFS and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, construction in the projects area is
limited each year from August 1 through February 15. Both the
Bainbridge Project and the Eagle Harbor Project would be constructed
during the 2022 to 2023 in-water work season. For the Bainbridge
Project, in-water construction is expected to occur on up to 57 days
(Table 1). For the Eagle Harbor Project, in-water construction is
expected to occur on up to 31 days (Table 2).

Specific Geographic Region

Both projects are located within Eagle Harbor on Bainbridge Island,
Washington, approximately 9 miles (mi; 14.5 kilometers (km)) west of
Seattle, Washington. The Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility is
approximately 0.25 mi (0.4 km) southwest of the Bainbridge Island Ferry
Terminal. Eagle Harbor contains a mix of commercial docks, public
marinas, private docks, and undeveloped waterfront properties. The
harbor extends 2 mi (1.2 km) west from the mouth of the harbor, which
is approximately 900 feet (ft; 274.3 meters (m)) wide and is bounded by
Wing Point to the north and Bill Point to the south. A large underwater
sand bar extends to the southeast from Wing Point. Water

[[Page 58314]]

depths within Eagle Harbor are up to 50 ft (15.2 m) but outside the
harbor, water depths between Bainbridge Island and Seattle can be over
700 ft (213.4 m).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26SE22.000

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

Bainbridge Project
The proposed project elements for the Bainbridge Project include:
1. Using vibratory and impact hammers to install 31 24-inch (in)
steel pipe piles for 2 temporary work platforms to support construction
equipment;
2. Using vibratory and impact hammers to install four 24-in steel
pipe piles for a temporary walkway to maintain overhead loading
operations while the new walkway is constructed;
3. Using vibratory and impact hammers to install 14 30-in and 12
36-in steel pipe piles to support the new permanent walkway;
4. Using a vibratory hammer to remove 76 creosote-treated 12-in
timber piles and using a saw to cut one 4.5 ft (1.4 m) diameter
concrete drill shaft at the mudline that supported the existing
overhead loading walkway; and
5. Using a vibratory hammer to remove all steel pipe piles
installed for the temporary walkway and work platforms.

Table 1--Proposed Pile Driving for the Bainbridge Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile size and Number of Duration per Duration
Project element type Install or remove Method piles pile (minutes) Piles per day (days)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temporary work platform and 24-in Steel...... Install.......... Vibratory........ 39 30 4 10
temporary walkway.
Impact........... 39 30 4 10
Remove........... Vibratory........ 39 30 4 10
New Overhead Loading Structure. 24-in Steel...... Install.......... Vibratory........ 6 30 2 3
Impact........... 6 30 2 3
30-in Steel...... Install.......... Vibratory........ 4 30 2 2
Impact........... 4 30 2 2
36-in Steel...... Install.......... Vibratory........ 12 30 2 6
Impact........... 12 30 2 6
Old Overhead Loading Structure 12-in Timber..... Remove........... Vibratory........ 76 15 15 5
Removal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Temporary Piles Installed and Removed......................................... 39 .............. .............. ..............
Total Permanent Piles Installed..................................................... 26 .............. .............. ..............
Total Timber Piles Removed.......................................................... 76 .............. .............. ..............

[[Page 58315]]

Total Duration (days)............................................................... .............. .............. .............. 57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eagle Harbor Project
The proposed project elements for the Eagle Harbor Project include:
1. Using vibratory and impact hammers to install nine 24-in steel
pipe piles and two 3-in steel pipe piles to support a new trestle and
vehicle transfer span;
2. Using a vibratory hammer to install eight 36-in steel reaction
piles and four 36-in steel fender piles for two new steel wingwalls;
3. Using a vibratory hammer to install eight 30-in steel reaction
piles and two 36-in fender piles for two new fixed dolphins; and
4. Using a vibratory hammer to remove 186 12-in timber piles and 4
18-in steel pipe piles that supported existing walkways, timber pile
dolphins, and a U-float.

Table 2--Proposed Pile Driving for the Eagle Harbor Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration per
Project element Pile size and type Install or remove Method Number of pile Duration Rate per day Duration
piles (minutes) (hours) (days)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timber Walkway Pile Removal.......... 12-in Timber........... Remove................. Vibratory.............. 52 15 13 15 4
Timber Dolphin Removal............... 12-in Timber........... Remove................. Vibratory.............. 134 15 33.5 15 9
Temporary Relocated Float............ 18-in Steel............ Install................ Vibratory.............. 4 30 4 4 1
Remove................. 4 30 3 4 1
U-Float Removal...................... 18-in Steel............ Remove................. Vibratory.............. 4 30 4 4 1
Trestle and Transfer Span............ 24-in Steel............ Install................ Vibratory.............. 9 30 4.5 4 3
Impact................. 9 30 4.5 3 3
36-in Steel............ Install................ Vibratory.............. 2 30 1 4 1
Impact................. 2 30 1 3 1
Wingwall............................. 30-in Steel............ Install................ Vibratory.............. 8 30 4 4 2
36-in Steel............ Install................ Vibratory.............. 4 30 2 4 1
Intermediate Dolphin................. 30-in Steel............ Install................ Vibratory.............. 4 30 2 4 1
36-in Steel............ Install................ Vibratory.............. 1 30 5 4 1
Outer Dolphin........................ 30-in Steel............ Install................ Vibratory.............. 4 30 2 4 1
36-in Steel............ Install................ Vibratory.............. 2 30 1 4 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Piles Removed......................................................................................... 194 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Total Piles Installed....................................................................................... 38 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Total Duration (days)....................................................................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A detailed description of the planned construction project was
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (87 FR
48623; August 10, 2022). Since that time, no changes have been made to
the planned construction activities. Therefore, a detailed description
is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for
the description of the specific activity.
Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in
detail later in this document (please see Mitigation and Monitoring and
Reporting).

Comments and Responses

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to WSDOT was published
in the Federal Register on August 10, 2022 (87 FR 48623). That notice
described, in detail, WSDOT's activities, the marine mammal species
that may be affected by the activities, and the anticipated effects on
marine mammals. In that notice, we requested public input on the
request for authorization described therein, our analyses, the proposed
authorization, and any other aspect of the notice of proposed IHA, and
requested that interested persons submit relevant information,
suggestions, and comments. This proposed notice was available for a 30-
day public comment period.
During the public comment period, the United States Geological
Survey provided a letter stating that it had no comment. No other
comments were received.

Changes From the Proposed IHA to Final IHA

No changes have been made to the authorization itself, but NMFS has
added a clarification in Table 6 of this notice to note that the source
levels listed for impact pile driving are attenuated measurements, and
has corrected the reference for the source levels for impact pile
driving. See Table 6.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS
fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to
these descriptions, incorporated here by reference, instead of
reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population
trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports
(SARs; 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' website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 3 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
proposed to

[[Page 58316]]

be authorized for this activity, and summarizes information related to
the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR),
where known. 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' SARs). While no
serious injury or mortality is expected to occur, PBR and annual
serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included
here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks 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' 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
NMFS' U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs. All values presented in Table 3 are
the most recent available at the time of publication and are available
in the 2021 SARs (Carretta et al., 2022; Muto et al., 2022).

Table 3--Species Likely Impacted by the Specified Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 N Pacific...... -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 801 131
2016).
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
Minke whale..................... Balaenoptera California/Oregon/ -, -, N 915 (0.792, 509, 2018) 4.1 >= 0.59
acutorostrata. Washington.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Long-Beaked Common Dolphin...... Delphinus capensis..... California............. -, -, N 83,379 (0.216, 69,636, 668 >=29.7
2018).
Bottlenose Dolphin.............. Tursiops truncatus..... California Coastal..... -, -, N 453 (0.06, 346, 2011). 2.7 >=2.0
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin..... Lagenorhynchus California/Oregon/ -, -, N 34,999 (0.222, 29,090, 279 7
obliquidens. Washington. 2018).
Killer Whale.................... Orcinus orca........... West Coast Transient... -, -, N 349 \4\ (N/A, 349, 3.5 0.4
2018).
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor Porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena...... Washington Inland -, -, N 11,233 (0.37, 8,308, 66 >=7.2
Waters. 2015).
Dall's Porpoise................. Phocoenoides dalli..... California/Oregon/ -, -, N 16,498 (0.61, 10,286, 99 >=0.66
Washington. 2019).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
sea lions):
California Sea Lion............. Zalophus californianus. U.S.................... -, -, N 257,606 (N/A,233,515, 14,011 >320
2014).
Steller Sea Lion................ Eumetopias jubatus..... Eastern................ -, -, N 43,201 \5\ (see SAR, 2,592 112
43,201, 2017).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor Seal..................... Phoca vitulina......... Washington Northern -, -, N 11,036 \6\ (UNK, UNK, UND 9.8
Inland Waters. 1999).
Northern Elephant Seal.......... Mirounga angustirostris California Breeding.... -, -, N 187,386 (N/A, 85,369, 5,122 13.7
2013).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
\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.
\4\ Based on counts of individual animals identified from photo-identification catalogues. Surveys for abundance estimates of these stocks are conducted
infrequently.
\5\ Best estimate of pup and non-pup counts, which have not been corrected to account for animals at sea during abundance surveys.
\6\ The abundance estimate for this stock is greater than eight years old and is therefore not considered current. PBR is considered undetermined for
this stock, as there is no current minimum abundance estimate for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimates, as
these represent the best available information for use in this document.

As indicated above, all 12 species (with 12 managed stocks) in
Table 3 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the
degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. While humpback whales
(Megaptera novaeangliae) and killer whales from the Southern Resident
stock are known to occur in Puget Sound, in consideration of the
proposed requirements described in the Mitigation and Monitoring and
Reporting sections of this notice, WSDOT has determined that take of
these species is unlikely to occur and has therefore not requested take
of humpback whales or Southern Resident killer whales. NMFS has
concurred with

[[Page 58317]]

this determination and no take of these species is anticipated or
authorized.
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by
WSDOT's projects, including brief introductions to species and relevant
stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and
threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in
the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (87 FR 48623; August
10, 2022); since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the
status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions
are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for
these descriptions.

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. 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, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing
groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked
potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response
data, anatomical modeling, etc.). Note that no direct measurements of
hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (i.e.,
low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 4.

Table 4--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
(dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
(true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
(sea lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).

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 (2018) for a review of available information.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat

The effects of underwater noise from WSDOT's construction
activities have the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals
in the vicinity of the project areas. The Federal Register notice of
proposed IHA (87 FR 48623; August 10, 2022) included a discussion of
the effects of underwater noise from WSDOT's activities on marine
mammals and their habitat. That information and analysis is
incorporated by reference into the final IHA determination and is not
repeated here; please refer to the notice of proposed authorization (87
FR 48623; August 10, 2022).

Estimated Take

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized through the IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration
of ``small numbers,'' and the negligible impact determinations.
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 will primarily be by Level B harassment (in the
form of behavioral disturbance and temporary threshold shift (TTS)), as
use of the acoustic sources (i.e., vibratory or impact pile driving and
removal) have the potential to result in disruption of behavioral
patterns and cause a temporary loss in hearing sensitivity for
individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory
injury (Level A harassment) to result for porpoises and harbor seals
because predicted auditory injury zones are larger. The mitigation and
monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of the taking
to the extent practicable.
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the
authorized take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, 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) the number of days of activities. We note
that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to
provide an initial prediction of potential

[[Page 58318]]

takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take
estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous monitoring
results or average group size). Below, we describe the factors
considered here in more detail and present the authorized take numbers.

Acoustic Thresholds

NMFS recommends the use of 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 permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some
degree (equated to Level A harassment). Thresholds have also been
developed to identify the pressure levels above which animals may incur
different types of tissue damage (non-acoustic Level A harassment or
mortality) from exposure to pressure waves from explosive detonation.
Thresholds have also been developed identifying the received level of
in-air sound above which exposed pinnipeds would likely be behaviorally
harassed.
Level B Harassment--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 or exposure context (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty
cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the
source), the environment (e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area,
predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to
predict (e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021; Ellison et al., 2012).
Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to
use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized
acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of
behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-
mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB (referenced
to 1 micropascal (re 1 [mu]Pa)) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-
driving, drilling) and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for non-
explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent (e.g.,
scientific sonar) sources.
WSDOT's planned activities include the use of continuous (vibratory
hammer) and impulsive (impact hammer) sources, and therefore the 120
and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) thresholds are applicable.
Level A harassment--NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0)
(Technical Guidance, 2018) 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). WSDOT's
activities include the use of impulsive (impact hammer) and non-
impulsive (vibratory hammer) sources.
These thresholds are provided in the table below. The references,
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS' 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

Table 5--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has
a reference value of 1[mu]Pa\2\s. 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 are used in estimating the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
The sound field in the project areas is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project.
Marine mammals are expected to be affected by sound generated by the
primary components of the project (i.e., impact and vibratory pile
driving).
In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level
B harassment thresholds for the methods and piles being used in these
projects, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from previous pile driving
at the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal (impact installation of 24-in
steel piles) and Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility (impact installation
of 30-in steel piles), as well as pile driving at other locations
within Puget Sound to develop source levels for the various pile types,
sizes, and methods for the two projects (Table 6). A source level for
vibratory driving of 18-in steel piles is not available so it is
conservatively assumed to be equivalent to the source level for 24-in
steel piles.

[[Page 58319]]

Table 6--Expected Project Sound Source Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source level
Pile type and size (in) Method Source level (dB measurement Reference
re 1 [mu]Pa) distance (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12-in timber..................... Vibratory removal.. 152 dB rms......... 10 Greenbusch Group
(2018).
18-in and 24-in steel............ Vibratory 166 dB rms......... 10 WSDOT (2020) \1\.
installation and
removal.
30-in steel...................... Vibratory 176 dB rms......... 6 WSDOT (2020) \1\.
installation and
removal.
36-in steel...................... Vibratory 184 dB rms......... 10 WSDOT (2020) \1\.
installation.
24-in steel...................... Impact installation 206 dB peak, 179 dB 10 WSDOT (2020) \2\.
SEL, 195 dB rms.
30-in steel...................... Impact installation 194 dB peak, 182 dB 10 WSDOT (2020) \2\.
SEL, 184 dB rms.
36-in steel...................... Impact installation 205 dB peak, 178 dB 10 WSDOT (2020) \2\.
SEL, 191 dB rms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ WSDOT Biological Assessment Manual Table 7-15.
\2\ Bubble curtain-attenuated source levels from WSDOT Biological Assessment Manual Table 7-14.

Level B Harassment Zones

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an
acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary
with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition
and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:

TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2)

Where:

TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical spreading equals 15
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement

The recommended TL coefficient for most nearshore environments is
the practical spreading value of 15. This value results in an expected
propagation environment that would lie between spherical and
cylindrical spreading loss conditions, which is the most appropriate
assumption for WSDOT's planned activities in the absence of specific
modelling. The Level B harassment zones for WSDOT's planned activities
are shown in Table 7.

Level A Harassment Zones

The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more
technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a
duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User
Spreadsheet tool to accompany the Technical Guidance that can be used
to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in
conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict
potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions
included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate
that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be
overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of
potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool
offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more
sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For
stationary sources such as pile installation and removal, the optional
User Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine
mammal remained at that distance for the duration of the activity, it
would be expected to incur PTS. The isopleths generated by the User
Spreadsheet used the same TL coefficient as the Level B harassment zone
calculations (i.e., the practical spreading value of 15). Inputs used
in the User Spreadsheet (e.g., number of piles per day, duration and/or
strikes per pile) are presented in Tables 1 and 2, and the resulting
isopleths are reported below in Table 7.

Table 7--Level A Harassment and Level B Harassment Zones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment zone (m) Level B
Pile size/type Pile driving method -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- harassment
LF cetaceans MF cetaceans HF cetaceans Phocids Otariids zone (m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12-in timber...................... Vibratory removal... 4.1 0.4 6.1 2.5 0.2 \a\ 1,360
18-in steel....................... Vibratory 23.4 2.1 34.5 14.2 1.0 \a\ 11,659
installation/
removal.
24-in steel....................... Vibratory 27.1 2.4 40.1 16.5 1.2 \a\ 11,659
installation/
removal.
30-in steel....................... Vibratory 65.1 5.8 96.2 39.5 2.8 a b 32,470
installation/
removal.
36-in steel....................... Vibratory 485.1 43.0 717.2 294.9 20.7 a b 184,785
installation.
24-in steel....................... Impact installation. 784.8 27.9 934.8 420.0 30.6 \c\ 2,154
30-in steel....................... Impact installation. 1,359.6 48.4 1,619.5 727.6 53.0 \c\ 398
36-in steel....................... Impact installation. 795.9 28.3 948.0 425.9 31.0 \c\ 1,166
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Distance to 120 dB rms threshold.
\b\ Distance to Level B harassment threshold without obstruction; however for these projects, 13,345 m is the maximum in-water distance until land is
reached.
\c\ Distance to 160 dB rms threshold.

[[Page 58320]]

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and Estimation

In this section we provide information about the occurrence of
marine mammals, including density or other relevant information, that
will inform the quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably
likely to occur and proposed for authorization. Unless otherwise
specified, the term ``pile driving'' in this section, and all following
sections, may refer to either pile installation or removal. WSDOT first
estimated take for both projects using the areas ensonified above the
Level B harassment threshold and density estimates for marine mammals
in Puget Sound. Density estimates for all species except harbor
porpoises were from the U.S. Navy's Marine Species Density Database
(MSDD) for the Northwest Training and Testing (NWTT) Study Area (U.S.
Navy, 2019). For harbor porpoises, WSDOT used the density estimate from
Evenson (2016) as it was considered more conservative than the density
estimate for harbor porpoises from the NWTT MSDD. However, for all
species except harbor seals and harbor porpoises, WSDOT did not
consider the resulting take estimates to be realistic (i.e., either
over- or underestimated take). Instead, WSDOT compiled monitoring
results from pile driving between August 2017 and February 2021 at the
Seattle Ferry Terminal Multimodal Project at Colman Dock (WSDOT, 2021)
(Table 8). Because the Level B harassment zones from vibratory pile
driving at Colman Dock extended to or near the Bainbridge Island
shoreline, and because the Level B harassment zones from vibratory pile
driving at the Bainbridge Ferry Terminal and Eagle Harbor Maintenance
Facility extend to the Seattle shoreline, WSDOT considered the
monitoring results from the Seattle Multimodal Project to be the most
relevant and comprehensive sightings data available for the project
areas. Based on the Seattle Multimodal Project monitoring results,
WSDOT used their best professional judgement to estimate the number of
marine mammals that may be taken incidental to the planned activities.
NMFS has carefully reviewed WSDOT's analysis and concludes that it
represents an appropriate and accurate method for estimating incidental
take caused by WSDOT's activities.

Table 8--Marine Mammal Density and Sightings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Species Density/km\2\ Sightings sightings/day Maximum one- Take requested and
total (372 days) day sightings authorized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal................................... 3.91 1,939 5.21 43 Yes.
Northern Elephant Seal........................ 0.0\1\ 1 0.003 1 Yes.
California Sea Lion........................... 0.0152-0.2211 2,625 7.05 38 Yes.
Steller Sea Lion.............................. 0.0010-0.0478 100 0.27 10 Yes
Unidentified pinniped......................... N/A 118 N/A 9 N/A.
Killer Whale Southern Resident................ 0.000009-0.007828 297 0.80 26 No.
Killer Whale Transient........................ 0.001582-0.002373 47 0.13 20 Yes.
Gray Whale.................................... 0.000086 4 0.011 1 Yes.
Minke Whale................................... 0.00045 1 0.003 1 Yes.
Unidentified large whale...................... N/A 2 N/A 1 N/A.
Unidentified small whale...................... N/A 10 N/A 9 N/A.
Harbor Porpoise............................... 0.58 413 1.11 40 Yes.
Dall's Porpoise............................... 0.00045 8 0.02 5 Yes.
Pacific White-sided Dolphin................... 0.0 2 0.005 2 Yes.
Long-beaked Common Dolphin.................... 0.0 2 0.005 1 Yes.
Common Bottlenose Dolphin..................... 0.0 6 0.02 2 Yes.
Unidentified dolphin/porpoise................. N/A 42 N/A 5 N/A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gray Whale
WSDOT estimated that up to 20 Level B harassment takes of gray
whales could result from each project, for a total of 40 gray whale
takes by Level B harassment. In consideration of the infrequent
occurrence of gray whales in the project areas, the mitigation and
monitoring measures that WSDOT is required to comply with, including
marine mammal monitoring and coordination with Orca Network that would
alert WSDOT to the presence of large whales in the project area (see
Mitigation), and given the size and visibility of gray whales, WSDOT
will be able to detect gray whales and stop work before gray whales can
enter the Level A harassment zones. Therefore, it is unlikely that any
gray whales would be taken by Level A harassment. No take of gray
whales by Level A harassment is requested or authorized.
Minke Whale
WSDOT estimated that up to 20 Level B harassment takes of minke
whales could result from each project, for a total of 40 minke whale
takes by Level B harassment. Like gray whales, in consideration of the
infrequent occurrence of minke whales in the project areas, the
mitigation and monitoring measures that WSDOT is required to comply
with, including marine mammal monitoring and coordination with Orca
Network (see Mitigation), and given the size and visibility of minke
whales, WSDOT will be able to detect minke whales and stop work before
minke whales can enter the Level A harassment zones. Therefore, it is
unlikely that any minke whales would be taken by Level A harassment. No
take of minke whales by Level A harassment is requested or authorized.
Long-Beaked Common Dolphin
WSDOT estimated that up to 20 Level B harassment takes of long-
beaked common dolphins could result from each project, for a total of
40 long-beaked common dolphin takes by Level B harassment. The Level A
harassment zones for mid-frequency cetaceans are all less than 50 m.
Given the visibility of long-beaked common dolphins, WSDOT will be able
to cease pile driving before long-beaked common dolphins can enter the
Level A harassment zone. No take of long-beaked common dolphins by
Level A harassment is requested or authorized.
Bottlenose Dolphin
WSDOT estimated that up to 20 Level B harassment takes of
bottlenose

[[Page 58321]]

dolphins could result from each project, for a total of 40 bottlenose
dolphin takes by Level B harassment. The Level A harassment zones for
mid-frequency cetaceans are all less than 50 m. Given the visibility of
bottlenose dolphins, WSDOT will be able to cease pile driving before
bottlenose dolphins can enter the Level A harassment zone. No take of
bottlenose dolphins by Level A harassment is requested or authorized.
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
WSDOT estimated that up to 20 Level B harassment takes of Pacific
white-sided dolphins could result from each project, for a total of 40
Pacific white-sided dolphin takes by Level B harassment. The Level A
harassment zones for mid-frequency cetaceans are all less than 50 m.
Given the visibility of Pacific white-sided dolphins, WSDOT will be
able to cease pile driving before Pacific white-sided dolphins can
enter the Level A harassment zone. No take of Pacific white-sided
dolphins by Level A harassment is requested or authorized.
Killer Whale (Transient)
WSDOT estimated that up to 60 Level B harassment takes of transient
killer whales could result from each project, for a total of 120 killer
whale takes by Level B harassment. The Level A harassment zones for
mid-frequency cetaceans are all less than 50 m. Given the visibility of
killer whales, WSDOT will be able to cease pile driving before killer
whales can enter the Level A harassment zone. No take of killer whales
by Level A harassment is requested or authorized.
As stated above, no take of Southern Resident killer whales is
expected or authorized.
Harbor Porpoise
To estimate the number of harbor porpoises that may be taken by
Level B harassment from the two projects, WSDOT calculated the area
ensonified above the Level B harassment threshold for each pile size,
type, and method for both projects. WSDOT then multiplied the estimated
density of harbor porpoises in the area (0.58 per km\2\; Evenson 2016)
by the ensonified area and the expected days of work for each project
element (Table 9).

Table 9--Estimated Take of Harbor Porpoises by Level B Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bainbridge Eagle Harbor
takes by Level takes by Level
Bainbridge Bainbridge Eagle Harbor Eagle Harbor B harassment B harassment
Pile size, type, and method ensonified days of work ensonified days of work by pile size, by pile size,
area (km\2\) area (km\2\) type, and type, and
method method
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12-in timber vibratory.................................. 0.5 5 0.8 13 3 6
18-in steel vibratory................................... N/A 0 23.2 3 0 27
24-in steel vibratory................................... 2.3 2 23.2 3 3 40
30-in steel vibratory................................... 2.3 23 23.2 4 320 53
36-in steel vibratory................................... 2.3 6 23.2 4 84 53
24-in steel impact...................................... 0.9 13 0.87 3 17 2
30-in steel impact...................................... 0.4 2 N/A 0 3 0
36-in steel impact...................................... 0.9 6 0.87 1 8 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 298 183
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The areas ensonified above the Level A harassment threshold for
high-frequency cetaceans has been omitted from the areas ensonified
above the Level B harassment threshold presented in Table 9. For impact
installation of 30-in steel piles, the Level A harassment zone for
high-frequency cetaceans is approximately 1,620 m. To estimate the
number of harbor porpoises that may be present within the Level A
harassment zone, WSDOT used the average sightings rate from the Seattle
Multimodal Project at Colman Dock (0.691 harbor porpoises per day;
Table 8) multiplied by the days of impact pile driving expected for
each project (27 days for the Bainbridge Project and 8 days for the
Eagle Harbor Project) to estimate that 19 and 6 harbor porpoises may be
taken by Level A harassment from the Bainbridge Project and Eagle
Harbor Project, respectively. Therefore, WSDOT requested, and NMFS has
authorized, a total of 25 takes of harbor porpoises by Level A
harassment.
Dall's Porpoise
WSDOT estimated that up to 20 Level B harassment takes of Dall's
porpoises could result from each project, for a total of 40 Dall's
porpoise takes by Level B harassment.
For impact installation of 30-in steel piles, the Level A
harassment zone for high-frequency cetaceans is approximately 1,620 m.
Dall's porpoises are considered rare in the project area and are
unlikely to be present within the Level A harassment zones but WSDOT
conservatively estimates that no more than 5 Dall's porpoises could
enter the Level A harassment zones of each project. Therefore, WSDOT
requested, and NMFS has authorized, a total of 10 takes of Dall's
porpoises by Level A harassment.
California Sea Lion
Over the course of 372 days of monitoring for the Seattle
Multimodal Project at Colman Dock, the average number of California sea
lions observed per day was 7.05 (Table 8). WSDOT used that average
sightings rate multiplied by the days of work for each project (57 days
for the Bainbridge Project and 31 days for the Eagle Harbor Project) to
estimate that 402 and 219 California sea lions may be taken by Level B
harassment from the Bainbridge Project and Eagle Harbor Project,
respectively, for a total of 621 takes of California sea lions by Level
B harassment.
The largest Level A harassment zone for otariid pinnipeds is 53 m.
WSDOT would be required to implement a 60 m shutdown zone for otariids
for all pile driving activities. At that close range, WSDOT will be
able to detect California sea lions and implement the required shutdown
measures before California sea lions can enter the Level A harassment
zone. Therefore, no takes of California sea lions by Level A harassment
are requested or authorized.
Steller Sea Lion
WSDOT estimated that 180 Level B harassment takes of Steller sea
lions could result from each project, for a total of 360 Steller sea
lion takes by Level B harassment. The largest Level A

[[Page 58322]]

harassment zone for otariid pinnipeds is 53 m. WSDOT would be required
to implement a 60 m shutdown zone for otariids for all pile driving
activities. At that close range, WSDOT will be able to detect Steller
sea lions and implement the required shutdown measures before Steller
sea lions can enter the Level A harassment zone. Therefore, no takes of
Steller sea lions by Level A harassment are requested or authorized.
Harbor Seal
To estimate the number of harbor seals that may be taken by Level B
harassment from the two projects, WSDOT calculated the area ensonified
above the Level B harassment threshold for each pile size, type, and
method for both projects. WSDOT then multiplied the estimated density
of harbor seals in the area (3.91 per km\2\; Navy, 2019) by the
ensonified area and the expected days of work for each project element
(Table 10). In total, WSDOT estimates that 3,450 harbor seals may be
taken by Level B harassment.

Table 10--Estimated Take of Harbor Seals by Level B Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bainbridge Eagle Harbor
Bainbridge Bainbridge Eagle Harbor Eagle Harbor takes by pile takes by pile
Pile size, type, and method ensonified days of work ensonified days of work size, type, size, type,
area (km\2\) area (km\2\) and method and method
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12-in timber vibratory.................................. 1.5 5 1.6 13 30 81
18-in steel vibratory................................... N/A 0 24.1 3 0 188
24-in steel vibratory................................... 24.0 2 24.1 3 188 283
30-in steel vibratory................................... 24.0 23 24.1 4 2,158 377
36-in steel vibratory................................... 24.0 6 24.1 4 563 377
24-in steel impact...................................... 2.0 13 1.66 3 102 20
30-in steel impact...................................... 1.3 2 N/A 0 10 0
36-in steel impact...................................... 2.0 6 1.66 1 47 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 2,117 1,333
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The areas ensonified above the Level A harassment threshold for
phocid pinnipeds has been omitted from the areas ensonified above the
Level B harassment threshold presented in Table 10. For impact
installation of 30-in steel piles, the Level A harassment zone for
phocid pinnipeds is approximately 728 m. To estimate the number of
harbor seals that may be present within the Level A harassment zone,
WSDOT used the average sightings rate from the Seattle Multimodal
Project at Colman Dock (5.21 harbor seals per day; Table 8) multiplied
by the days of impact pile driving expected for each project (27 days
for the Bainbridge Project and 8 days for the Eagle Harbor Project) to
estimate that 141 and 42 harbor seals may be taken by Level A
harassment from the Bainbridge Project and Eagle Harbor Project,
respectively. Therefore, WSDOT requested, and NMFS has authorized, a
total of 183 takes of harbor seals by Level A harassment.
Northern Elephant Seal
Individual elephant seals have occasionally been reported in
central Puget Sound (e.g., Orca Network, 2020), but are considered rare
in the project areas. WSDOT estimated that up to 10 Level B harassment
takes of northern elephant seals could result from each project, for a
total of 20 northern elephant seal takes by Level B harassment. The
largest Level A harassment zone (728 m) occurs during impact
installation of 30-in steel pipe piles (Table 7). It is unlikely that
northern elephant seals would be found within this zone, and even more
unlikely that northern elephant seals would be found within the Level A
harassment zones for vibratory pile driving (up to 295 m). However,
even if northern elephant seals were encountered in the project areas,
at that close range, WSDOT will be able to detect them and implement
the required shutdown measures before any northern elephant seals can
enter the Level A harassment zones. Therefore, no take of northern
elephant seals by Level A harassment is requested or authorized.

[[Page 58323]]

Table 11--Authorized Take of Marine Mammals by Level A and Level B Harassment From the Bainbridge Project by
Species and Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized Authorized
Species Stock take by Level take by Level
B harassment A harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale.................................... Eastern North Pacific........... 20 0
Minke whale................................... California/Oregon/Washington.... 20 0
Killer whale.................................. West Coast Transient............ 60 0
Bottlenose dolphin............................ California Coastal.............. 20 0
Long-beaked common dolphin.................... California...................... 20 0
Pacific white-sided dolphin................... ................................ 20 0
Harbor porpoise............................... Washington Inland Waters........ 298 19
Dall's porpoise............................... California/Oregon/Washington.... 20 5
California sea lion........................... U.S............................. 402 0
Steller sea lion.............................. Eastern......................... 180 0
Northern elephant seal........................ California Breeding............. 10 0
Harbor seal................................... Washington Northern Inland 2,117 141
Waters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 12--Authorized Take of Marine Mammals by Level A and Level B Harassment From the Eagle Harbor Project by
Species and Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized Authorized
Species Stock take by Level take by Level
B harassment A harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale.................................... Eastern North Pacific........... 20 0
Minke whale................................... California/Oregon/Washington.... 20 0
Killer whale.................................. West Coast Transient............ 60 0
Bottlenose dolphin............................ California Coastal.............. 20 0
Long-beaked common dolphin.................... California...................... 20 0
Pacific white-sided dolphin................... ................................ 20 0
Harbor porpoise............................... Washington Inland Waters........ 183 6
Dall's porpoise............................... California/Oregon/Washington.... 20 5
California sea lion........................... U.S............................. 219 0
Steller sea lion.............................. Eastern......................... 180 0
Northern elephant seal........................ California Breeding............. 10 0
Harbor seal................................... Washington Northern Inland 1,333 42
Waters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 13--Total Authorized Take of Marine Mammals by Level A and Level B Harassment, by Species and Stock and
Percent of Take by Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized Authorized Total
Species Stock take by Level take by Level authorized Percent of
A harassment B harassment take stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale.................... Eastern North 0 40 40 0.2
Pacific.
Minke whale................... California/ 0 40 40 11.0
Oregon/
Washington.
Killer whale.................. West Coast 0 120 120 34.4
Transient.
Bottlenose dolphin............ California 0 40 40 8.8
Coastal.
Long-beaked common dolphin.... California...... 0 40 40 3.2
Pacific white-sided dolphin... California/ 0 40 40 0.2
Oregon/
Washington.
Harbor porpoise............... Washington 25 481 506 5.0
Inland Waters.
Dall's porpoise............... California/ 10 40 50 0.3
Oregon/
Washington.
California sea lion........... U.S............. 0 621 621 0.24
Steller sea lion.............. Eastern......... 0 360 360 0.83
Northern elephant seal........ California 0 20 20 0.01
Breeding.
Harbor seal................... Washington 183 3,450 3,633 32.9
Northern Inland
Waters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the 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 the
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)).

[[Page 58324]]

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, NMFS
considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost and impact on
operations.

Shutdown Zones

Before the commencement of in-water construction activities, WSDOT
must establish shutdown zones for all activities. The purpose of a
shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of
the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in
anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). Pile driving
would also not commence until all marine mammals are clear of their
respective shutdown zones. Shutdown zones are established in
consideration of the Level A harassment zones and therefore typically
vary based on the activity type and marine mammal hearing group.
However, rather than establishing different shutdown zones for each
hearing group for each project element, WSDOT proposed, and NMFS has
included in the authorization, simplified shutdown zones and only one
or two shutdown zones for each hearing group to implement across all
project elements (Table 14). For example, the 720 m shutdown zone for
low-frequency and high-frequency cetaceans for all vibratory pile
driving activities encompasses both the largest Level A harassment zone
for high-frequency cetaceans (717.2 m; see Table 7) and the largest
Level A harassment zone for low-frequency cetaceans (485.1 m; see Table
7). This conservatively protects animals in both hearing groups,
simplifies analysis and monitoring, and presents minimal risks to
implementing the project, as marine mammals in these hearing groups are
unlikely to be present within 720 m of the construction site during
pile driving activities. For impact pile driving, WSDOT must retain the
720 m shutdown zone for high-frequency cetaceans but increase the
shutdown zone for low-frequency cetaceans to 2,175 m which encompasses
the largest Level B harassment zone for impact pile driving, and is
also the required shutdown zone for preventing take of unauthorized
species (e.g., Southern Resident killer whales, humpback whales) (Table
14). The Level A harassment zones for high-frequency cetaceans from
impact pile driving are all greater than 720 m (Table 7), thus any
high-frequency cetacean that enters the Level A harassment zone beyond
720 m must be recorded as taken by Level A harassment.
At minimum, the shutdown zone for all hearing groups and all
activities is 10 m. For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile
driving (e.g., standard barges, etc.), if a marine mammal comes within
10 m, operations must cease and vessels must reduce speed to the
minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working
conditions. This type of work could include, for example, the movement
of the barge to the pile location or positioning of the pile on the
substrate via a crane.
WSDOT must also establish shutdown zones for all marine mammals for
which take has not been authorized or for which incidental take has
been authorized but the authorized number of takes has been met. These
zones are equivalent to the Level B harassment zones for each activity
(see Table 14).
WSDOT must also implement shutdown measures for Southern Resident
killer whales and humpback whales. If Southern Resident killer whales
or humpback whales are sighted within the vicinity of the project areas
and are approaching the Level B harassment zone (see Table 14), WSDOT
must shut down the pile driving equipment to avoid possible take of
these species. If a killer whale approaches the Level B harassment zone
during pile driving, and it is unknown whether it is a Southern
Resident killer whale or a transient killer whale, it must be assumed
to be a Southern Resident killer whale and WSDOT would implement the
shutdown measure.
If a Southern Resident killer whale, unidentified killer whale, or
humpback whale enters the Level B harassment zone undetected, in-water
pile driving must be suspended until the whale exits the Level B
harassment zone, or 15 minutes have elapsed with no sighting of the
animal, to avoid further Level B harassment.

Table 14--Shutdown Zones for the Bainbridge and Eagle Harbor Projects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shutdown zone (m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern
Resident killer
Pile type and method whales, humpback
LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocids Otariids whales, and other
unauthorized
species
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12-in timber vibratory............................... 720 60 720 60 60 2,175
18-in steel vibratory................................ 720 60 720 60 60 \a\ 13,345
24-in steel vibratory................................ 720 60 720 60 60 \a\ 13,345
30-in steel vibratory................................ 720 60 720 60 60 \a\ 13,345
36-in steel vibratory................................ 720 60 720 60 60 \a\ 13,345
24-in steel impact................................... 2,175 60 720 60 60 2,175
30-in steel impact................................... 2,175 60 720 60 60 2,175
36-in steel impact................................... 2,175 60 720 60 60 2,175
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 13,345 m is the maximum distance sound can travel before reaching land.

[[Page 58325]]

Protected Species Observers

The placement of protected species observers (PSOs) during all pile
driving activities (described in the Monitoring and Reporting section)
must ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible. Should
environmental conditions deteriorate such that the entire shutdown zone
would not be visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile driving must be
delayed until the PSO is confident marine mammals within the shutdown
zone could be detected.
Monitoring for Level A and Level B Harassment
PSOs must monitor the Level B harassment zones to the extent
practicable, and all of the Level A harassment zones. Monitoring zones
provide utility for observing by establishing monitoring protocols for
areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring zones enable observers
to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the
project areas outside the shutdown zones and thus prepare for a
potential cessation of activity should the animal enter the shutdown
zone.
Pre-Activity Monitoring
Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or
whenever a break in pile driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs
must observe the shutdown and monitoring zones for a period of 30
minutes. The shutdown zone is considered cleared when a marine mammal
has not been observed within the zone for that 30-minute period. If a
marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zones listed in Table 14,
pile driving activity must be delayed or halted. If pile driving is
delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity
must not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily
exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zones or 15
minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal. When a marine
mammal for which Level B harassment take is authorized is present in
the Level B harassment zone, activities may begin and Level B
harassment take must be recorded. If work ceases for more than 30
minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of the shutdown zones would
commence. 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).
Coordination With Local Marine Mammal Research Network
Prior to the start of pile driving for the day, the PSOs must
contact the Orca Network to find out the location of the nearest marine
mammal sightings. The Local Marine Mammal Research Network consists of
a list of over 600 (and growing) residents, scientists, and government
agency personnel in the United States and Canada. Sightings are called
or emailed into the Orca Network and immediately distributed to other
sighting networks including: the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science
Center, the Center for Whale Research, Cascadia Research, the Whale
Museum Hotline, and the British Columbia Sightings Network.
Sightings information collected by the Orca Network includes
detection by hydrophone. The SeaSound Remote Sensing Network is a
system of interconnected hydrophones installed in the marine
environment of Haro Strait (west side of San Juan Island) to study orca
communication, in-water noise, bottom fish ecology, and local climatic
conditions. A hydrophone at the Port Townsend Marine Science Center
measures average in-water sound levels and automatically detects
unusual sounds. These passive acoustic devices allow researchers to
hear when different marine mammals come into the region. This acoustic
network, combined with the volunteer visual sighting network allows
researchers to document presence and location of various marine mammal
species.

Soft Start

Soft-start procedures are used to provide additional protection to
marine mammals by providing warning and/or giving marine mammals a
chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full
capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors are required to provide
an initial set of three strikes from the hammer at reduced energy,
followed by a 30-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced-
energy strike sets. Soft start must be implemented at the start of each
day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact
pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer.

Bubble Curtain

A bubble curtain must be employed during impact installation or
proofing of steel piles, unless the piles are driven in the dry, or
water is less than 3 ft (0.9 m) in depth. A noise attenuation device is
not required during vibratory pile driving. If a bubble curtain or
similar measure is used, it must distribute air bubbles around 100
percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column.
Any other attenuation measure must provide 100 percent coverage in the
water column for the full depth of the pile. The lowest bubble ring
must be in contact with the mudline for the full circumference of the
ring. The weights attached to the bottom ring must ensure 100 percent
mudline contact. No parts of the ring or other objects may prevent full
mudline contact.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has 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.

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 while
conducting the activities. 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 activity; 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

[[Page 58326]]

cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple
stressors;
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Visual Monitoring

Marine mammal monitoring during pile driving activities must be
conducted by PSOs meeting NMFS' standards and in a manner consistent
with the following:
Independent PSOs (i.e., not construction personnel) who
have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods must be used;
At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the
duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued
incidental take authorization;
Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological
science or related field) or training for experience; and
Where a team of three or more PSOs is required, a lead
observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead
observer must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer
during construction.
PSOs must have the following additional qualifications:
Ability to conduct field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols;
Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including, but not limited to, the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation
of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required);
and marine mammal behavior; and
Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
During impact driving of all steel piles, and during vibratory
removal of timber piles, WSDOT must have three PSOs stationed to
monitor the project area: one at the construction site, one across
Eagle Harbor looking toward the construction site, and one on board the
Seattle-Bainbridge ferry. For vibratory driving of all steel piles,
WSDOT must have five PSOs to monitor the project area: three at the
locations described for impact pile driving, with one additional PSO
stationed on the Seattle waterfront and one stationed on Alki Beach
looking west toward Bainbridge Island.
Monitoring must be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30
minutes after all in water construction activities. In addition,
observers must record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence,
regardless of distance from activity, and must document any behavioral
reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed.
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 30 minutes.

Reporting

A draft marine mammal monitoring report must be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving activities, or 60
days prior to a requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for the
project, or other projects at the same location, whichever comes first.
The marine mammal report must include an overall description of work
completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and
associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal
monitoring;
Construction activities occurring during each daily
observation period, including: (a) How many and what type of piles were
driven or removed and the method (i.e., impact or vibratory); and (b)
the total duration of time for each pile (vibratory driving) number of
strikes for each pile (impact driving);
PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring; and
Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at
beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change
significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant
weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall
visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance.
For each observation of a marine mammal, the following must be
reported:
Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and
activity at time of sighting;
Time of sighting;
Identification of the animal(s) (e.g., genus/species,
lowest possible taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO confidence in
identification, and the composition of the group if there is a mix of
species;
Distance and location of each observed marine mammal
relative to the pile being driven or hole being drilled for each
sighting;
Estimated number of animals (min/max/best estimate);
Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, juveniles,
neonates, group composition, etc.);
Description of any marine mammal behavioral observations
(e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling), including an
assessment of behavioral responses thought to have resulted from the
activity (e.g., no response or changes in behavioral state such as
ceasing feeding, changing direction, flushing, or breaching);
Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment
zones, by species; and
Detailed information about implementation of any
mitigation (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of specified
actions that ensued, and resulting changes in behavior of the
animal(s), if any.
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft
report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a
final report addressing NMFS' comments must be submitted within 30 days
after receipt of comments. All PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data
must be submitted with the draft marine mammal report.
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, WSDOT must report the
incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR)
([email protected]), NMFS and to the West Coast Region
(WCR) regional stranding coordinator as soon as feasible. If the death
or injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, WSDOT must
immediately cease the specified activities until NMFS is able to review
the circumstances of the incident and determine what, if any,
additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms
of the IHAs. WSDOT must not resume their activities until notified by
NMFS.
The report must include the following information:
1. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and

[[Page 58327]]

updated location information if known and applicable);
2. Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
3. Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the
animal is dead);
4. Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
5. If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
6. General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.

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 impacts or responses (e.g., intensity, duration),
the context of any impacts or responses (e.g., critical reproductive
time or location, foraging impacts affecting energetics), 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' 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 baseline (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of
the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing
sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels).
Pile driving activities from the Bainbridge and Eagle Harbor
Projects have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals.
Specifically, the project activities may result in take, in the form of
Level A and Level B harassment, from underwater sounds generated from
pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individuals are present in
the ensonified zone when these activities are underway.
The authorized takes from Level A and Level B harassment would be
due to potential behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. No serious
injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized given the nature of
the activities and measures designed to minimize the possibility of
injury to marine mammals. The potential for harassment is minimized
through the construction method and the implementation of the planned
mitigation measures (see Mitigation section).
To avoid repetition, the majority of our analysis applies to all
the species listed in Table 3, given that the anticipated effects of
these projects on different marine mammal stocks are expected to be
relatively similar in nature. Where there are special circumstances for
a species or stock (e.g., gray whales), they are included as a separate
subsection below.
NMFS has identified key factors which may be employed to assess the
level of analysis necessary to conclude whether potential impacts
associated with a specified activity should be considered negligible.
These include (but are not limited to) the type and magnitude of
taking, the amount and importance of the available habitat for the
species or stock that is affected, the duration of the anticipated
effect to the species or stock, and the status of the species or stock.
The following factors support negligible impact determinations for all
affected stocks.
Take by Level A harassment is authorized for three species (harbor
seals, harbor porpoise, and Dall's porpoise) to account for the
possibility that an animal could enter a Level A harassment zone prior
to detection, and remain within that zone for a duration long enough to
incur PTS. Any take by Level A harassment is expected to arise from, at
most, a small degree of PTS, i.e., minor degradation of hearing
capabilities within regions of hearing that align most completely with
the energy produced by impact pile driving (i.e. the low-frequency
region below 2 kilohertz (kHz)), not severe hearing impairment or
impairment within the ranges of greatest hearing sensitivity. Animals
would need to be exposed to higher levels and/or longer duration than
are expected to occur here in order to incur any more than a small
degree of PTS. Two of the three species for which Level A harassment is
authorized are high-frequency cetaceans (harbor porpoise and Dall's
porpoise), and the hearing ability of the third species for which Level
A harassment is authorized (harbor seal) below 2 kHz is also poor
(NMFS, 2018). Given the hearing ranges of these three species, PTS
incurred at the low frequencies of pile driving noise would not
interfere either with conspecific communication or echolocation, and
therefore would not be expected to impact the survival or reproductive
abilities of the affected individuals, let alone the stock or
population.
As described above, NMFS expects that marine mammals would likely
move away from an aversive stimulus, especially at levels that would be
expected to result in PTS, given sufficient notice through use of soft
start. WSDOT is also required to shut down pile driving activities if
marine mammals approach within hearing group-specific zones (see Table
14), further minimizing the likelihood and degree of PTS that would be
incurred. Even absent mitigation, no serious injury or mortality from
construction activities is anticipated or authorized.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment in the
form of behavioral disruption, on the basis of reports in the
literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will
likely be limited to reactions such as avoidance, increased swimming
speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such
activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006). Most likely,
individuals would simply move away from the sound source and
temporarily avoid the area where pile driving is occurring. If sound
produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are
likely to simply avoid the area while the activities are occurring,
particularly as the project is located in a busy harbor with high
amounts of vessel traffic, including large ferry boats. We expect that
any avoidance of the project areas by marine mammals would be temporary
in nature and that any marine mammals that avoid the project areas
during construction would not be permanently displaced. Short-term
avoidance of the project areas and energetic impacts of interrupted
foraging or other important behaviors is unlikely to affect the
reproduction or survival of individual marine mammals, and the effects
of behavioral disturbance on individuals is not likely to accrue in a
manner that would affect the rates of recruitment or survival of any
affected stock.
Additionally, and as noted previously, some subset of the
individuals that are behaviorally harassed could also simultaneously
incur some small degree of TTS for a short duration of time. However,
since the hearing sensitivity of individuals that incur TTS is expected
to recover completely within minutes to hours, it

[[Page 58328]]

is unlikely that the brief hearing impairment would affect the
individual's long-term ability to forage and communicate with
conspecifics, and would therefore not likely impact reproduction or
survival of any individual marine mammal, let alone adversely affect
rates of recruitment or survival of the species or stock.
The projects are also not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitats. The project activities
will not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount
of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of
disturbance, thus temporarily 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 (with no known particular
importance to marine mammals), the impacts to marine mammal habitat are
not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
Aside from the biologically important area (BIA) for gray whales
described below, there are no known areas of importance for other
marine mammals, such as feeding or pupping areas, in the project area.
For all species and stocks, take would occur within a limited,
relatively confined area (Eagle Harbor within central Puget Sound) of
the stocks' ranges. Given the availability of suitable habitat nearby,
any displacement of marine mammals from the project areas is not
expected to affect marine mammals' fitness, survival, and reproduction
due to the limited geographic area that will be affected in comparison
to the much larger habitat for marine mammals in Puget Sound. Level A
harassment and Level B harassment will be reduced to the level of least
practicable adverse impact to the marine mammal species or stocks and
their habitat through use of mitigation measures described herein. Some
individual marine mammals in the project areas may be present and be
subject to repeated exposure to sound from pile driving on multiple
days. However, these individuals would likely return to normal behavior
during gaps in pile driving activity. Eagle Harbor is a busy harbor and
monitoring reports from previous in-water pile driving activities along
the nearby Seattle waterfront (e.g., WSDOT, 2022) indicate that marine
mammals continue to remain in the greater project area throughout pile
driving activities. Therefore, any behavioral effects of repeated or
long duration exposures are not expected to negatively affect survival
or reproductive success of any individuals. Thus, even repeated Level B
harassment of some small subset of an overall stock is unlikely to
result in any effects on rates of reproduction and survival of the
stock.

Gray Whales

Puget Sound is part of a BIA for migrating gray whales
(Calambokidis et al., 2015). While Eagle Harbor is included in the BIA,
gray whales typically remain further north in Puget Sound, primarily in
the waters around Whidbey Island (Calambokidis et al., 2018). Gray
whales are rarely observed in central Puget Sound, and have never been
documented inside Eagle Harbor. Therefore, even though the project
areas overlap with the BIA, the infrequent occurrence of gray whales
suggests that the projects would have minimal, if any, impact on the
migration of gray whales in the BIA, and would therefore not affect
reproduction or survival.
There is an ongoing UME for gray whales (see the Description of
Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities section of the
Federal Register notice of proposed IHA (87 FR 48623; August 10,
2022)). However, we do not expect the authorized takes to exacerbate or
compound upon this ongoing UME. As noted previously, no Level A
harassment, serious injury, or mortality of gray whales is expected or
authorized, and any Level B harassment takes of gray whales would most
likely be in the form of behavioral disturbance. Preliminary findings
from necropsied gray whales that are considered part of the ongoing UME
have shown evidence of emaciation, suggesting that impacts to feeding
would be of most concern. However, the project areas have not been
identified as important for feeding of gray whales. Additionally, the
project areas are not considered important for breeding gray whales.
Therefore the projects are unlikely to disrupt any critical behaviors
(e.g., feeding, mating) or have any effect on the reproduction or
survival of gray whales, even in light of the ongoing UME.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our determination that the impacts resulting from these
activities are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or
stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No mortality or serious injury is anticipated or
authorized for either project;
Level A harassment is not anticipated or authorized for 9
of the 12 species. For the other three species, Level A harassment
would be in the form of a slight degree of PTS;
Level B harassment would be in the form of behavioral
disturbance, primarily resulting in avoidance of the project areas
around where impact or vibratory pile driving is occurring, and some
low-level TTS that may limit the detection of acoustic cues for
relatively brief amounts of time in relatively confined footprint of
the activities;
Nearby areas of similar habitat value within Puget Sound
are available for marine mammals that may temporarily vacate the
project areas during construction activities for both projects;
Effects on species that serve as prey for marine mammals
from the activities are expected to be short-term and, therefore, any
associated impacts on marine mammal feeding are not expected to result
in significant or long-term consequences for individuals, or to accrue
to adverse impacts on their populations from either project;
The number of authorized takes by Level B harassment is
relatively low for all stocks for both projects;
The ensonified areas from both projects are very small
relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species and stocks, and
will not adversely affect ESA-designated critical habitat, or cause
more than minor impacts in any BIAS or any other areas of known
biological importance;
The lack of anticipated significant or long-term negative
effects to marine mammal habitat from either project;
The efficacy of the mitigation measures in reducing the
effects of the specified activities on all species and stocks for both
projects; and
Monitoring reports from similar work in Puget Sound that
have documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species
that could be impacted by the specified activities from both projects.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from
the planned activity will have a negligible impact on all affected
marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

As noted previously, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (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,

[[Page 58329]]

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. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken
is fewer than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is
considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative
factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or
spatial scale of the activities.
For all species and stocks other than killer whales from the West
Coast Transient stock, the authorized take is below one-third of the
stock abundance. The authorized take of transient killer whales, as a
proportion of the stock abundance is 34.4 percent, if all takes are
assumed to occur for unique individuals. In reality, it is unlikely
that all takes would occur to different individuals. The project area
represents a small portion of the stock's overall range (from Alaska to
California (Muto et al., 2019)) and based on sightings reports from the
Orca Network, it is reasonable to expect that the same individual
transient killer whales would be present within the project area on
multiple days during the proposed activities. Therefore, it is more
likely that there will be multiple takes of a smaller number of
individuals within the project area, such that the number of
individuals taken would be less than one-third of the population.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of
marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the
affected species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

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

Endangered Species Act

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species.
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected
to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that
formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this
action.

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 action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA) with respect
to potential impacts on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs 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 determined
that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.

Authorization

As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to
WSDOT for the potential harassment of small numbers of 12 marine mammal
species incidental to the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal Overhead
Loading Replacement Project and Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility Slip
F Improvement Project in Bainbridge Island, Washington, that includes
the previously explained mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements.

Dated: September 20, 2022.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-20701 Filed 9-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.