32082 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

600. 

Estimated Time per Response: Initial 

registration 15 minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 150. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $15,300 in recordkeeping/ 

reporting costs and application fees. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: July 6, 2018. 

Sarah Brabson, 

NOAA PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14851 Filed 7–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG204 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Annapolis 

Passenger Ferry Dock Project, 

Washington 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of 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 

Kitsap Transit, to incidentally take, by 

Level A and B harassment, marine 

mammals during construction activities 

associated with the Annapolis Passenger 

Ferry Dock Project in Puget Sound, 

Washington. 

DATES: This Authorization is applicable 

from October 1, 2018 through 

September 31, 2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application, 

IHA, and supporting documents, as well 

as a list of the references cited in this 

document, may be obtained online at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/ 

23111. In case of problems accessing 

these documents, please call the contact 

listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated 

to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and either 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, a notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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 March 5, 2018, NMFS received a 

request from Kitsap Transit for an IHA 

to take marine mammals incidental to 

pile driving and removal associated 

with upgrades to the Annapolis Ferry 

Terminal, Puget Sound, Washington. 

Kitsap Transit submitted a revised 

application on May 3, 2018 which 

NMFS deemed adequate and complete. 

Pile driving and removal will take a 

maximum of 17 days. No serious injury 

or mortality is expected to occur or is 

authorized from this activity and, 

therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

On May 16, 2018, NMFS published its 

proposed IHA in the Federal Register 

for public comment (83 FR 22624). 

NMFS has issued an IHA to Kitsap 

Transit for the take, by Level A and B 

harassment, of harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina richardii), Steller sea lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus monteriensis), 

California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus), and harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena vomerina). 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

Kitsap Transit is proposing to upgrade 

the existing dock at its Annapolis Ferry 

Terminal to accommodate larger vessels 

by extending the dock into deeper water 

and bring the terminal into compliance 

with American Disability Act (ADA) 

accessibility standards. The project 

includes removing 10 existing concrete 

and steel piles that support the existing 

pier and float and installing 12 new 

steel piles to support updated 

structures. Piles will be removed using 

a vibratory hammer and new piles will 

be installed using a vibratory and, if 

necessary, an impact hammer. The 

project is anticipated to take 8 weeks to 

complete; however, Kitsap Transit 

anticipates it will take a maximum of 17 

days to complete in-water pile driving 

activities. 

Dates and Duration 

The project would occur for eight 

weeks between October 1, 2018 and 

September 30, 2019 with the exception 

of March 3, 2019 through July 1, 2019 

to protect salmonids and surf smelt. Pile 

removal has been conservatively 

estimated to occur at a rate of 2 piles 

removed per day, which would require 

5 days to remove 10 piles. Pile 

installation was conservatively 

estimated to occur at a rate of 1 pile per 

day, which would require 12 days to 

install 12 piles. In total, there would be 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 32083 

17 days (maximum) of pile driving. No 

in-water pile driving will be conducted 

between 

Specific Geographic Region 

The Annapolis Ferry Terminal is 

located in Sinclair Inlet across from 

Naval Base Kitsap (NBK) Bremerton and 

southwest of Bainbridge Island. 

Potential areas ensonified during pile 

driving include Sinclair Inlet and 

portions of Port Washington Narrows, 

Port Orchard Passage and Rich Passage. 

These waterbodies range up to 130 feet 

in depth and substrates include silt/ 

mud, sand, gravel, cobbles and rock 

outcrops. The terminal itself and 

parking area contains a hardened 

shoreline comprised of sheet piles. 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

A detailed description of the specified 

activity is provided in our notice of 

proposed IHA (83 FR 22624; May 16, 

2018). Please refer to that document for 

full detail. We provide a summary here. 

The Annapolis Ferry Terminal was 

designed to have a useful life of 40 years 

and is now 34 years old. Kitsap Transit 

has determined upgrades are necessary 

to meet ADA requirements and 

accommodate larger ferry vessels. To 

make the upgrades, Kitsap Transit is 

removing a portion of the existing pier, 

installing a longer gangway, removing 

the existing float and installing a larger 

float in deeper water. This work 

requires removing 10 existing piles and 

installing 12 new piles. 

Piles would be removed with a 

vibratory hammer. Piles would be 

installed using a vibratory hammer to 

refusal and then ‘‘proofed’’ with an 

impact hammer, if necessary. The 

maximum amount of time spent 

removing 10 piles would be 5 days 

while the maximum amount of time 

installing 12 piles would be 12 days for 

a total of 17 days. The types of piles 

included in the project and schedule, 

are included in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—DESCRIPTION OF PILES TO BE INSTALLED AND REMOVED DURING THE ANNAPOLIS FERRY DOCK PROJECT

Pile size Method Number of 

piles 

Number of 

days 

(maximum) 

Pile Removal 

16.5-in concrete ......................................................................................... Vibratory .......................................... 4 5 

18′′ steel ..................................................................................................... Vibratory .......................................... 6 ........................

Pile Installation 

12-in steel .................................................................................................. Vibratory .......................................... 4 12 

Impact .............................................. ........................ ........................

24-in steel .................................................................................................. Vibratory .......................................... 8 ........................

Impact .............................................. ........................ ........................

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

‘‘Mitigation’’ and ‘‘Monitoring and 

Reporting’’). 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA was published in the Federal 

Register on May 16, 2018 (83 FR 22624). 

During the 30-day public comment 

period, the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission) submitted a 

letter, providing comments as described 

below. 

Comment 1: The Commission made a 

general comment recommending NMFS 

more thoroughly review applications 

before deeming one adequate and 

complete and better evaluate Level A 

harassment zones and take numbers 

prior to publishing a proposed 

authorization. 

NMFS Response: MMPA 

implementing regulations provide a list 

of 14 informational elements that must 

be included in an IHA application 

before NMFS can determine it is 

adequate and complete. For the subject 

IHA, the application contained all the 

required information. With respect to 

Level A harassment distances and take 

numbers, the public review process 

provides the Commission opportunity to 

comment on the application and our 

proposal and we consider all public 

comments prior to issuance of the IHA. 

The Level A harassment zones for this 

project are relatively small; however, as 

described in the Estimated Take section 

below, we have included authorization 

of a small number of takes by Level A 

harassment, as recommended by the 

Commission, in case animals are 

undetected before Kitsap Transit can 

shut down. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS require Kitsap 

Transit to abide by mitigation measures 

previously used by other applicants 

regarding contacting the Orca Network 

and/or Center for Whale Research for 

both marine mammal sightings and 

acoustic detection data. 

NMFS Response: Both the application 

and proposed IHA Federal Register 

notice included a condition that Kitsap 

Transit access the Orca Network each 

day of pile driving. NMFS has added 

that this specifically applies to both 

visual and acoustic monitoring data. 

Comment 3: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS require Kitsap 

Transit and any other action proponent 

using a bubble curtain to implement 

what they refer to as ‘‘NMFS’s bubble 

curtain performance standards’’ in all 

relevant authorizations. The 

Commission provided the following 

performance standards it deems is 

neither unreasonable or costprohibitive: (1) The bubble curtain must 

distribute air bubbles around 100 

percent of the piling perimeter for the 

full depth of the water column, (2) the 

lowest bubble ring should be in contact 

with the mudline for the full 

circumference of the ring, and the 

weights attached to the bottom ring 

should ensure 100 percent mudline 

contact (no parts of the ring or other 

objects shall prevent full mudline 

contact), and (3) the action proponent 

requires construction contractors to 

train personnel in the proper balancing 

of air flow to the bubblers and to submit 

an inspection/performance report for 

approval by the action proponent within 

72 hours following the performance 

test—corrections to the attenuation 

device to meet the performance 

standards are to occur prior to impact 

driving. 

NMFS Response: The Commission 

mischaracterized the referenced 

performance measures as NMFS’ 

‘‘standards.’’ These measures were 

developed by the U.S. Navy, in 

consultation with NMFS, as a direct 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
32084 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 

result of documented issues with bubble 

curtain performance. These issues were 

problematic because NMFS considered 

a reduction in impact pile driving 

source level based on effective bubble 

curtain use. The same case does not 

apply here and NMFS disagrees with 

the Commission’s contention that 

consideration of any source level 

reduction has no bearing on whether an 

applicant should be implementing 

performance measures. NMFS will 

consider the appropriateness of 

including some or all of the proposed 

bubble curtain performance measures 

on a case-by-case basis. 

NMFS also disagrees with the 

Commission’s comment that the 

performance measures should be 

implemented because they are neither 

unreasonable nor cost-prohibitive. 

Mitigation requirements in an IHA must 

be carefully assessed with respect to 

NMFS’ authority under the MMPA. For 

the subject IHA, Kitsap Transit did not 

request, nor did NMFS propose a 

reduction in impact pile driving source 

levels due to use of the bubble curtain. 

That is, the use of a bubble curtain did 

not influence our effects analysis or take 

numbers. Moreover, use of the bubble 

curtain was not critical to NMFS making 

a negligible impact determination 

required to issue the IHA. In addition to 

negligible impact and small numbers 

findings, mitigation measures are 

designed to provide the least practicable 

adverse impact to marine mammals. Use 

of the bubble curtain was part of the 

proposed action due to requirements 

separate and apart from Kitsap Transit’s 

request for an IHA. However, to dictate 

how the applicant operates the bubble 

curtain, trains operators, reports 

inspection results on performance 

testing, and makes any corrections is not 

appropriate for this short project 

involving small (12-in and 24-in) piles 

for which we did not consider use of the 

bubble curtain quantitatively in our 

effects analysis. 

Finally, it is unclear how the 

Commission determined the 

implementation of the performance 

measures would not be unreasonable 

nor cost-prohibitive which are their 

reasons for us to include these 

measures. For example, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service may require certain 

operational criteria through consultation 

under section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act. The Commission does not 

provide evidence they have considered 

these or any other potential operational 

protocols. Further, the applicant did not 

provide a bubble curtain performance 

testing plan so it is unclear how the 

Commission determined requiring one 

would not be cost-prohibitive for this 

small, short project. 

Comment 4: The Commission 

recommends that it should be a priority 

for NMFS to consult with both internal 

and external scientists and acousticians 

to determine the appropriate Level A 

harassment accumulation time that 

action proponents should use to 

determine the extent of the Level A 

harassment zones based on the 

associated SELcum thresholds for the 

various types of sound sources. Until 

such time that this issue is resolved, the 

Commission postulated that NMFS is 

relegated to using the outputs of its user 

spreadsheet, while also rounding up the 

outputs of the user spreadsheet to the 

nearest 5, 10, 25 or 100 m, when more 

sophisticated modeling is not available. 

NMFS Response: As described in 

NMFS 2018 Revision to Technical 

Guidance for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing, NMFS is committed 

to re-examining the default 24-hour 

accumulation period and convening a 

working group to investigate alternative 

means of identifying appropriate 

accumulation periods. However, NMFS 

already considers factors other than the 

outputs of the User Spreadsheet in 

developing appropriate Level A 

harassment zones and/or shutdown 

zones. For example, in the Federal 

Register notice of the proposed IHA, 

NMFS identified the Level A 

harassment distances generated by the 

User Spreadsheet represented a long 

duration but produced very small 

harassment zones (e.g., six hours of 

vibratory pile removal per day separated 

in time to re-set piles resulted in an 11.8 

m Level A harassment distance for 

harbor seals). Per the Commission, 

NMFS should round this up to a 15 

meter Level A harassment zone. 

However, NMFS believes this results is 

an unwarranted shut down zone as 

sophisticated modeling is not necessary 

to justify that a harbor seal would not 

remain 11.8 meters from piles being 

removed over the course of several 

hours. In addition, NMFS is 

implementing a minimum 10 m shut 

down for all in-water equipment, 

including pile driving. However, NMFS 

does agree integrated shut-down zones 

(e.g., 5 to 10 meter increments) are more 

practicable for observers; therefore, the 

new shut down zone in the example 

provided is 10 m. For larger distances 

(e.g., 393.8 meters), we have rounded to 

395 meters despite the long duration in 

consideration of the unpredictable 

movement and lower profile of harbor 

seals. 

Comment 5: The Commission 

recommends NMFS provide its criteria 

for rounding take estimates. 

NMFS Response: On June 27, 2018, 

NMFS provided the Commission with 

internal guidance on rounding and the 

consideration of additional factors in 

take estimation. 

Comment 6: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS refrain from 

implementing its proposed renewal 

process and instead use abbreviated 

Federal Register notices and reference 

existing documents to streamline the 

incidental harassment authorization 

process; NMFS provide the Commission 

with a legal analysis supporting the 

conclusion the renewal process is 

consistent with the requirements under 

section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA; and 

should NMFS issue a renewal IHA, 

NMFS should publish notice in the 

Federal Register whenever such a 

renewal has been issued. 

NMFS Response: Until an applicant 

requests renewal of an IHA for which 

public comment was received on the 

proposal to potentially renew the initial 

IHA, NMFS will continue to make 

abbreviated notices available to the 

public when proposing IHA renewals. 

When an applicant requests renewal of 

an IHA for which public comment was 

received on the proposed IHA (when 

first issued), NMFS will utilize the 

renewal process because the original 

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. Therefore the public comment 

period is not bypassed. To make this 

clearer to the public, NMFS added 

language to the SUMMARY of all 

proposed IHAs requesting the public 

comment on the potential renewal. In 

addition, all proposed IHA notices 

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. 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. NMFS 

will publish a description of the 

renewal process on our website before 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 32085 

any renewal is issued utilizing the new 

process. Finally, NMFS has previously 

notified the Commission that a notice of 

issuance or denial of a renewal IHA 

would be published in the Federal 

Register. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

A detailed description of the species 

likely to be affected by Kitsap Transit’s 

activity, including brief introductions to 

the species and relevant stocks as well 

as available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

information regarding local occurrence, 

are provided in Kitsap Transit’s 

application and the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 

22624; May 16, 2018). We are not aware 

of any changes in the status of these 

species and stocks. To avoid repetition, 

detailed descriptions are not provided 

here. Please refer to additional species 

information available in the NMFS stock 

assessment reports for the Pacific and 

Alaska at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

sars/region.htm. 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE ANNAPOLIS FERRY TERMINAL DURING

CONSTRUCTION

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

Gray whale ....................... Eschrichtius robustus ............. Eastern North Pacific ............. -; N 20,990 (0.05; 20,125; 2011) .. 624 132 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Humpback whale .............. Megaptera novaeangliae 

kuzira.

California/Oregon/Washington 

(CA/OR/WA).

E/D; Y 1,918 (0.03; 1,876; 2014) ...... 7 11 ≥9.2 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Killer whale ....................... Orcinus orca 4 ......................... West Coast Transient 5 .......... -; N 243 (n/a; 2009) ....................... 2.4 0 

Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident.E/D; Y 83 (n/a; 2016) ......................... 0.14 0 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise ............... Phocoena phocoena 

vomerina.

Washington Inland Waters ..... -; N 11,233 (0.37; 8,308; 2015) .... 66 ≥7.2 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

California sea lion ............ Zalophus californianus ........... United States .......................... -; N 296,750 (n/a; 153,337; 2011) 9,200 389 

Steller sea lion ................. Eumetopias jubatus 

monteriensis.

Eastern U.S. ........................... D; Y 41,638 (n/a; 2015) .................. 2,498 108 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Harbor seal ....................... Phoca vitulina richardii ........... Southern Puget Sound 6 ........ -; N 1,568 (0.15; 1,025; 1999) ...... Undet. 3.4 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the 

ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or 

which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically 

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For two stocks of killer whales, the abundance values represent direct counts of individually identifiable animals; therefore there is only a single abundance estimate with no associated CV. For certain stocks of pinnipeds, 

abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from knowledge of the species’ (or 

similar species’) life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV. In these cases, the minimum abundance may represent actual counts of all animals ashore. 3These values, found in NMFS’ SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, 

subsistence hunting, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value. All M/SI values are as presented in the draft 2017 SARs. 4Transient and resident killer whales are considered unnamed subspecies (Committee on Taxonomy, 2017). 

5The abundance estimate for this stock includes only animals from the ‘‘inner coast’’ population occurring in inside waters of southeastern Alaska, British Columbia, 

and Washington—excluding animals from the ‘‘outer coast’’ subpopulation, including animals from California—and therefore should be considered a minimum count. 

For comparison, the previous abundance estimate for this stock, including counts of animals from California that are now considered outdated, was 354. 6Abundance estimates for the Southern Puget Sound harbor seal stock is not considered current. PBR is therefore considered undetermined for these stocks, as 

there is no current minimum abundance estimate for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimates, as these represent the best 

available information for use in this document. 7This stock is known to spend a portion of time outside the U.S. EEZ. Therefore, the PBR presented here is the allocation for U.S. waters only and is a portion of 

the total. The total PBR for humpback whales is 22 (one half allocation for U.S. waters). Annual M/SI presented for these species is for U.S. waters only. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

We provided a detailed description of 

the anticipated effects of the specified 

activity on marine mammals in our 

Federal Register notice announcing the 

proposed authorization (83 FR 22624; 

May 16, 2018). Please refer to that 

document for our detailed analysis; we 

provide only summary information 

here. 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile driving and removal is the primary 

means by which marine mammals may 

be harassed from Kitsap Transit’s 

specified activity. The effects of pile 

driving noise on marine mammals are 

dependent on several factors, including, 

but not limited to, sound type (e.g., 

impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the 

species, age and sex class (e.g., adult 

male vs. mom with calf), duration of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
32086 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 

exposure, the distance between the pile 

and the animal, received levels, 

behavior at time of exposure, and 

previous history with exposure 

(Southall et al., 2007, Wartzok et al. 

2004). Animals exposed to natural or 

anthropogenic sound may experience 

physical and behavioral effects, ranging 

in magnitude from none to severe 

(Southall et al. 2007). In general, 

exposure to pile driving noise has the 

potential to result in auditory threshold 

shifts (permanent threshold shift (PTS) 

and temporary threshold shift (TTS)) 

and behavioral reactions (e.g., 

avoidance, temporary cessation of 

foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive 

behavior). 

Similar pile driving and removal 

activities have been conducted in 

Sinclair Inlet and, more broadly, Puget 

Sound. Marine mammal monitoring 

conducted under several IHAs indicate 

there are no permanent or significant 

impacts to marine mammals from 

exposure to pile driving noise. 

Construction activities at the 

Annapolis Ferry Terminal could have 

localized, temporary impacts on marine 

mammal habitat and their prey by 

increasing in-water sound pressure 

levels and slightly decreasing water 

quality. Any impacts are anticipated to 

be localized, short-term, and minimal. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

the negligible impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which 

(i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level A 

and B harassment. Level A harassment 

is authorized for those cases where 

animals are undetected before exposure 

to noise levels that may induce auditory 

injury. As described previously, no 

mortality is anticipated or proposed to 

be authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

these levels in a day; (3) the density or 

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the authorized take 

estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

for continuous (e.g. vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 

(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. For in-air 

sounds, NMFS predicts that phocids 

and otariids exposed above received 

levels of 90 dB and 100 dB re 20 mPa 

(rms), respectively, may be behaviorally 

harassed. 

Kitsap Transit’s project includes the 

use of continuous (vibratory pile 

driving) and impulsive (impact pile 

driving) sources, and therefore the 120 

and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) are 

applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 

2016) identifies dual criteria to assess 

auditory injury (Level A harassment) to 

five different marine mammal groups 

(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result 

of exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). Kitsap Transit’s activity 

includes the use of impulsive (impact 

pile driving) and non-impulsive 

(vibratory pile driving) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 3. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the thresholds are described in NMFS 

2016 Technical Guidance, which may 

be accessed at: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/ 

guidelines.htm. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 32087 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds. 

Sound Propagation—Transmission 

loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic 

intensity as an acoustic pressure wave 

propagates out from a source. TL 

parameters vary with frequency, 

temperature, sea conditions, current, 

source and receiver depth, water depth, 

water chemistry, and bottom 

composition and topography. The 

general formula for underwater TL is: 

TL = B * log10(R1/R2), 

Where 

B = transmission loss coefficient (assumed to 

be 15) 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement. 

This formula neglects loss due to 

scattering and absorption, which is 

assumed to be zero here. The degree to 

which underwater sound propagates 

away from a sound source is dependent 

on a variety of factors, most notably the 

water bathymetry and presence or 

absence of reflective or absorptive 

conditions including in-water structures 

and sediments. Spherical spreading 

occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (freefield) environment not limited by depth 

or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB 

reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance from the source (20 

* log(range)). Cylindrical spreading 

occurs in an environment in which 

sound propagation is bounded by the 

water surface and sea bottom, resulting 

in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for 

each doubling of distance from the 

source (10 * log(range)). As is common 

practice in coastal waters, here we 

assume practical spreading loss (4.5 dB 

reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance). Practical 

spreading is a compromise that is often 

used under conditions where water 

depth increases as the receiver moves 

away from the shoreline, resulting in an 

expected propagation environment that 

would lie between spherical and 

cylindrical spreading loss conditions. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICESEN11JY18.000</GPH>
32088 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 

Sound Source Levels—The intensity 

of pile driving sounds is greatly 

influenced by factors such as the type of 

piles, hammers, and the physical 

environment in which the activity takes 

place. There are source level 

measurements available for certain pile 

types and sizes from the specific 

environment of several of nearby 

projects (i.e., NBK Bangor and NBK 

Bremerton), but not from all. Numerous 

studies have examined sound pressure 

levels (SPLs) recorded from underwater 

pile driving projects in California (e.g., 

Caltrans, 2015) and elsewhere in 

Washington. In order to determine 

reasonable SPLs and their associated 

effects on marine mammals that are 

likely to result from pile driving at the 

six installations, studies with similar 

properties to the specified activity were 

evaluated. 

No direct pile driving measurements 

at the Annapolis Ferry Dock are 

available. Therefore, Kitsap Transit 

reviewed available values from multiple 

nearshore marine projects obtained from 

the California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans) using similar 

type of piles (e.g., size and material) and 

water depth (Caltrans, 2015). NMFS also 

evaluated the proposed source levels 

with respect to pile driving 

measurements made by the Washington 

Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 

at other ferry terminals in Puget Sound 

as well as measurements collected by 

the Navy in Puget Sound. A full 

description of source level analysis is 

contained within the notice of proposed 

IHA (83 FR 22624, May 16, 2018). 

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED PILE DRIVING SOURCE LEVELS

Method Pile size 

(inches) 

Sound pressure 

(dB re: 1 μPa) 

SPL 1

(peak) 

SPL 

(rms) 1 SEL 1

Impact .............................................................................................................. 12 192 177 2 167 

24 207 194 178 

Vibratory ........................................................................................................... 12 171 155 155 

24 3 178 3 165 3 165 

Vibratory Removal ........................................................................................... 16.5–18 175 160 160

1 Source levels presented at standard distance of 10 m from the driven pile. Peak source levels are not typically evaluated for vibratory pile 

driving, as vibratory driving does not present rapid rise times. SEL source levels for vibratory driving are equivalent to SPL (rms) source levels. 2 SEL value assumes a 10 dB reduction from SPL. 3 SLs provided for 24 in. vibratory driving consider measurements from Caltrans (2015) for driving 24 in. sheet piles 36 in. pipe piles, Navy 

measurements in inland Washington (as described in NMFS proposed rule (83 FR 9366; March 5, 2018)), and analysis contained with the Biological Opinion prepared for this project. 

When NMFS Technical Guidance 

(2016) was published, in recognition of 

the fact that ensonified area/volume 

could be more technically challenging 

to predict because of the duration 

component in the new thresholds, we 

developed a User Spreadsheet that 

includes tools to help predict a simple 

isopleth that can be used in conjunction 

with marine mammal density or 

occurrence to help predict takes. We 

note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used for these tools, we anticipate that 

isopleths produced are typically going 

to be overestimates of some degree, 

which will result in some degree of 

overestimate of take by Level A 

harassment. However, these tools offer 

the best way to predict appropriate 

isopleths when more sophisticated 3D 

modeling methods are not available, and 

NMFS continues to develop ways to 

quantitatively refine these tools, and 

will qualitatively address the output 

where appropriate. For stationary 

sources such as pile driving, NMFS User 

Spreadsheet predicts the closest 

distance at which, if a marine mammal 

remained at that distance the whole 

duration of the activity, it would not 

incur PTS. A description of inputs used 

in the User Spreadsheet, and the 

resulting isopleths are reported below. 

Kitsap Transit estimates it will take a 

maximum of six hours, per day, to 

install or remove piles using a vibratory 

hammer (up to four piles per day). For 

steel piles that are ‘‘proofed,’’ Kitsap 

Transit estimated approximately 1,000 

hammer strikes per pile would be 

required with two piles installed per 

day. If piles can be installed completely 

with the vibratory hammer, Kitsap 

Transit would not use an impact 

hammer; however, it is included here as 

a possibility. A practical spreading 

model (15logR) was used for all 

calculation. NMFS considered these 

inputs when using the NMFS user 

spreadsheet (Table 5). 

TABLE 5—NMFS USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS

Input parameter Vibratory pile driving Impact pile driving 

Weighting Factor Adjustment 1 ................................................................ 2.5 kHz .......................................... 2 kHz. 

Source Level (SL) ................................................................................... See Table 4 (rms values) .............. See Table 4 (SEL values). 

Duration ................................................................................................... 6 hours ........................................... n/a. 

Strikes per pile ........................................................................................ n/a .................................................. 1,000. 

Piles per day ........................................................................................... n/a .................................................. 2. 

Transmission loss coefficient .................................................................. 15 ................................................... 15. 

Distance from SL measurement ............................................................. 10 m ............................................... 10 m. 

1 For those applicants who cannot fully apply auditory weighting functions associated with the SELcum metric, NMFS has recommended the 

default, single frequency weighting factor adjustments (WFAs) provided here. As described in Appendix D of NMFS’ Technical Guidance (NMFS, 

2016), the intent of the WFA is to broadly account for auditory weighting functions below the 95 frequency contour percentile. Use of single frequency WFA is likely to over-predict Level A harassment distances. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 32089 

As described above, the Level B 

harassment threshold for impulsive 

noise (e.g., impact pile driving) is 160 

dB rms. The Level B harassment 

threshold for continuous noise (e.g., 

vibratory pile driving) is 120 dB rms. 

Distances corresponding to received 

levels reaching NMFS harassment 

thresholds are provided in Table 6. 

These distances represent the distance 

at which an animal would have to 

remain for the entire duration 

considered (i.e., 6 hours of vibratory 

pile driving, 2,000 hammer strikes) for 

the potential onset of PTS to occur. 

These results do not consider the time 

it takes to re-set between piles; 

therefore, it is highly unlikely any 

species would remain at these distances 

for the entire duration of pile driving 

within a day. As a result, these 

distances represent the calculated 

outputs of the User Spreadsheet but, in 

reality, do not reflect a likely scenario 

for the potential onset of Level A 

harassment. Regardless, Kitsap Transit 

has identified it is practicable to 

implement shut-down zones mirroring 

these calculated outputs to avoid Level 

A harassment. However, for practical 

purposes, we have modified them 

slightly for ease of monitoring and 

implementing mitigation (see Table 9). 

Table 6 also includes distances to the 

Level B harassment isopleths 

considering land truncation. 

TABLE 6—DISTANCES TO LEVEL A AND B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS AND AREA ENSONIFIED

Method Pile size 

(inches) 

Distance to Level A 

(meters) Level B 

(meters) 

Level B 

area 

(km2 LF ) 

cetaceans 

MF 

cetaceans 

HF 

cetaceans Phocids Otariids 

Impact (install) .................. 12 

24 

136 

735.8 

4.8 

26.2 

162.0 

876.4 

72.8 

393.8 

5.3 

28.7 

136 

1,848 

0.1 

5.5 

Vibratory (install) .............. 12 

24 

9.0 

41.7 

0.8 

3.7 

13.3 

61.6 

5.5 

25.3 

0.4 

1.8 

2,154 

10,000 

6.5 

19.2 

Vibratory (removal) .......... 16.5–18 19.3 1.7 28.6 11.8 0.8 4,612 14.3 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

Available information regarding 

marine mammal occurrence in the 

vicinity of the Annapolis Ferry 

Terminal includes density information 

aggregated in the Navy’s Marine 

Mammal Species Density Database 

(NMSDD; Navy, 2015) or site-specific 

survey information from particular 

installations (e.g., local pinniped 

counts). More recent density estimates 

for harbor porpoise are available in 

Jefferson et al. (2016). 

Specifically, a density-based analysis 

is used for the harbor porpoise and 

Steller sea lion, while data from sitespecific abundance surveys is used for 

the California sea lion and harbor seal 

(Table 7). 

TABLE 7—DENSITY OR PINNIPED COUNT DATA, BY SPECIES

Species Density 

(animals/km2) 

Average daily 

pinniped count 

Harbor seal .............................................................................................................................................................. 1.22 n/a 

Steller sea lion ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.036 n/a 

California sea lion .................................................................................................................................................... n/a 69 

Harbor Porpoise ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.53 n/a 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

The proposed IHA did not include 

authorization of take by Level A 

harassment for marine mammals due to 

the extended durations animals would 

have to be exposed within a relatively 

short distance. However, we have 

authorized Level A harassment in the 

final IHA in the chance a marine 

mammal enters the conservative Level A 

harassment zone before pile driving 

could shut down. We do not believe 

there is a likely potential for Level A 

harassment for any species. Further, no 

take (either Level A or Level B 

harassment) of humpback whales, gray 

whales, and killer whales was requested 

or proposed for authorization due to the 

short duration of the project (17 days), 

the small amount of piles installed (12) 

and removed (5), and the incorporation 

of the prescribed mitigation and 

monitoring measures (see Mitigation 

and Monitoring and Reporting sections). 

The take calculation for harbor seal, 

Steller sea lion, and harbor porpoise is 

derived using the following equation: 

take estimate = species density (see 

Table 7) × ensonified area (based on pile 

size) × number of pile driving days. 

Because there would be 5 days of pile 

removal, four 12 in. piles installed over 

four days (maximum), and eight 24 in. 

piles installed over eight days 

(maximum), we summed each product 

together to produce a total take estimate. 

When impact and vibratory hammer use 

would occur on the same day, the larger 

Level B harassment ensonifed zone for 

that day was used. For example, harbor 

seal takes due to 12 inch pile driving are 

calculated as 1.22 animals/km2 × 6.5 

km2 × 4 days = 32. Harbor seal takes due 

to installing 24 in. piles is 1.22 animals/ 

km2 × 19.2 km2 × 8 days = 187. Finally, 

harbor seal takes due to pile removal is 

1.22 animals/km2 × 14.3 km2 × 5 days 

= 87. Therefore, take by Level B 

harassment is estimated at 306 harbor 

seals. We anticipate this amount of take 

does not represent number of 

individuals taken but some lesser 

amount of individuals taken multiple 

times. The take estimation process was 

repeated for Steller sea lions and harbor 

porpoise using their respective densities 

(see Table 7). 

The calculation for California sea lion 

exposures is estimated by the following 

equation: Level B Exposure estimate = N 

(estimated animals/day) × number of 

pile driving days. Because density is not 

used for this species, we simply 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
32090 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 

assumed 69 sea lions could be taken on 

any given day of pile driving. Therefore, 

69 California sea lion/day × 17 days = 

1,173 California sea lion takes. 

Finally, we included a small amount 

of take by Level A harassment for harbor 

seals and harbor porpoise in case 

animals go undetected before Kitsap 

Transit can shut down pile driving. For 

both species, we assumed up to three 

animals could come closer than the 

Level A harassment distance generated 

by the user spreadsheet each day of pile 

driving (total of 12 days). We authorized 

36 Level A harassment takes of harbor 

seals and harbor porpoise assuming 

three animals of each species could 

enter the Level A harassment zone 

during pile driving based on previous 

monitoring and sightability; however, 

the likelihood of those animals actually 

experiencing PTS is very low because 

the distances represent long exposure 

durations. The amount of authorized 

take, by harassment type, incidental to 

17 days of pile driving is provided in 

Table 8. 

TABLE 8—AUTHORIZED TAKE, BY SPECIES, INCIDENTAL TO PILE DRIVING

Species Level A Level B Total take Percent of 

stock 

Harbor seal ...................................................................................................... 1 36 306 342 22 

Steller sea lion ................................................................................................. 0 10 10 0.01 

California sea lion ............................................................................................ 0 1,173 1,173 0.4 

Harbor porpoise ............................................................................................... 1 36 126 162 1.4 

1 Assuming three harbor seals or harbor porpoise could enter the Level A harassment zone during 12 days of pile driving. 

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, and 

impact on operations. 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

Kitsap Transit is required to 

implement a number of mitigation 

measures designed to minimize the 

impacts of the project on marine 

mammals and their habitat. Below is a 

description of these measures. 

For in-water heavy machinery work 

(e.g., barges, tug boats), a minimum 10 

m shutdown zone shall be 

implemented. If a marine mammal 

comes within 10 m of such operations, 

operations shall cease and vessels shall 

reduce speed to the minimum level 

required to maintain steerage and safe 

working conditions. 

Kitsap Transit shall shut down pile 

driving if marine mammals are observed 

within or approaching the shut down 

zones identified in Table 9. 

TABLE 9—SHUTDOWN ZONES TO AVOID HEAVY EQUIPMENT INJURY, LEVEL A HARASSMENT, OR LEVEL B HARASSMENT

Species 

Shutdown Zones (m) 

Impact 12′′ Impact 24′′ Vibratory 12′′ Vibratory 24′′ Vibratory 

removal 

Humpback whale ................................................................. 140 1,850 2,160 10,000 4,620 

Gray whale ........................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Killer whale ........................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Harbor porpoise ................................................................... 160 875 15 60 30 

Harbor seal .......................................................................... 70 395 ........................ 25 10 

Steller sea lion ..................................................................... 1 10 30 1 10 1 10 1 10 

California sea lion ................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

1A minimum 10 m shutdown zone is required to avoid potential injury from equipment. 

Pre-activity monitoring shall take 

place from 30 minutes prior to initiation 

of pile driving activity and post-activity 

monitoring shall continue through 30 

minutes post-completion of pile driving 

activity. Pile driving may commence at 

the end of the 30-minute pre-activity 

monitoring period, provided observers 

have determined that the shutdown 

zone (see Table 6) is clear of marine 

mammals, which includes delaying start 

of pile driving activities if a marine 

mammal is sighted in the shutdown 

zone. A determination that the 

shutdown zone is clear must be made 

during a period of good visibility (i.e., 

the entire shutdown zone and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 32091 

surrounding waters must be visible to 

the naked eye). 

If a marine mammal approaches or 

enters the shutdown zone during 

activities or pre-activity monitoring, all 

pile driving activities at that location 

shall be halted or delayed, respectively. 

If pile driving is halted or delayed due 

to the presence of a marine mammal, the 

activity may not resume or commence 

until either the animal has voluntarily 

left and been visually confirmed beyond 

the shutdown zone or 15 minutes have 

passed without re-detection of the 

animal. Pile driving activities include 

the time to install or remove a single 

pile or series of piles, as long as the time 

elapsed between uses of the pile driving 

equipment is no more than thirty 

minutes. 

Kitsap Transit shall use soft start 

techniques when impact pile driving. 

Soft start requires contractors to provide 

an initial set of strikes at reduced 

energy, followed by a thirty-second 

waiting period, then two subsequent 

reduced energy strike sets. Soft start 

shall be implemented at the start of each 

day’s impact pile driving and at any 

time following cessation of impact pile 

driving for a period of thirty minutes or 

longer. 

If a species for which authorization 

has not been granted (including 

humpback whales, gray whales, and 

killer whales), or a species for which 

authorization has been granted but the 

authorized takes are met, is observed 

approaching or within the Level B 

harassment isopleth (Table 6 and 9), 

pile driving and removal activities must 

shut down immediately using delay and 

shut-down procedures. Activities must 

not resume until the animal has been 

confirmed to have left the area or the 

observation time period has elapsed. 

Kitsap Transit shall use a bubble 

curtain during impact pile driving. 

Kitsap Transit has indicated they would 

operate the bubble curtain such that it 

will distribute bubbles for the full depth 

of the water column and the full 

circumference of the pile during impact 

pile driving, and the lowest bubble ring 

will be weighted to ensure contact with 

the substrate for the full circumference 

of the ring (pers. comm., S. Mahugh to 

J. Daly, June 11, 2018). We note the 

estimated source levels used to calculate 

harassment zones did not consider any 

reduction in noise from use of this 

bubble curtain (i.e., source levels are 

unattenuated estimates). 

Kitsap Transit shall access the Orca 

Network website each morning prior to 

in-water construction activities and if 

pile removal or installation ceases for 

more than two hours. If marine 

mammals for which take is not 

authorized (e.g., killer whales, 

humpback whales, gray whales) are 

observed and on a path towards the 

Level B harassment zone, pile driving 

shall be delayed until animals are 

confirmed outside of and on a path 

away from the Level B harassment zone 

or if one hour passes with no 

subsequent sightings. 

Kitsap Transit shall implement the 

use of best management practices (e.g., 

erosion and sediment control, spill 

prevention and control) to minimize 

impacts to marine mammal habitat. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s planned measures, NMFS 

has determined that the prescribed 

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 proposed action area. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

For all pile driving activities, at least 

two protected species observers (PSOs) 

shall be on duty. One PSO shall be 

stationed at the on-shore vantage point 

at the outer portion of the pier to 

monitor and implement shutdown or 

delay procedures, when applicable, 

through communication with the 

equipment operator. The other PSO 

shall be stationed at the Waterman Point 

Dock. If conditions exceed a Beaufort 

level 3, a third boat-based observer shall 

be employed during pile driving. 

Monitoring of pile driving shall be 

conducted by qualified PSOs (see 

below), who shall have no other 

assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods. Kitsap Transit shall adhere to 

the following conditions when selecting 

observers: 

• Independent, dedicated PSOs shall 

be used (i.e., not construction 

personnel); 

• At least one PSO must have prior 

experience working as a marine 

mammal observer during construction 

activities; 

• Other PSOs may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience; and 

• The Kitsap Transit shall submit 

PSO CVs for approval by NMFS. 

Kitsap Transit shall ensure that 

observers have the following additional 

qualifications: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols. 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
32092 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior; and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

Kitsap Transit is also required to 

submit an annual report summarizing 

their monitoring efforts, number of 

animals taken, any implementation of 

mitigation measures (e.g., shut downs) 

and abide by reporting requirements 

contained within the IHA. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

Pile driving activities associated with 

the Annapolis Ferry Terminal Project, as 

described previously, have the potential 

to disturb or displace marine mammals. 

Specifically, the specified activities may 

result in take of four species of marine 

mammals, in the form of Level B 

harassment (behavioral disturbance) 

from underwater sounds generated from 

pile driving. Although unlikely, we 

have also authorized a small amount of 

Level A harassment for harbor seals and 

harbor porpoise and considered it in our 

analysis. The degree of harassment is 

expected to be minimized through 

implementation of the required 

mitigation measures—use of the bubble 

curtain for impact driving steel piles, 

soft start (for impact driving), and 

shutdown zones. Typically, given 

sufficient notice through use of soft 

start, marine mammals are expected to 

move away from a sound source that is 

annoying prior to its becoming 

potentially injurious or resulting in 

more severe behavioral reactions. 

Environmental conditions in inland 

waters are expected to generally be 

good, with calm sea states, and we 

expect conditions would allow a high 

marine mammal detection capability, 

enabling a high rate of success. No 

serious injury or mortality is authorized. 

We anticipate individuals exposed to 

pile driving noise generated at the 

Annapolis Ferry Terminal will, 

predominately, simply move away from 

the sound source and be temporarily 

displaced from the areas of pile driving, 

and that a small number of harbor seals 

and harbor porpoise may incur a small 

degree of PTS. The pile driving 

activities analyzed here are similar to, or 

less impactful than, numerous other 

construction activities conducted in the 

Puget Sound region, which have taken 

place with no known long-term adverse 

consequences. No pupping or breeding 

areas are present within the action area. 

Further, animals are likely somewhat 

habituated to noise-generating human 

activity given the proximity to SeattleBremerton and Port Orchard ferry lanes, 

recent construction at NBK Bremerton 

and the Manette Bridge (both of which 

involved pile driving), and general 

recreational, commercial and military 

vessel traffic. Monitoring reports from 

the Manette Bridge and NBK Bremerton 

demonstrate no discernable individual 

or population level impacts from similar 

pile driving activities. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• The anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment consist of, at worst, 

temporary modifications in behavior; 

• Any injury incurred would consist 

of small degree of PTS; 

• There is no significant habitat 

within the industrialized project areas, 

including known areas or features of 

special significance for foraging or 

reproduction; and 

• The required mitigation measures 

reduce the effects of the specified 

activity to the level of least practicable 

adverse impact. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

planned monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS finds that the total 

marine mammal take from the proposed 

activity will have a negligible impact on 

all affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers and so, 

in practice, where estimated numbers 

are available, NMFS compares the 

number of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

We propose to authorize incidental 

take of four marine mammal stocks. The 

total amount of taking proposed for 

authorization is less than 1.5 percent of 

the stock of Steller sea lions, California 

sea lions, and harbor porpoise and 22 

percent of the harbor seal stock (see 

Table 8). We note that harbor seals takes 

likely represent multiple exposures of a 

fewer number of individuals; therefore, 

the percentage of the stock taken under 

this authorization is likely less than 22 

percent. The amount of take authorized 

is considered relatively small 

percentages and we find are small 

numbers of marine mammals relative to 

the estimated overall population 

abundances for those stocks. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the prescribed 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 32093 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the West Coast Region (WCR) 

Protected Resources Division Office, 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is expected or authorized from 

this activity. On April 5, 2018, NMFS 

WCR issued a Biological Opinion to the 

Federal Transit Administration 

concluding the project is not likely to 

adversely affect Southern Resident killer 

whales and the Western North Pacific 

and Central American humpback whale 

distinct population segments (DPSs). 

Therefore, NMFS determined that 

formal consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA is not required for this action. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an IHA to Kitsap 

Transit for the harassment of small 

numbers of marine mammals incidental 

to construction activities related to the 

Annapolis Ferry Dock Project, Puget 

Sound, Washington, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: July 5, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14753 Filed 7–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF566 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessment 

Reports 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; response to comments. 

SUMMARY: As required by the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 

has considered public comments for 

revisions of the 2017 marine mammal 

stock assessment reports (SAR). This 

notice announces the availability of the 

final 2017 SARs for the 75 stocks that 

were updated. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of SARs 

are available on the internet as regional 

compilations at the following address: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports-region. 

A list of references cited in this notice 

is available at www.regulations.gov 

(search for docket NOAA–NMFS–2017– 

0065) or upon request. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Lierheimer, Office of Protected 

Resources, 301–427–8402, 

Lisa.Lierheimer@noaa.gov; Marcia 

Muto, 206–526–4026, Marcia.Muto@

noaa.gov, regarding Alaska regional 

stock assessments; Elizabeth Josephson, 

508–495–2362, Elizabeth.Josephson@

noaa.gov, regarding Atlantic, Gulf of 

Mexico, and Caribbean regional stock 

assessments; or Jim Carretta, 858–546– 

7171, Jim.Carretta@noaa.gov, regarding 

Pacific regional stock assessments. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 

1361 et seq.) requires NMFS and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to 

prepare stock assessments for each stock 

of marine mammals occurring in waters 

under the jurisdiction of the United 

States, including the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ). These reports 

must contain information regarding the 

distribution and abundance of the stock, 

population growth rates and trends, 

estimates of annual human-caused 

mortality and serious injury (M/SI) from 

all sources, descriptions of the fisheries 

with which the stock interacts, and the 

status of the stock. Initial reports were 

completed in 1995. 

The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS 

to review the SARs at least annually for 

strategic stocks and stocks for which 

significant new information is available, 

and at least once every three years for 

non-strategic stocks. The term ‘‘strategic 

stock’’ means a marine mammal stock: 

(A) For which the level of direct humancaused mortality exceeds the potential 

biological removal level (PBR) (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); (B) 

which, based on the best available 

scientific information, is declining and 

is likely to be listed as a threatened 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) within the foreseeable future; 

or (C) which is listed as a threatened 

species or endangered species under the 

ESA. NMFS and the FWS are required 

to revise a SAR if the status of the stock 

has changed or can be more accurately 

determined. NMFS, in conjunction with 

the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific 

independent Scientific Review Groups 

(SRG), reviewed the status of marine 

mammal stocks as required and revised 

reports in the Alaska, Atlantic, and 

Pacific regions to incorporate new 

information. 

NMFS updated SARs for 2017, and 

the revised draft reports were made 

available for public review and 

comment for 90 days (82 FR 60181, 

December 19, 2017). NMFS received 

comments on the draft 2017 SARs and 

has revised the reports as necessary. 

This notice announces the availability 

of the final 2017 reports for the 75 

stocks that were updated. These reports 

are available on NMFS’ website (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Technical Corrections to the Final 

Common Bottlenose Dolphin Barataria 

Bay Estuarine System and Mississippi 

Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau 

SARS 

In the draft 2017 common bottlenose 

dolphin Barataria Bay Estuarine System 

(BBES) and Mississippi Sound, Lake 

Borgne, Bay Boudreau (MS Sound) 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES