[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30406-30420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13870]



[[Page 30406]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XF870


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Service Pier Extension Project 
on Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, Washington

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given 
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 
the United States Department of the Navy (Navy) to incidentally harass, 
by Level A and Level B harassment, marine mammals during construction 
activities associated with the Service Pier Extension (SPE) project at 
Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, Washington.

DATES: This Authorization is effective from July 16, 2019 through July 
15, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Pauline, 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: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In case of problems accessing these 
documents, please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 
request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers 
of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity 
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region 
if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if 
the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed 
authorization is provided to the public for review.
    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS 
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings 
are set forth.
    NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as an 
impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably 
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival.
    The MMPA states that the term ``take'' means to harass, hunt, 
capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine 
mammal.
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering (Level B harassment).

Summary of Request

    On August 9, 2017, NMFS received a request from the Navy for an IHA 
to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal 
associated with planned construction of the SPE on Naval Base Kitsap 
Bangor, Washington. The application was deemed adequate and complete by 
NMFS on November 15, 2017.
    The Navy's request is for take by Level B harassment of four marine 
mammal species and Level A and Level B harassment of one species. 
Neither the Navy nor NMFS expect serious injury or immortality to 
result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

Description of Planned Activity

Overview

    The Navy is planning to extend the service pier to provide 
additional berthing capacity and improve associated facilities for 
existing homeported and visiting submarines at Naval Base Kitsap 
Bangor. The project includes impact and vibratory pile driving and 
vibratory pile removal. Sounds resulting from pile driving and removal 
may result in the incidental take of marine mammals by Level A and 
Level B harassment in the form of auditory injury or behavioral 
harassment. Naval Base Kitsap Bangor is located on Hood Canal 
approximately 20 miles (32 kilometers) west of Seattle, Washington. The 
in-water construction period for the planned action will occur over 12 
months. The issued IHA would be effective from July 16, 2019 through 
July 15, 2020 and cover two in-water work windows. A detailed 
description of the planned SPE project is provided in the Federal 
Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 10689; March 12, 2018). 
Since that time, no changes have been made to the planned pile driving 
and removal activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not 
provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the 
description of the specific activity.

Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to the Navy was 
published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2018 (83 FR 10689). That 
notice described, in detail, the Navy's activity, the marine mammal 
species that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated 
effects on marine mammals. During the 30-day public comment period, 
NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission, Whale and 
Dolphin Conservation (WDC), and private citizens.
    Comment: The Commission commented that the method NMFS used to 
estimate the numbers of takes during the proposed activities, which 
summed fractions of takes for each species across project days, does 
not account for and negates the intent of NMFS's 24-hour reset policy. 
The Commission understands that NMFS has developed rounding criteria 
and recommends that it be shared with the Commission.
    Response: NMFS will share the rounding criteria with the Commission 
following the completion of internal review and looks forward to 
discussing the issue with them in the future.
    Comment: The Commission requested clarification of certain issues 
associated with NMFS's notice that one-year renewals could be issued in 
certain limited circumstances and expressed concern that the renewal 
process, as proposed, would bypass the public notice and comment 
requirements. The Commission also suggested that NMFS should discuss 
the possibility of renewals through a more general route, such as a 
rulemaking, instead of notice in a specific authorization. The 
Commission further recommended that if NMFS did not pursue a more 
general route, that the agency provide the Commission and the public 
with a legal analysis supporting our conclusion that this process is 
consistent with the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA.

[[Page 30407]]

    Response: The process of issuing a renewal IHA does not bypass the 
public notice and comment requirements of the MMPA. The notice of the 
proposed IHA expressly notifies the public that under certain, limited 
conditions an applicant could seek a renewal IHA for an additional 
year. The notice describes the conditions under which such a renewal 
request could be considered and expressly seeks public comment in the 
event such a renewal is sought. Importantly, such renewals would be 
limited to where the activities are identical or nearly identical to 
those analyzed in the proposed IHA, monitoring does not indicate 
impacts that were not previously analyzed and authorized, and the 
mitigation and monitoring requirements remain the same, all of which 
allow the public to comment on the appropriateness and effects of a 
renewal at the same time the public provides comments on the initial 
IHA. NMFS has, however, modified the language for future proposed IHAs 
to clarify that all IHAs, including renewal IHAs, are valid for no more 
than one year and that the agency would consider only one renewal for a 
project at this time. In addition, notice of issuance or denial of a 
renewal IHA would be published in the Federal Register, as are all 
IHAs. Last, NMFS will publish on our website a description of the 
renewal process before any renewal is issued utilizing the new process.
    Comment: The Commission supports NMFS's use of the updated 
permanent threshold shift (PTS) thresholds and associated weighting 
functions that are used to estimate the Level A harassment zones. 
However, it feels there are some shortcomings that need to be addressed 
regarding the methodology for determining the extent of the Level A 
harassment zones based on the associated PTS cumulative sound exposure 
level (SEL<INF>cum</INF>) thresholds for the various types of sound 
sources, including stationary sound sources. The Commission does not 
question the Level A harassment thresholds themselves, but rather the 
manner in which the PTS SEL<INF>cum</INF> thresholds are currently 
implemented. The Level A and B harassment zones do not make sense 
biologically or acoustically due to NMFS's unrealistic assumption that 
the animals remain stationary throughout the entire day of the 
activity. The Commission believes that it would be prudent for NMFS to 
consult with scientists and acousticians to determine the appropriate 
accumulation time that action proponents should use to determine the 
extent of the Level A harassment zones based on the associated PTS 
SEL<INF>cum</INF> thresholds in such situations.
    Response: During the 2016 Technical Guidance's recent review, in 
accordance with E.O. 13795, NMFS received comments from multiple 
Federal agencies, including the Commission, recommending the 
establishment a working group to investigate more realistic means of 
approximating the accumulation period associated with sound exposure 
beyond the default 24-h accumulation period. Based on these comments, 
NMFS will be convening a working group to re-evaluate implementation of 
the default 24-h accumulation period and investigate means for deriving 
more realistic accumulation periods.
    Comment: The Commission recommended that NMFS encourage the Navy to 
reduce the sizes of its shutdown zones to ensure both that pinnipeds 
are sufficiently protected from Level A harassment and that the 
activities can be completed in an appropriate manner and within an 
appropriate timeframe.
    Response: NMFS consulted with the Navy who concurred that a 
reduction in zone sizes were appropriate. Additional details may be 
found in the Mitigation section of this notice.
    Comment: The WDC recommended that lead observers should be familiar 
with, or adequately trained on, the differences in appearance between 
southern resident and transient killer whales and be able to 
immediately report the presence of southern resident orcas should they 
enter or approach Hood Canal.
    Response: The Navy reports that qualified monitors would be 
familiar with differences in appearance between resident and transient 
killer whales.
    Comment: The WDC recommended that the Navy install a hydroacoustic 
system to detect the presence of marine mammals at or near the entrance 
to Hood Canal, in order to monitor for southern resident killer whales, 
which tend to be more vocally active than transient killer whales.
    Response: NMFS does not believe that a hydroacoustic system is 
necessary since southern resident killer whales have not occurred in 
Hood Canal. Additionally, due to the use of Orca network, marine mammal 
monitoring measures, and the high amount of attention that Southern 
resident killer whale movements receive, NMFS is confident that the 
Navy will be able to detect southern resident killer whale presence 
near the Hood Canal Bridge.
    Comment: A comment from the public stated that there is not enough 
scientific data available on hearing impairment in marine mammals 
resulting from the proposed activities to make any type of 
determination. They also felt that there is a lack of scientific 
understanding of the potential effects of the project on the species in 
the surrounding area and that too many assumptions were made by NMFS in 
the analysis.
    Response: The Potential Impacts section of the notice of proposed 
IHA (83 FR 10689; March 12, 2018) described numerous studies that have 
examined the effects of underwater sound on marine mammal, as well as 
those in the Technical Guidance that was directly used to assess noise-
induced hearing loss. While not all marine mammal species have been 
subject to studies examining hearing and impacts of noise on hearing, 
enough data has been collected to identify specific marine mammal 
hearing groups as not all marine mammals have equal hearing 
capabilities or susceptibility to noise-induced hearing loss. Current 
hearing data (collected via direct behavioral and electrophysiological 
measurements) and predictions (based on inner ear morphology, modeling, 
behavior, vocalizations, or taxonomy) allow for individual species to 
be placed in specific hearing groups and develop composite audiograms 
for each hearing group. From composite audiograms, weighting functions 
associated with each hearing group, along with data on noise-induced 
hearing loss (i.e., acoustic thresholds), can be applied to predict the 
exposures at which animals could suffer permanent hearing impairment.
    NMFS uses the best available science to make determinations on the 
potential impacts of underwater noise on marine mammals. When specific 
data on a given topic or variable is not available, NMFS must make 
assumptions in order to conduct an analysis. In many instances, such 
assumptions are based on scenarios or conditions that existed at 
locations where NMFS had previously issued incidental take 
authorizations.
    Comment: A private citizen comment noted NMFS fails to specify the 
use of a hydraulic or an electrical hammer during pile driving, and 
that the determination, or meaningful ``assumptions,'' of how 
significantly marine mammals will be affected by frequency and 
amplitude cannot be successful if the variation between the two 
hammering techniques is not taken into account. NMFS also did not 
define or have set criteria for the term problematic geotechnical 
conditions.
    Response: NMFS is unaware of any data indicating a difference in 
frequency and/or amplitude between hydraulic and electric hammers 
during pile

[[Page 30408]]

driving. Problematic geotechnical conditions refers to any situation in 
which the use of a vibratory driver is insufficient to drive a pile to 
its required depth.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information 
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and 
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. 
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be 
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/) and more general information about these species (e.g., physical 
and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's website 
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/).
    Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
Hood Canal and summarizes information related to the population or 
stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential 
biological removal (PBR), where known. An expected potential was 
defined as species with any regular occurrence in Hood Canal since 
1995. Note that while not observed on a consistent basis, west coast 
transient killer whales have been recorded intermittently in Hood Canal 
with the most recent sightings occurring in 2016 as described below. 
They have also been recorded remaining in the area for extended 
periods. As such, they have been listed as one of the species for which 
authorized take has been requested. For taxonomy, we follow Committee 
on Taxonomy (2017). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of 
animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a 
marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its 
optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no 
mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious 
injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as 
gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. Pacific 
Marine Mammal SARs (Carretta et al., 2016) or Alaska Marine Mammal SARs 
(Muto et al., 2016). All values presented in Table 1 are the most 
recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 
2016 SARs (Carretta et al., 2016, Muto et al., 2016) (available online 
at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm).

                                                          Table 1--Species Authorized for Take
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         ESA/ MMPA status;   Stock abundance (CV,
               Species                    Scientific name               Stock             strategic (Y/N)      Nmin, most recent       PBR     Annual M/
                                                                                                \1\          abundance survey) \2\               SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Family Delphinidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer whale........................  Orcinus orca...........  West coast transient...  -; N                243 (n/a; 243, 2009)          2.4          0
                                                                                                             \4\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise.....................  Phocoena phocoena        Washington inland        -; N                11,233 (0.37; 8,308;           66      >=7.2
                                       vomerina.                waters.                                      2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion.................  Zalophus californianus.  U.S....................  -; N                296,750 (n/a; 153,337;      9,200        389
                                                                                                             2011).
Steller sea lion....................  Eumetopias jubatus       Eastern U.S............  -; N                41,638 (n/a; 41,638;        2,498        108
                                       monteriensis.                                                         2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Family Phocidae (earless seals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal.........................  Phoca vitulina           Hood Canal.............  -; N                1,088 (0.15; unk;             unk        0.2
                                       richardii.                                                            1999) \4\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
  stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
  commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
  associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ Abundance estimates for these stocks are greater than eight years old and are therefore not considered current. PBR is considered undetermined for
  these stocks, as there is no current minimum abundance estimate for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimates,
  as these represent the best available information for use in this document.

    A detailed description of the of the species likely to be affected 
by the SPE project, including brief introductions to the 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 (83 FR 
10689; March 12, 2018); 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. Please also refer to NMFS' 
website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/) for generalized species 
accounts.

[[Page 30409]]

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    The effects of underwater noise from pile driving and removal 
activities for the SPE project have the potential to result in 
behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action 
area. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 10689; 
March 12, 2018) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic 
noise on marine mammals. The project would not result in permanent 
impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, such as haulout 
sites, but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources such 
as forage fish and minor impacts to the immediate substrate during 
installation and removal of piles during the SPE project. These 
potential effects are discussed in detail in the Federal Register 
notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 10689; March 12, 2018) therefore 
that information is not repeated here; please refer to that Federal 
Register notice for that information.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
authorization through this IHA, which informs both NMFS' consideration 
of whether the number of takes is ``small'' and the negligible impact 
determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent 
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as pile 
driving has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral 
patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential 
for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result for the harbor seal, 
due to larger predicted auditory injury zones and regular presence 
around the waterfront area. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for 
mid-frequency cetaceans, high frequency cetaceans or otariid species 
due to small predicted zones. The planned mitigation and monitoring 
measures are expected to minimize the severity of such 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 
take is estimated.
    Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: 
(1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available 
science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur 
some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of 
water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the 
density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; 
and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these 
components in more detail and present the authorized take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    NMFS uses acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of 
underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably 
expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or 
to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
    Level B Harassment--Though significantly driven by received level, 
the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure 
is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the 
source (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment 
(e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to 
predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2011). NMFS uses a 
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the 
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are 
likely to be behaviorally affected in a manner we consider Level B 
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above 
received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g. 
vibratory pile-driving) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-
explosive impulsive (e.g., impact pile driving).
    Level A harassment--NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the 
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical 
Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury 
(Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on 
hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two 
different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). The Navy's 
planned activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) 
and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving and extraction) sources.
    These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the 
best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both 
the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are 
provided in Table 2. The references, analysis, and methodology used in 
the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical 
Guidance, which may be accessed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.

[[Page 30410]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JN18.000

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds.
    Pile driving will generate underwater noise that potentially could 
result in disturbance to marine mammals swimming by the project area. 
Transmission loss (TL) underwater is the decrease in acoustic intensity 
as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source until the 
source becomes indistinguishable from ambient sound. TL parameters vary 
with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and 
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition 
and topography. A standard sound propagation model, the Practical 
Spreading Loss model, was used to estimate the range from pile driving 
activity to various expected SPLs at potential project structures. This 
model follows a geometric propagation loss based on the distance from 
the driven pile, resulting in a 4.5 dB reduction in level for each 
doubling of distance from the source. In this model, the SPL at some 
distance away from the source (e.g., driven pile) is governed by a 
measured source level, minus the TL of the energy as it dissipates with 
distance. The TL equation is:
    TL = 15log10(R<INF>1</INF>/R<INF>2</INF>)

Where

TL is the transmission loss in dB,
R<INF>1</INF> is the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven 
pile, and
R<INF>2</INF> is the distance from the driven pile of the initial 
measurement.

    The degree to which underwater noise propagates away from a noise 
source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably by the water 
bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive 
conditions including the sea surface and sediment type. The TL model 
described above was used to calculate the expected noise propagation 
from both impact and vibratory pile driving, using representative 
source levels to estimate the zone of influence (ZOI) or area exceeding 
the noise criteria.

Source Levels

    For the analyses that follow, the TL model described above was used 
to calculate the expected noise propagation from pile driving, using an 
appropriate representative source level from Table 3 to estimate the 
area exceeding the noise criteria. The source levels were derived from 
the Navy's document titled Proxy source sound levels and potential 
bubble curtain attenuation for acoustic modeling of nearshore marine 
pile driving at Navy installations in Puget Sound (Navy 2015). In that 
document the Navy reviewed relevant data available for various types 
and sizes of piles typically used for pile driving and recommend

[[Page 30411]]

proxy source values for Navy installations in Puget Sound. This 
document may be found as Appendix B in the Navy's application.

                                  Table 3--Underwater Noise Source Levels Modeled for Impact and Vibratory Pile Driving
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           SEL (dB re 1
                Pile type                      Installation method                Pile diameter            RMS (dB re 1    Peak (dB re 1    [mu]Pa \2\
                                                                                                              [mu]Pa)         [mu]Pa)          sec)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timber...................................  Vibratory..................  15-18 in (38-45 cm).............         155 \1\             N/A             N/A
Concrete.................................  Impact.....................  18 in (45 cm)...................             170             184             159
Steel....................................  Impact.....................  24 in (60 cm)...................             193             210             181
                                                                        36 (90 cm)......................             194             211             181
                                           Vibratory..................  24 (60 cm)......................             161             N/A             N/A
                                                                        36 (90 cm)......................             166             N/A             N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Navy opted to use conservative value of 155 dB for project
Key: cm = centimeter; dB re 1 [mu]Pa = decibels referenced at 1 micropascal; N/A = not applicable; RMS = root mean square; SEL = sound exposure level.

    For vibratory pile driving distances to the PTS thresholds, the TL 
model described above incorporated the auditory weighting functions for 
each hearing group using a single frequency as described in the NMFS 
Optional Spreadsheet (NMFS, 2016b). When NMFS' Technical Guidance 
(2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/
volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the 
duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a User 
Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that 
can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to 
help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions 
included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that 
isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some 
degree, which may result in some degree of overestimate of Level A 
take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate 
isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not 
available. NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine 
these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where 
appropriate. For stationary sources, including pile driving, NMFS User 
Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which a marine mammal, if 
it remained beyond that distance the whole duration of the activity, 
would not incur PTS.
    For impact pile driving distances to the cumulative PTS thresholds 
for 36-inch (90 cm) and 24-inch (60 cm) steel and concrete pile, the TL 
model described above incorporated frequency weighting adjustments by 
applying the auditory weighting function over the entire 1-second SEL 
spectral data sets from impact pile driving. The Navy believes, and 
NMFS concurs, that this methodology provides a closer estimate than 
applying the weighting function at a single frequency as suggested in 
the NMFS Spreadsheet. The NMFS Spreadsheet is considered to be a 
conservative method that typically results in higher estimates of the 
PTS onset distance from the pile driving activity. The Navy analysis 
focused on the data provided from the Naval Kitsap Bangor Test Pile 
Program (steel piles) and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Intermediate 
Maintenance Facility Pier 6 Fender Pile Replacement Project (concrete 
piles) (Grebner et al., 2016). This analysis is described in more 
detail in the Appendix in the application.
    An unconfined bubble curtain will be used during impact driving of 
steel piles, since the project is located in an area without high 
currents. While bubble curtain performance is variable, data from the 
Bangor Naval Base Test Pile Program indicated an average peak SPL 
reduction of 8 dB to 10 dB at 10 meters was achieved for impact driving 
of 36- and 48-inch steel pipes (Navy 2015). However, for the SPE 
project, a reduction of 8 dB was utilized as shown in Table 4.

                                                             Table 4--Inputs for Determining Distances to Cumulative PTS Thresholds
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       36'' Steel impact            24'' Steel impact         18'' Concrete  impact     24'' Steel  vibratory    36'' Steel  vibratory            Timber
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             INPUTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spreadsheet Tab Used............  (E.1-2) Impact pile driving  (E.1-2) Impact pile driving  (E.1-2) Impact pile        (A.1) Vibratory pile     (A.1) Vibratory pile     (A.1) Vibratory pile
                                                                                             driving.                   driving.                 driving.                 driving.
Source Level (Single Strike/shot  173 dB (assumes 8 dB         173 dB (assumes 8 dB         159 dB...................
 SEL).                             attenuation) *.              attenuation) *.
Source Level (RMS SPL)..........  ...........................  ...........................  .........................  161 dB.................  166 dB.................  155
Weighting Factor Adjustment       Weighting override (Grebner  Weighting override (Grebner  Weighting override         2.5....................  2.5....................  2.5
 (kHz) **.                         et al. 2016).                et al. 2016).                (Grebner et al. 2016).
Number of strikes per day.......  1600.......................  1600.......................  1600.....................
Number of piles per day within    2..........................  1..........................  3........................
 24-h period.
Duration of sound Production      ...........................  ...........................  .........................  300....................  300....................  300
 (minutes).
Propagation (xLogR).............  15.........................  15.........................  15.......................  15.....................  15.....................  15

[[Page 30412]]

 
Distance of source level          10.........................  10.........................  10.......................  10.....................  10.....................  10
 measurement (meters).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 8 dB reduction from use of unconfined bubble curtain during steel pipe impact driving.
** For impact driving, the TL model described above incorporated frequency weighting adjustments by applying the auditory weighting function over the entire 1-second SEL spectral data sets.


 Table 5--Calculated Radial Distances (meters) to Underwater Marine Mammal Impact Pile Driving Noise Thresholds-
                                               SELCUM Isopleths 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Level A isopleths--impact driving 2
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                   Source type                                         High-
                                                   Mid-frequency     frequency        Phocid          Otariid
                                                     cetaceans       cetaceans       pinnipeds       pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18-in concrete 3................................               2              74              19               1
24-in steel 4...................................               5             253              34               2
36-in steel 4...................................              14             740             217              12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1 Calculations based on SELCUM threshold criteria shown in Table 4.
Calculated values were rounded up the nearest meter.
2 Representative spectra were used to calculate the distances to the injury (PTS onset) thresholds for each
  functional hearing group for 24-inch and 36-inchsteel pile and 24-inch (60 cm) concrete pile. Distances for 18-
  inch (45 cm) concrete piles assumed to be the same as 24-inch (60 cm) concrete piles.
3 No bubble curtain planned for concrete pile.
4 Bubble curtain will be used for 24-inch (60 cm) and 36-inch (90 cm) steel piles, and calculations include 8 dB
  attenuation


 Table 6--Calculated Radial Distances (meters) to Level A Underwater Marine Mammal Vibratory Pile Driving Noise
                                                    Isopleths
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Level A isopleths--vibratory driving 1
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                   Source type                                         High-
                                                   Mid-frequency     frequency        Phocid          Otariid
                                                     cetaceans       cetaceans       pinnipeds       pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15-18-in timber.................................              <1              12               5              <1
24-in steel.....................................               2              30              12               1
36-in steel.....................................               4              64              26             1.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1 Distances to the injury (PTS onset) thresholds calculated using National Marine Fisheries Service calculator
  with default Weighting Factor Adjustment of 2.5 (NMFS, 2016b).
Calculated values were rounded up the nearest meter.

    Tables 5 and 6 show the radial distances to impact and vibratory 
Level A isopleths. Based on the dual criteria provided in the NMFS 
Spreadsheet, the cumulative SEL was selected over peak threshold to 
calculate injury thresholds because the ensonified distances were 
larger.
    Using the same source level and transmission loss inputs discussed 
above the Level B isopleths were calculated for impact and vibratory 
driving (Table 7). Note that these attenuation distances are based on 
sound characteristics in open water. The actual attenuation distances 
are constrained by numerous land features and islands; these actual 
distances are reflected in the ensonified areas given below.

  Table 7--Level B Impact and Vibratory Pile Driving Exposure Distances
                          and Ensonified Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Attenuation
             Pile type                 distance            Area *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Impact (160 dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18-in concrete....................            46 m  6.64 m\2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-in steel.......................           464 m  0.62 km\2\.
36-in steel.......................           541 m  0.78 km\2\.
                           Vibratory (120 dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15-18-in timber...................          2.2 km  6.8 km\2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 30413]]

 
24-in steel.......................          5.4 km  26.1 km\2\.
36-in steel.......................         11.7 km  49.6 km\2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Areas were adjusted wherever land masses are encountered prior to
  reaching the full extent of the radius around the driven pile.

Marine Mammal Occurrence

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take 
calculations.
    Transient killer whales are rare in Hood Canal and there are few 
data to describe transient killer whale abundance within Hood Canal. 
There have been anecdotal accounts of the whales in Hood Canal for 
decades. There was a report from one day in April 2016 and eight days 
in May 2016 of whales in Dabob Bay in Hood Canal (Orca Network, 2016). 
It is not known if these sightings were all of the same group of 
transient killer whales. However, the temporally discontinuous data 
suggest a high degree of variability in the habitat use and localized 
relative abundances of transient killer whales in Hood Canal. Given 
that whales were observed on eight days, in May 2016, NMFS will assume 
that whales could be observed on up to 8 days during the SPE project. 
The most commonly observed group size in Puget Sound from 2004 to 2010 
was 6 whales (Navy 2017).
    Harbor porpoises may be present in Puget Sound year-round typically 
in groups of one to five individuals and are regularly detected in Hood 
Canal. Aerial surveys conducted throughout 2013 to 2015 in Puget Sound 
indicated density in Puget Sound was 0.91 individuals/km\2\) (95% 
CI=0.72-1.10, all seasons pooled) and density in Hood Canal was 0.47/
km\2\ (95% CI=0.29-0.75, all seasons pooled) (Jefferson et al., 2016). 
However, after reviewing the most recent data the Navy has estimated 
that harbor porpoise density in Hood Canal is 0.44 animals/km\2\ 
(Smultea et al., 2017). Mean group size of harbor porpoises in Puget 
Sound in the 2013-2015 surveys was 1.7 in Hood Canal.
    Steller sea lions are routinely seen hauled out on submarines at 
Naval Base Kitsap. The Navy relied on monitoring data from 2012 to 2016 
to determine the average of the maximum count of hauled out Steller sea 
lions for each month in the in-water work window (Appendix A). The 
average of the monthly maximum counts during the in-water work window 
was 3.14.
    California sea lions can occur at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor in any 
month, although numbers are low from June through August (Appendix A in 
the application).
    California sea lions peak abundance occurs between October and May 
(NMFS, 1997; Jeffries et al., 2000) but animals can occur at Naval Base 
Kitsap Bangor in any month. The Navy relied on monitoring data from 
2012 to 2016 to determine the average of the maximum count of hauled 
out California sea lions for each month (Appendix A). The Navy 
determined abundance of California sea lions based on the average 
monthly maximum counts during the in-water work window (Appendix A), 
respectively, for an average maximum count of 48.85 animals.
    Boat-based surveys and monitoring indicate that harbor seals 
regularly swim in the waters at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor (Appendix A in 
Application). Hauled-out adults, mother/pup pairs, and neonates have 
been documented occasionally, but quantitative data are limited. 
Incidental surveys in August and September 2016 recorded as many as 28 
harbor seals hauled out under Marginal Wharf or swimming in adjacent 
waters. Additional animals were likely present at other locations 
during the same time of the surveys. To be conservative, the Navy 
estimated that an additional 7 animals were present based on typical 
sightings at the other piers at Bangor. Therefore, the Navy and NMFS 
assume that up to 35 seals could occur near the SPE project area on any 
given day.

Take Calculation and Estimation

    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
    To quantitatively assess exposure of marine mammals to noise levels 
from pile driving over the NMFS threshold guidance, one of three 
methods was used depending on the species spatial and temporal 
occurrence. For species with rare or infrequent occurrence during the 
in-water work window, the likelihood of occurrence was reviewed based 
on the information in Chapter 3 of the application and the potential 
maximum duration of work days and total work days. Only one species was 
in this category, transient killer whale, and it had the potential to 
linger for multiple days based on historical information. The 
calculation was:

(1) Exposure estimate = Probable abundance during construction x 
Probable duration

Where:

Probable abundance = maximum expected group size
Probable duration = probable duration of animal(s) presence at 
construction sites during in-water work window

    For species that regularly occur in Puget Sound, but for which 
local abundance data are not available, marine mammal density estimates 
were used when available to determine the number of animals potentially 
exposed in a ZOI on any one day of pile driving or extraction. Only 
harbor porpoise was in this category.
    The equation for this species with only a density estimate and no 
site-specific abundance was:

(2) Exposure estimate = N x ZOI x maximum days of pile driving

Where:

N = density estimate used for each species
ZOI = Zone of Influence; the area where noise exceeds the noise 
threshold value

    For species with site-specific surveys available, exposures were 
estimated by:

(3) Exposure estimate = Abundance x maximum days of pile driving

Where:

Abundance = average monthly maximum over the time period when pile 
driving will occur for sea lions, and estimated total abundance for 
harbor seals

    All three pinniped species were in this category. Average monthly 
maximum counts of Steller sea lions and California sea lions (see 
Appendix A for abundance data of these species) were averaged over the 
in-water work window. The maximum number of animals observed during the 
month(s) with the highest number of animals present on a survey day was 
used in the analysis. For harbor seals, an abundance estimate for the 
Bangor waterfront was used.
    The following assumptions were used to calculate potential 
exposures to impact and vibratory pile driving noise for each 
threshold.
    <bullet> For formulas (2) and (3), each species will be assumed to 
be present in

[[Page 30414]]

the project area each day during construction. The timeframe for 
takings would be one potential take (Level B harassment exposure) per 
individual, per 24 hours.
    <bullet> The pile type, size, and installation method that produce 
the largest ZOI were used to estimate exposure of marine mammals to 
noise impacts. Vibratory installation of 36-inch (90 cm) steel piles 
created the largest ZOI, so the exposure analysis calculates marine 
mammal exposures based on 36-inch steel piles for the 125 days when 
steel piles would be installed. For the estimated 35 days when concrete 
fender piles would be installed, impact driving was the only 
installation method and only 18-inch piles were proposed, so the 
exposure analysis calculated marine mammal exposures based on impact 
driving 18-inch concrete piles.
    <bullet> All pilings will have an underwater noise disturbance 
distance equal to the pile that causes the greatest noise disturbance 
(i.e., the piling farthest from shore) installed with the method that 
has the largest ZOI. If vibratory pile driving would occur, the largest 
ZOI will be produced by vibratory driving. In this case, the ZOI for an 
impact hammer will be encompassed by the larger ZOI from the vibratory 
driver. Vibratory driving was assumed to occur on all 125 days of steel 
pile driving, but not the 35 days of concrete fender pile installation.
    <bullet> Days of pile driving were conservatively based on a 
relatively slow daily production rate, but actual daily production 
rates may be higher, resulting in fewer actual pile driving days. The 
pile driving days are used solely to assess the number of days during 
which pile driving could occur if production was delayed due to 
equipment failure, safety, etc. In a real construction situation, pile 
driving production rates would be maximized when possible.

Transient Killer Whale

    Using the first calculation described in the above section, 
exposures to underwater pile driving were calculated using the average 
group size times the 8 days transient killer whales would be 
anticipated in the Hood Canal during pile driving activities. The Navy 
assumed that the average pod size was six individuals.
    Using this rationale, 48 potential Level B exposures of transient 
killer whales from vibratory pile driving are estimated (six animals 
times 8 days of exposure). Based on this analysis, the Navy requested 
and NMFS has authorized 48 Level B incidental takes for behavioral 
harassment. Concrete and steel ZOIs from impact driving will be fully 
monitorable (maximum distances to behavioral thresholds of 46 m and 541 
m, respectively, and maximum distance to injury thresholds is 14 m), so 
no killer whale behavioral or injury takes are expected from impact 
driving.

Harbor Porpoise

    Applying formula (2) to the animal density (0.44 animals/km\2\), 
the largest ZOI for Level B exposure (49.6 km\2\) and the estimated 
days of steel pile driving (125), the Navy requested and NMFS has 
authorized 2,728 Level B incidental takes of harbor porpoises. The 49.6 
km\2\ ZOI excludes the area behind the PSB because harbor porpoise have 
never been observed within the barrier. Harbor porpoise can be visually 
detected to a distance of about 200 m by experienced observers in 
conditions up to Beaufort 2 (Navy 2017). Therefore, the concrete ZOIs 
will be fully monitorable (maximum distance of 46 m), so no takes were 
calculated for the estimated 35 days of concrete fender pile 
installation.

Steller Sea Lion

    Formula (3) as described in the previous section was used with 
site-specific abundance data to calculate potential exposures of 
Steller sea lions during steel pile driving for the SPE project. 
Animals could be exposed when traveling, resting, and foraging. Because 
a Level A injury shut-down zone will be implemented, Level A harassment 
is not expected to occur.
    The Navy conservatively assumes that any Steller sea lion that 
hauls out at Bangor could swim into the behavioral harassment zone each 
day during pile driving because this zone extends across Hood Canal and 
up to 11.7 km from the driven pile. The Navy estimated 3.14 animals 
could be exposed to harassment per day. These values provide a worst 
case assumption that on all 125 days of pile driving, all animals would 
be in the water each day during pile driving. Applying formula (3) to 
this abundance and the 125 steel pile driving days, the Navy requested 
and NMFS authorized the take of up to 393 Steller sea lions. If project 
work occurs during months when Steller sea lions are less likely to be 
present, actual exposures would be less. Additionally, if daily pile 
driving duration is short, exposure would be expected to be less 
because some animals would remain hauled out for the duration of pile 
driving. With a shutdown zone of 15 meters, Level B take is also 
anticipated to occur during 35 days of concrete fender pile 
installation. NMFS assumed that 3.14 animals would be exposed per day 
in the small Level B zone associated with impact driving of concrete 
piles resulting in 110 takes. Any exposure of Steller sea lions to pile 
driving noise will be minimized to short-term behavioral harassment. 
Therefore, NMFS has authorized the Level B take of 503 Steller sea 
lions.

California Sea Lion

    Formula (3) was used with site-specific abundance data to calculate 
potential exposures of California sea lions during pile driving for the 
SPE project. Because a Level A injury shut-down zone will be 
implemented, no exposure to Level A noise levels will occur at any 
location. Based on site-specific data regarding the average maximum 
counts, the Navy assumes that 48.85 exposures per day could occur over 
125 planned steel pile driving days resulting in 6,106 exposures. With 
a shutdown zone of 15 meters, Level B take is also anticipated to occur 
during 35 days of concrete fender pile installation. NMFS assumed that 
48.85 animals would be exposed per day in the small Level B zone 
associated with impact driving of concrete piles resulting in 1,710 
takes. Any exposure of Steller sea lions to pile driving noise will be 
minimized to short-term behavioral harassment. Therefore, NMFS has 
authorized 7,816 Level B takes.

Harbor Seal

    The Navy calculated up to 35 harbor seals may be present per day 
during summer and early fall months. Exposure of harbor seals to pile 
driving noise will be primarily in the form of short-term behavioral 
harassment (Level B) during steel and concrete pile driving. Formula 
(3) was used with site-specific abundance data to calculate potential 
exposures of harbor seals due to pile driving for the SPE.
    The Navy assumes that any harbor seal that hauls out at Bangor 
could swim into the behavioral harassment zone each day during impact 
pile driving. The largest ZOI for behavioral disturbance (Level B) 
would be 11.7 km for vibratory driving and extraction of 36-inch steel 
piles. Applying formula (3) to the abundance of this species (35 
individuals) and the 125 pile driving days, results in 4,375 takes 
Level B takes. With a shutdown zone of 35 meters Level B take is also 
anticipated to occur during 35 days of concrete fender pile 
installation. NMFS assumed that 35 animals would be exposed per day in 
the small Level B zone associated with impact driving of concrete piles 
resulting in 1,225 takes.

[[Page 30415]]

    The largest ZOI for Level A injury will be 217 m for impact driving 
(with bubble curtain) of 36-inch steel piles. A monitors' ability to 
observe the entire 217 m injury zone may be difficult because 
construction barges and the current Service Pier structure and 
associated mooring floats and vessels will interfere with a monitors' 
ability to observe the entire injury zone. Some individuals could 
enter, and remain in, the injury zone undetected by monitors, resulting 
in potential PTS. It is assumed that one of the 35 individuals present 
on the Bangor waterfront would enter, and remain in, the injury zone 
without being detected by marine mammal monitors each day during steel 
impact driving. Therefore, with 125 steel pile driving days and one 
individual per day being exposed to Level A noise levels, 125 Level A 
takes of harbor seals are authorized by NMFS. With a shutdown zone of 
35 meters Level B take is also anticipated to occur during 35 days of 
concrete fender pile installation. NMFS assumed that 35 animals would 
be exposed per day in the small Level B zone associated with impact 
driving of concrete piles resulting in an additional 1,225 Level B 
takes. Therefore, NMFS has authorized 5,600 Level B takes
    It should be noted that Level A takes of harbor seals would likely 
be multiple exposures of the same individuals, rather than single 
exposures of unique individuals. This request overestimates the likely 
Level A exposures because: (1) Seals are unlikely to remain in the 
Level A zone underwater long enough to accumulate sufficient exposure 
to noise resulting in PTS, and (2) the estimate assumes that new seals 
are in the Level A ZOI every day during pile driving. No Level A takes 
are requested for vibratory pile driving because the maximum harbor 
seal injury zone is 26 m and is within a practicable shutdown distance. 
It is important to note that the estimate of potential Level A 
harassment of harbor seals is expected to be an overestimate, since the 
planned project is not expected to occur near Marginal Wharf--the 
location where most harbor seal activity occurs.
    Table 8 provides a summary of authorized Level A and Level B takes 
as well as the percentage of a stock or population authorized for take.

                         Table 8--Authorized Take and Percentage of Stock or Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Authorized take
                             Species                             --------------------------------  % population
                                                                      Level A         Level B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer whale....................................................               0              48            19.7
Harbor porpoise.................................................               0           2,728            24.3
Steller sea lion................................................               0             503             1.2
California sea lion.............................................               0           7,816             2.6
Harbor seal.....................................................             125           5,600             n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS 
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to 
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic 
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such 
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 
216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. 
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being 
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the 
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented 
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as 
planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability 
implemented as planned) and;
    (2) the practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
    In addition to the specific measures described later in this 
section, the Navy would conduct briefings between construction 
supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and Navy staff 
prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel 
join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication 
procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational 
procedures.
    Use of Vibratory Installation--The Navy will employ vibratory 
installation to the greatest extent possible when driving steel piles 
to minimize high sound pressure levels associated with impact pile 
driving. Impact driving of steel piles will only occur when required by 
geotechnical conditions or to ``proof'' load-bearing piles driven by 
vibratory methods.
    Timing Restrictions--To minimize the number of fish exposed to 
underwater noise and other construction disturbance, in-water work will 
occur during the in-water work window previously described when ESA-
listed salmonids are least likely to be present (USACE, 2015), July 16-
January 15.
    All in-water construction activities will occur during daylight 
hours (sunrise to sunset) except from July 16 to September 15, when 
impact pile driving will only occur starting 2 hours after sunrise and 
ending 2 hours before sunset, to protect foraging marbled murrelets 
during the nesting season (April 15-September 23). Sunrise and sunset 
are to be determined based on National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration data, which can be found at http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/sunrise.html.
    Use of Bubble Curtain--A bubble curtain will be employed during 
impact installation or proofing of steel piles where water depths are 
greater than 0.67 m (2 ft). A noise attenuation device is not required 
during vibratory pile driving. If a bubble curtain or similar measure 
is used, it will distribute air bubbles around 100 percent of the 
piling

[[Page 30416]]

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 shall be in contact with 
the mudline for the full circumference of the ring. The weights 
attached to the bottom ring shall ensure 100 percent mudline contact. 
No parts of the ring or other objects shall prevent full mudline 
contact.
    A performance test of the bubble curtain shall be conducted prior 
to initial use for impact pile driving. The performance test shall 
confirm the calculated pressures and flow rates at each manifold ring. 
The contractor shall also train personnel in the proper balancing of 
air flow to the bubblers. The contractor shall submit an inspection/
performance report to the Navy for approval within 72 hours following 
the performance test. Corrections to the noise attenuation device to 
meet the performance stands shall occur prior to use for impact 
driving.
    Soft-Start--The use of a soft start procedure is believed to 
provide additional protection to marine mammals by warning or providing 
a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full 
capacity, and typically involves a requirement to initiate sound from 
the hammer at reduced energy followed by a 30 second waiting period, 
then two subsequent reduced energy strike sets. (The reduced energy of 
an individual hammer cannot be quantified because it varies by 
individual drivers. Also, the number of strikes will vary at reduced 
energy because raising the hammer at less than full power and then 
releasing it results in the hammer ``bouncing'' as it strikes the pile, 
resulting in multiple ``strikes.'')
    A soft-start procedure will be used for impact pile driving at the 
beginning of each day's in-water pile driving or any time impact pile 
driving has ceased for more than 30 minutes.
    Establishment of Shutdown Zones and Disturbance Zones--For all 
impact and vibratory pile driving of steel piles, shutdown and 
disturbance zones will be established and monitored. The Navy will 
focus observations within 1,000 m for all species during these 
activities but will record all observations. During impact driving of 
concrete piles the Navy will focus on monitoring within 100 m but will 
record all observations. The Navy will monitor and record marine mammal 
observations within zones and extrapolate these values across the 
entirety of the Level B zone as part of the final monitoring report. To 
the extent possible, the Navy will record and report on any marine 
mammal occurrences, including behavioral disturbances, beyond 1,000 m 
for steel pile installation and 100 m for concrete pile installation.
    The shutdown zones are based on the distances from the source 
predicted for each threshold level. Although different functional 
hearing groups of cetaceans and pinnipeds were evaluated, the threshold 
levels used to develop the disturbance zones were selected to be 
conservative for cetaceans (and therefore at the lowest levels); as 
such, the disturbance zones for cetaceans were based on the high 
frequency threshold (harbor porpoise). The shutdown zones are based on 
the maximum calculated Level A radius for pinnipeds and cetaceans 
during installation of 36-inch steel and concrete piles with impact 
techniques, as well as during vibratory pile installation and removal. 
These actions serve to protect marine mammals, allow for practical 
implementation of the Navy's marine mammal monitoring plan and reduce 
the risk of a take. The shutdown zone during any non-pile driving 
activity will always be a minimum of 10 m (33 ft) to prevent injury 
from physical interaction of marine mammals with construction 
equipment. Note that in the notice of proposed IHA (83 FR 10689: March 
12, 2018), the Navy had requested and NMFS proposed larger shutdown 
zones than those authorized as depicted below. The shutdown zones were 
reduced to more closely align with the Level A isopleths shown in 
Tables 5 and 6. Reducing zone size should minimize shutdown occurrences 
caused by entry of animals into Level A zones. Excessive shutdowns 
caused by the originally proposed zones could negatively affect SPE 
project schedule without decreasing the risk of auditory injury to 
marine mammals.
    During all pile driving, the shutdown, Level A, and Level B zones 
as shown in Tables 9, 10, and 11 will be monitored out to the greatest 
extent possible with a focus on monitoring within 1,000 m for steel 
pile and 100 m for concrete pile installation.
    For steel pile impact pile driving, monitors would initiate 
shutdown when harbor seals approach or enter the zone. However, because 
of the size of the zone and the inherent difficulty in monitoring 
harbor seals, a highly mobile species, it may not be practical, which 
is why Level A take is requested.
    The isopleths delineating shutdown, Level A, and Level B zones 
during impact driving of all steel piles are shown in Table 10. Note 
that the Level A isopleth is larger than the Level B isopleth for 
harbor porpoises.

             Table 9--Shutdown, Level A, and Level B Isopleths During Impact Driving of Steel Piles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Level B         Level A
                       Marine mammal group                           isopleth        isopleth      Shutdown zone
                                                                     (meters)        (meters)        (meters)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cetaceans.......................................................             541             740             750
Harbor Seal.....................................................             541             217             220
Sea Lions.......................................................             541              12              15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The isopleths for the shutdown, Level A, and Level B zones during 
vibratory driving of all steel piles are shown in Table 11.

             Table 10--Shutdown, Level A, Level B Isopleths During Vibratory Driving of Steel Piles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Level B         Level A
                       Marine mammal group                           isopleth        isopleth      Shutdown zone
                                                                     (meters)        (meters)        (meters)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cetaceans.......................................................          11,700              64             100
Harbor Seal.....................................................          11,700              26              30

[[Page 30417]]

 
Sea Lions.......................................................          11,700              12              15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The shutdown, Level A, and Level B isopleths for implementation 
during impact driving of concrete piles are shown in Table 11. Given 
that the shutdown zone for all authorized species is larger than the 
Level A and Level B isopleths there should be no take recorded during 
concrete pile driving.

           Table 11--Shutdown, Level A, and Level B Isopleths During Impact Driving of Concrete Piles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Level B         Level A
                       Marine mammal group                           isopleth        isopleth      Shutdown zone
                                                                     (meters)        (meters)        (meters)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cetaceans.......................................................              46              74             100
Harbor Seal.....................................................              46              19              35
Sea Lions.......................................................              46               1              15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note that the radii of the disturbance zones may be adjusted if in-
situ acoustic monitoring is conducted by the Navy to establish actual 
distances to the thresholds for a specific pile type and installation 
method. However, any planned acoustical monitoring plan must be pre-
approved by NMFS. The results of any acoustic monitoring plan must be 
reviewed and approved by NMFS before the radii of any disturbance zones 
may be revised.
    The mitigation measures described above should reduce marine 
mammals' potential exposure to underwater noise levels which could 
result in injury or behavioral harassment. Based on our evaluation of 
the applicant's planned measures, as well as other measures considered 
by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the planned mitigation measures 
provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the 
affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular 
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance.

Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to 
the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
planned action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance 
as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required 
monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
    <bullet> Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density);
    <bullet> Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
    <bullet> Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
    <bullet> How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks;
    <bullet> Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat); and
    <bullet> Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Visual Monitoring

    Marine mammal monitoring will include the following requirements.
    Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) will be positioned at the best 
practicable vantage points, taking into consideration security, safety, 
and space limitations. During pile driving, one MMO will be stationed 
in a vessel, and at least four will be stationed on the pier, along the 
shore, or on the pile driving barge to maximize observation coverage. 
Each MMO location will have a minimum of one dedicated MMO (not 
including boat operators). There will be be 3-5 MMOs working depending 
on the location, site accessibility and line of sight for adequate 
coverage. Additional standards required for visual monitoring include:
    (a) Independent observers (i.e., not construction personal) are 
required;
    (b) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer;
    (c) Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree 
in biological science or related field) or training for experience;
    (d) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one 
observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring 
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer; and
    Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will 
monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when 
applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. 
Qualified observers are trained biologists, with the following minimum 
qualifications:
    (a) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) 
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface 
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars 
may be necessary to correctly identify the target;

[[Page 30418]]

    (b) Advanced education in biological science or related field 
(undergraduate degree or higher required);
    (c) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and 
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic 
experience);
    (d) Experience or training in the field identification of marine 
mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
    (e) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations;
    (f) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations 
including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals 
observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were 
conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were 
suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound 
of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine 
mammal behavior; and
    (g) 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.
    MMOs will survey the disturbance zone 15 minutes prior to 
initiation of pile driving through 30 minutes after completion of pile 
driving to ensure there are no marine mammals present. 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). Marine Mammal Observation Record forms 
(Appendix A of the application) will be used to document observations. 
Survey boats engaged in marine mammal monitoring will maintain speeds 
equal to or less than 10 knots.
    MMOs will use binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously 
for marine mammals and will have a means to communicate with each other 
to discuss relevant marine mammal information (e.g., animal sighted but 
submerged with direction of last sighting). MMOs will have the ability 
to correctly measure or estimate the animals distance to the pile 
driving equipment such that records of any takes are accurate relevant 
to the pile size and type.
    Shutdown shall occur if a species for which authorization has not 
been granted or for which the authorized numbers of takes have been 
met. The Navy shall then contact NMFS within 24 hours.
    If marine mammal(s) are present within or approaching a shutdown 
zone prior to pile driving, the start of these activities will be 
delayed until the animal(s) have left the zone voluntarily and have 
been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone, or 15 minutes has 
elapsed without re-detection of the animal.
    If animal is observed within or entering the Level B zone during 
pile driving, a take would be recorded, behaviors documented. However, 
that pile segment would be completed without cessation, unless the 
animal approaches or enters the shutdown Zone, at which point all pile 
driving activities will be halted. The MMOs shall immediately radio to 
alert the monitoring coordinator/construction contractor. This action 
will require an immediate ``all-stop'' on pile operations. Once a 
shutdown has been initiated, pile driving will be delayed until the 
animal has voluntarily left the Shutdown Zone and has been visually 
confirmed beyond the Shutdown Zone, or 15 minutes have passed without 
re-detection of the animal (i.e., the zone is deemed clear of marine 
mammals).
    All marine mammals observed within the disturbance zones during 
pile driving activities will be recorded by MMOs. These animals will be 
documented as Level A or Level B takes as appropriate. Additionally, 
all shutdowns shall be recorded. For vibratory driving activities, this 
data will be extrapolated across the full extent of the Level B 
ensonified zone (i.e. 11.7 km radii) to provide total estimated take 
numbers.
    A draft marine mammal monitoring report would be submitted to NMFS 
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal 
activities. It will include an overall description of work completed, a 
narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated marine 
mammal observation data sheets. Specifically, the report must include 
information as described in the Marine Mammal Monitoring Report 
(Appendix D of the application).
    If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft 
final 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.
    In the unanticipated event that: (1) The specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA 
(if issued), such as an injury, serious injury or mortality; (2) an 
injured or dead animal is discovered and cause of death is known; or 
(3) an injured or dead animal is discovered and cause of death is not 
related to the authorized activities, the Navy will follow the 
protocols described in the Section 3 of Marine Mammal Monitoring Report 
(Appendix D of the application). Additionally, the Navy will report any 
pinniped hauled out at unusual sites (e.g., in work boats) to the local 
stranding network and to NMFS, and follow any procedures or measures 
stipulated by the stranding network.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    Pile driving and extraction associated with the Navy SPE project as 
outlined previously have the potential to injure, disturb or displace 
marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in 
Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) for five marine mammal 
species authorized for take from underwater sound generated during pile 
driving operations. Level A harassment in the form of PTS may also 
occur to limited numbers of one species. Level A harassment was 
conservatively authorized for harbor seals since seals

[[Page 30419]]

can occur in high numbers near the project area, can be difficult to 
spot, and MMO's ability to observe the entire 217 m injury zone may be 
slightly impaired because of construction barges and vessels. Potential 
takes could occur if marine mammals are present in the Level A or Level 
B ensonified zones when pile driving and removal occurs.
    No serious injury or mortality is anticipated given the nature of 
the activities and measures designed to minimize the possibility of 
injury to marine mammals. The potential for injury is minimized through 
the construction method and the implementation of the planned 
mitigation measures. Specifically, vibratory driving will be the 
primary method of installation. This driving method decreases the 
potential for injury due to relatively low source levels and lack of 
potentially injurious source characteristics. Only piles that cannot be 
driven to their desired depths using the vibratory hammer will be 
impact driven for the remainder of their required driving depth. Noise 
attenuating devices (i.e., bubble curtain) will be used during impact 
hammer operations for steel piles. During impact driving, 
implementation of soft start and shutdown zones significantly reduces 
any possibility of injury. Given sufficient ``notice'' through use of 
soft start (for impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move 
away from a sound source that is annoying prior to it becoming 
potentially injurious. Given the number of MMOs that will be employed, 
observers should have a relatively clear view of the shutdown zones, 
although under limited circumstances the presence of barges and vessels 
may impair observation of small portions of shutdown zones. This will 
enable a high rate of success in implementation of shutdowns to avoid 
injury.
    The Navy's planned activities are highly localized. Only a 
relatively small portion of Hood Canal may be affected. The project is 
not expected to have significant adverse effects on marine mammal 
habitat. No important feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine 
mammals are known to be near the project area. Impacts to salmonid and 
forage fish populations, including ESA-listed species, will be 
minimized by adhering to the designated in-water work period. Project-
related 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 relatively small area of the habitat range utilized by each 
species that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are 
not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
    Exposures to elevated sound levels produced during pile driving 
activities may cause behavioral responses by an animal, but they are 
expected to be mild and temporary. Effects on individuals that are 
taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature 
as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be 
limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased 
surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) 
(e.g.,Thorson and Reyff, 2006; Lerma, 2014). Most likely, individuals 
will simply move away from the sound source and be temporarily 
displaced from the areas of pile driving, although even this reaction 
has been observed primarily only in association with impact pile 
driving. These reactions and behavioral changes are expected to subside 
quickly when the exposures cease. The pile driving activities analyzed 
here are similar to, or less impactful than, numerous construction 
activities conducted in other similar locations including Hood Canal, 
which have taken place with no reported injuries or mortality to marine 
mammals, and no known long-term adverse consequences from behavioral 
harassment. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of sound that 
may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in permanent 
hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior. Level 
B harassment will be reduced through use of mitigation measures 
described herein.
    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily 
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity 
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stocks through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
    <bullet> No mortality or serious injury is anticipated or 
authorized;
    <bullet> The area of potential impacts is highly localized;
    <bullet> No adverse impacts to marine mammal habitat;
    <bullet> The absence of any significant habitat within the project 
area, including rookeries, or known areas or features of special 
significance for foraging or reproduction;
    <bullet> Anticipated incidences of Level A harassment would be in 
the form of a small degree of PTS to a limited number of animals from 
one species;
    <bullet> Anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at 
worst, temporary modifications in behavior;
    <bullet> The anticipated efficacy of the required mitigation 
measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the planned monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from 
the planned activity will have a negligible impact on all affected 
marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified 
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not 
define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are 
available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most 
appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in 
our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small 
numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may 
be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of 
the activities.
    Table 8 depicts the number of animals that could be exposed to 
Level A and Level B harassment from work associated with the SPE 
project. With the exception of harbor seals, the analysis provided 
indicates that authorized takes account for no more than 24.3 percent 
of the populations of the stocks that could be affected. These are 
small numbers of marine mammals relative to the sizes of the affected 
species and population stocks under consideration.
    For the affected stock of harbor seals, no valid abundance estimate 
is available. The most recent abundance estimates for harbor seals in 
Washington inland waters are from 1999, and it is generally believed 
that harbor seal populations have increased significantly during the 
intervening years (e.g., Mapes, 2013). However, we anticipate that 
takes estimated to occur for harbor seals are likely to occur only 
within some portion of the relevant populations, rather than to animals 
from the stock as a whole. For example, takes anticipated to occur at 
NBK Bangor would be expected to accrue to the same individual seals 
that routinely occur on haulouts at these locations, rather than 
occurring to new seals on each construction day. In summary, harbor 
seals taken as a result of the specified

[[Page 30420]]

activities are expected to comprise only a limited portion of 
individuals comprising the overall relevant stock abundance. Therefore, 
we find that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to 
the population size of the Hood Canal stock of harbor seal.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the planned activity 
(including the planned mitigation and monitoring measures) and the 
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of 
marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the 
affected species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

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

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, 
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts 
on the human environment.
    This action is consistent with categories of activities identified 
in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, 
which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for 
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for 
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would 
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined 
that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded 
from further NEPA review and signed a Categorical Exclusion memo in 
June 2018.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any 
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat.
    No incidental take of ESA-listed species is planned for 
authorization 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.

Authorization

    NMFS has issued an IHA to the Navy for the potential harassment of 
small numbers of five marine mammal species incidental to the Service 
Pier Extension project at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor provided the 
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements 
are incorporated.

    Dated: June 22, 2018.
Elaine T. Saiz,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-13870 Filed 6-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P