Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 22477 

11See the Order at 73 FR 31065. 

1See Supercalendered Paper from Canada: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 80 

FR 15981 (March 26, 2015). 

2The Coalition For Fair Paper Imports (the 

petitioner). 

3See Letter from the petitioner, entitled 

‘‘Supercalendered Paper from Canada: Request For 

Postponement Of The Preliminary Determination,’’ 

dated April 9, 2015. 

4The actual deadline based on the postponement 

to 130 days is July 26, 2015, which is a Sunday. 

Department practice dictates that where a deadline 

falls on a weekend or federal holiday, the 

appropriate deadline is the next business day. See 

Notice of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next 

Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative 

Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act 

of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). 

will continue to be 27.04 percent ad 

valorem, the all-others rate established 

in the less-than-fair-value 

investigation.11 These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.213(h)(1). 

Dated: April 1, 2015. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in 

the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 

Summary 

Background 

Scope of the Order 

Limited Home Market Reporting 

Methodology 

Fair Value Comparisons 

Product Comparisons 

Determination of Comparison Method 

Results of Differential Pricing Analysis 

Date of Sale 

U.S. Price 

Normal Value 

Currency Conversion 

Conclusion 

[FR Doc. 2015–09386 Filed 4–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–122–854] 

Supercalendered Paper From Canada: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua Morris or Shane Subler, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office I, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1779 or (202) 482– 

0189, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 18, 2015, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) initiated a 

countervailing duty investigation on 

supercalendered paper from Canada.1

Currently, the preliminary 

determination is due no later than May 

22, 2015. 

Postponement of the Preliminary 

Determination 

Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), requires the 

Department to issue the preliminary 

determination in a countervailing duty 

investigation within 65 days after the 

date on which the Department initiated 

the investigation. However, if the 

petitioner makes a timely request for an 

extension in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.205(e), section 703(c)(1)(A) of the 

Act allows the Department to postpone 

the preliminary determination until no 

later than 130 days after the date on 

which the Department initiated the 

investigation. 

On April 9, 2015, the petitioner 2

submitted a timely request pursuant to 

section 703(c)(l)(A) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.205(e) to postpone the 

preliminary determination.3 Therefore, 

in accordance with section 703(c)(l)(A) 

of the Act, we are fully postponing the 

due date for the preliminary 

determination to not later than 130 days 

after the day on which the investigation 

was initiated. As a result, the deadline 

for completion of the preliminary 

determination is now July 27, 2015.4

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(l). 

Dated: April 15, 2015. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09389 Filed 4–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD857 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to a Wharf 

Maintenance Project 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to construction activities as 

part of a wharf maintenance project. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to the Navy to 

incidentally take marine mammals, by 

Level B Harassment only, during the 

specified activity. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than May 22, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to Jolie 

Harrison, Chief, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. Physical comments 

should be sent to 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and 

electronic comments should be sent to 

ITP.Laws@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. Comments 

received electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on the Internet at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/

incidental/construction.htm without 

change. All personal identifying 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22478 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 

information (e.g., name, address), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Laws, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability 

An electronic copy of the Navy’s 

application and supporting documents, 

as well as a list of the references cited 

in this document, may be obtained by 

visiting the Internet at: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/

incidental/construction.htm. In case of 

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

The Navy prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) to consider the direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects to the 

human environment resulting from the 

wharf maintenance project. NMFS has 

reviewed the EA and believes it 

appropriate to adopt the EA in order to 

assess the impacts to the human 

environment of issuance of an IHA to 

the Navy and subsequently sign our 

own Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). Information in the Navy’s 

application, the Navy’s EA, and this 

notice collectively provide the 

environmental information related to 

proposed issuance of this IHA for public 

review and comment. All documents are 

available at the aforementioned Web 

site. We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice as 

we complete the NEPA process, 

including a final decision of whether to 

adopt the Navy’s EA and sign a FONSI, 

prior to a final decision on the 

incidental take authorization request. 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

area, the incidental, but not intentional, 

taking of small numbers of marine 

mammals, providing that certain 

findings are made and the necessary 

prescriptions are established. 

The incidental taking of small 

numbers of marine mammals may be 

allowed only if NMFS (through 

authority delegated by the Secretary) 

finds that the total taking by the 

specified activity during the specified 

time period will (i) have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s) and (ii) 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such taking must be set 

forth. 

The allowance of such incidental 

taking under section 101(a)(5)(A), by 

harassment, serious injury, death, or a 

combination thereof, requires that 

regulations be established. 

Subsequently, a Letter of Authorization 

may be issued pursuant to the 

prescriptions established in such 

regulations, providing that the level of 

taking will be consistent with the 

findings made for the total taking 

allowable under the specific regulations. 

Under section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may 

authorize such incidental taking by 

harassment only, for periods of not more 

than one year, pursuant to requirements 

and conditions contained within an 

IHA. The establishment of these 

prescriptions requires notice and 

opportunity for public comment. 

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.’’ 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].’’ 

Summary of Request 

On November 4, 2014, we received a 

request from the Navy for authorization 

to take marine mammals incidental to 

pile driving and removal associated 

with maintenance of an explosives 

handling wharf (EHW–1) in the Hood 

Canal at Naval Base Kitsap in Bangor, 

WA (NBKB). The Navy submitted 

revised versions of the request on 

February 27 and March 17, 2015. The 

latter of these was deemed adequate and 

complete. The Navy proposes to replace 

four structurally unsound piles, 

between July 16, 2015, and January 15, 

2016. 

The use of both vibratory and impact 

pile driving is expected to produce 

underwater sound at levels that have the 

potential to result in behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals. Species 

with the expected potential to be 

present during all or a portion of the inwater work window include the Steller 

sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus 

monteriensis), California sea lion 

(Zalophus californianus), harbor seal 

(Phoca vitulina richardii), killer whale 

(transient only; Orcinus orca), and 

harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena 

vomerina). These species may occur 

year-round in the Hood Canal, with the 

exception of the Steller sea lion, which 

is present only from fall to late spring 

(approximately late September to early 

May), and the California sea lion, which 

is only present from late summer to late 

spring (approximately late August to 

early June). 

This would be the third such IHA for 

similar work on the same structure, if 

issued. The Navy previously received 

IHAs for a two-year maintenance project 

at EHW–1 conducted in 2011–12 and 

2012–13 (76 FR 30130 and 77 FR 

43049). Additional IHAs were issued to 

the Navy in recent years for marine 

construction projects on the NBKB 

waterfront, including the construction 

of a second explosives handling wharf 

(EHW–2) immediately adjacent to 

EHW–1. Three consecutive IHAs were 

issued for that project, in 2012–13 (77 

FR 42279), 2013–14 (78 FR 43148), and 

2014–15 (79 FR 43429). Additional 

projects include the Test Pile Project 

(TPP), conducted in 2011–12 in the 

proposed footprint of the EHW–2 to 

collect geotechnical data and test 

methodology in advance of the project 

(76 FR 38361) and a minor project to 

install a new mooring for an existing 

research barge, conducted in 2013–14 

(78 FR 43165). In-water work associated 

with all projects was conducted only 

during the approved in-water work 

window (July 16-February 15). 

Monitoring reports for all of these 

projects are available on the Internet at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/

incidental/construction.htm and 

provide environmental information 

related to proposed issuance of this IHA 

for public review and comment. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

NBKB provides berthing and support 

services to Navy submarines and other 

fleet assets. The Navy proposes to 

complete necessary maintenance at the 

EHW–1 facility at NBKB as part of 

ongoing maintenance conducted as 

necessary to maintain the structural 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 22479 

integrity of the wharf and ensure its 

continued functionality to support 

necessary operational requirements. The 

EHW–1 facility, constructed in 1977, 

requires ongoing maintenance due to 

the deterioration of the wharf’s existing 

piling sub-structure. The proposed 

action includes the replacement of four 

existing 24-in hollow prestressed 

octagonal concrete piles with four new 

30-in concrete filled steel pipe piles. 

Existing piles will be removed using a 

pneumatic hammer and a crane. 

Vibratory pile driving will be the 

primary method used to install new 

piles, though an impact hammer may be 

used if substrate conditions prevent the 

advancement of piles to the required 

depth or to verify the load-bearing 

capacity. Sound attenuation measures 

(i.e., bubble curtain) would be used 

during all impact hammer operations. 

Dates and Duration 

The Navy’s specified activity would 

occur only during July 16 through 

January 15, within the allowable season 

for in-water work at NBKB. This 

window is established by the 

Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife in coordination with NMFS 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) to protect juvenile salmon. A 

maximum of eight pile driving days 

would occur, but the eight days could 

occur on any day during the window. 

Vibratory driving, as compared with 

impact driving or pile removal via 

pneumatic chipping, is expected to 

occur on only four total days. 

Impact pile driving during the first 

half of the in-water work window (July 

16 to September 23) may only occur 

between two hours after sunrise and two 

hours before sunset to protect breeding 

marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus 

marmoratus; an Endangered Species Act 

[ESA]-listed bird under the jurisdiction 

of USFWS). Vibratory driving during the 

first half of the window, and all in-water 

work conducted between September 23 

and January 15, may occur during 

daylight hours (sunrise to sunset). Other 

construction (not in-water) may occur 

between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., year-round. 

Therefore, in-water work is restricted to 

daylight hours (at minimum) and there 

is at least a nine-hour break during the 

24-hour cycle from all construction 

activity. 

Specific Geographic Region 

NBKB is located on the Hood Canal 

approximately 32 km west of Seattle, 

Washington (see Figures 2–1 through 

2–3 in the Navy’s application). The 

Hood Canal is a long, narrow fjord-like 

basin of the western Puget Sound. 

Throughout its 108-km length, the 

width of the canal varies from 1.6–3.2 

km and exhibits strong depth/elevation 

gradients and irregular seafloor 

topography in many areas. Although no 

official boundaries exist along the 

waterway, the northeastern section 

extending from the mouth of the canal 

at Admiralty Inlet to the southern tip of 

Toandos Peninsula is referred to as 

northern Hood Canal. NBKB is located 

within this region. Please see Section 2 

of the Navy’s application for detailed 

information about the specific 

geographic region, including physical 

and oceanographic characteristics. 

Detailed Description of Activities 

Maintenance of necessary facilities for 

handling of explosive materials is part 

of the Navy’s sea-based strategic 

deterrence mission, and the Navy has 

determined that EHW–1 structural 

integrity is compromised due to 

deterioration of the wharf’s piling substructure. The EHW–1 consists of two 

30-m access trestles and a main pier 

deck that measures approximately 

215 m in length. The wharf is supported 

by both 16-in and 24-in hollow 

octagonal pre-cast concrete piles. 

Additionally, there are steel and timber 

fender piles on the outboard and 

inboard edges of the wharf (see Figures 

1–1 through 1–4 in the Navy’s 

application). 

The Navy proposes to replace four 

structurally unsound 24-in hollow 

prestressed octagonal concrete piles, as 

well as performing additional repair and 

replacement work above water that 

would not be expected to result in 

effects to marine mammals. The piles 

would be replaced with four 30-in 

concrete filled steel piles. Piles to be 

removed would first be scored by a 

diver using a small pneumatic hammer 

and then removed by crane. Pile 

installation will utilize vibratory pile 

drivers to the greatest extent possible, 

and the Navy anticipates that most piles 

will be able to be vibratory driven to 

within several feet of the required 

depth. Pile drivability is, to a large 

degree, a function of soil conditions and 

the type of pile hammer. The soil 

conditions encountered during 

geotechnical explorations at NBKB 

indicate existing conditions generally 

consist of fill or sediment of very dense 

glacially overridden soils, and recent 

experience at other construction 

locations along the NBKB waterfront 

indicates that most piles should be able 

to be driven with a vibratory hammer to 

proper embedment depth. However, 

difficulties during pile driving may be 

encountered as a result of obstructions, 

such as rocks or boulders, which may 

exist throughout the project area. If 

difficult driving conditions occur, usage 

of an impact hammer would occur. 

Impact driving may also be used to 

verify load-bearing capacity, or proof, 

installed piles. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

There are eight marine mammal 

species with recorded occurrence in the 

Hood Canal during the past fifteen 

years, including five cetaceans and three 

pinnipeds. The harbor seal resides yearround in Hood Canal, while the Steller 

sea lion and California sea lion inhabit 

Hood Canal during portions of the year. 

Harbor porpoises may transit through 

the project area and occur regularly in 

Hood Canal, while transient killer 

whales could be present in the project 

area but do not have regular occurrence 

in the Hood Canal. The Dall’s porpoise 

(Phocoenoides dalli dalli), humpback 

whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), and 

gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) have 

been observed in Hood Canal, but their 

presence is sufficiently rare that we do 

not believe there is a reasonable 

likelihood of their occurrence in the 

project area during the proposed period 

of validity for this IHA. The latter three 

species are not carried forward for 

further analysis beyond this section. 

We have reviewed the Navy’s detailed 

species descriptions, including life 

history information, for accuracy and 

completeness and refer the reader to 

Sections 3 and 4 of the Navy’s 

application instead of reprinting the 

information here. Please also refer to 

NMFS’ Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

pr/species/mammals/) for generalized 

species accounts and to the Navy’s 

Marine Resource Assessment for the 

Pacific Northwest, which documents 

and describes the marine resources that 

occur in Navy operating areas of the 

Pacific Northwest, including Puget 

Sound (DoN, 2006). The document is 

publicly available at: 

www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and_

services/ev/products_and_services/

marine_resources/marine_resource_

assessments.html (accessed March 25, 

2015). 

Table 1 lists the marine mammal 

species with expected potential for 

occurrence in the vicinity of NBKB 

during the project timeframe and 

summarizes key information regarding 

stock status and abundance. 

Taxonomically, we follow Committee 

on Taxonomy (2014). Please see NMFS’ 

Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), 

available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, 

for more detailed accounts of these 

stocks’ status and abundance. The 

harbor seal, California sea lion and 

harbor porpoise are addressed in the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22480 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 

Pacific SARs (e.g., Carretta et al., 2014, 

2015), while the Steller sea lion and 

transient killer whale are treated in the 

Alaska SARs (e.g., Allen and Angliss, 

2014, 2015). 

In the species accounts provided here, 

we offer a brief introduction to the 

species and relevant stock as well as 

available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

describe any information regarding local 

occurrence. 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF NBKB 

Species Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance (CV, 

Nmin, most recent abundance survey) 2PBR 3 Annual 

M/SI 4

Relative occurrence in 

Hood Canal; season of 

occurrence 

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae 

Killer whale ..................... West coast transient 6 ... -; N ........... 243 (n/a; 2009) ............. 2.4 0 Rare; year-round (but 

last observed in 

2005). 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

Harbor porpoise .............. Washington inland 

waters 7.

-; N ........... 10,682 (0.38; 7,841; 

2003).

unk ≥2.2 Possible regular presence; year-round. 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

California sea lion ........... U.S. ............................... -; N ........... 296,750 (n/a; 153,337; 

2011).

9,200 389 Seasonal/common; Fall 

to late spring (Aug to 

Jun). 

Steller sea lion ................ Eastern U.S.5 ................ -; N ........... 60,131–74,448 (n/a; 

36,551; 2008–13) 8.

1,645 9 92.3 Seasonal/occasional; 

Fall to late spring 

(Sep to May). 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor seal ..................... Hood Canal 7 ................. -; N ........... 3,555 (0.15; unk; 1999) unk 0.2 Common; Year-round 

resident. 

1ESA 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 (see footnote 3) 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 CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For 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. 3Potential biological removal, 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 size (OSP). 4These 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 values presented here are from the draft 2014 SARs (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm). 5Abundance estimates (and resulting PBR values) for these stocks are new values presented in the draft 2014 SARs. This information was 

made available for public comment and is currently under review and therefore may be revised prior to finalizing the 2014 SARs. However, we 

consider this information to be the best available for use in this document. 6The 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. 7Abundance 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. 8Best abundance is calculated as the product of pup counts and a factor based on the birth rate, sex and age structure, and growth rate of the 

population. A range is presented because the extrapolation factor varies depending on the vital rate parameter resulting in the growth rate (i.e., 

high fecundity or low juvenile mortality). 9PBR is calculated for the U.S. portion of the stock only (excluding animals in British Columbia) and assumes that the stock is not within its 

OSP. If we assume that the stock is within its OSP, PBR for the U.S. portion increases to 2,193. 

Although present in Washington 

inland waters in small numbers 

(Falcone et al., 2005), primarily in the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca and San Juan 

Islands but also occasionally in Puget 

Sound, the humpback whale is not 

typically present in Hood Canal. 

Archived sighting records show no 

confirmed observations from 2001–11 

(www.orcanetwork.org; accessed March 

26, 2015), and no records are found in 

the literature. In January–February of 

2012, and again in 2015, one individual 

was observed in Hood Canal repeatedly 

over a period of several weeks. No other 

sightings have been recorded. 

Gray whales generally migrate 

southbound past Washington in late 

December and January, and transit past 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 22481 

Washington on the northbound return 

in March to May. Gray whales do not 

generally make use of Washington 

inland waters, but have been observed 

in certain portions of those waters in all 

months of the year, with most records 

occurring from March through June 

(Calambokidis et al., 2010; 

www.orcanetwork.org) and associated 

with regular feeding areas. Usually 

fewer than twenty gray whales visit the 

inner marine waters of Washington and 

British Columbia beginning in about 

January, and six to ten of these are 

individual whales that return most years 

to feeding sites in northern Puget 

Sound. The remaining individuals 

occurring in any given year generally 

appear unfamiliar with feeding areas, 

often arrive emaciated, and commonly 

die of starvation (WDFW, 2012). Gray 

whales have been sighted in Hood Canal 

on six occasions since 1999 (including 

a stranded whale), with the most recent 

report in November 2010 

(www.orcanetwork.org). 

In Washington, Dall’s porpoises are 

most abundant in offshore waters where 

they are year-round residents, although 

interannual distribution is highly 

variable (Green et al., 1992). In inland 

waters, Dall’s porpoises are most 

frequently observed in the Strait of Juan 

de Fuca and Haro Strait between San 

Juan Island and Vancouver Island 

(Nysewander et al., 2005), but are seen 

occasionally in southern Puget Sound 

and may also occasionally occur in 

Hood Canal. Only a single Dall’s 

porpoise has been observed at NBKB, in 

deeper water during a 2008 summer 

survey conducted by the Navy 

(Tannenbaum et al., 2009). On the basis 

of this single observation, we previously 

assumed it appropriate to authorize 

incidental take of this species. However, 

there have been no subsequent 

observations of Dall’s porpoises in Hood 

Canal during either dedicated vessel 

line-transect surveys or project-specific 

monitoring and we no longer believe 

that the species may be reasonably 

expected to be present in the action 

area. 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions are distributed 

mainly around the coasts to the outer 

continental shelf along the North Pacific 

rim from northern Hokkaido, Japan 

through the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk 

Sea, Aleutian Islands and central Bering 

Sea, southern coast of Alaska and south 

to California (Loughlin et al., 1984). 

Based on distribution, population 

response, and phenotypic and genotypic 

data, two separate stocks of Steller sea 

lions are recognized within U.S. waters, 

with the population divided into 

western and eastern distinct population 

segments (DPS) at 144°W (Cape 

Suckling, Alaska) (Loughlin, 1997). The 

eastern DPS extends from California to 

Alaska, including the Gulf of Alaska, 

and is the only stock that may occur in 

the Hood Canal. 

According to NMFS’ recent status 

review (NMFS, 2013), the best available 

information indicates that the overall 

abundance of eastern DPS Steller sea 

lions has increased for a sustained 

period of at least three decades while 

pup production has also increased 

significantly, especially since the mid1990s. Johnson and Gelatt (2012) 

provided an analysis of growth trends of 

the entire eastern DPS from 1979–2010, 

indicating that the stock increased 

during this period at an annual rate of 

4.2 percent (90% CI 3.7–4.6). Most of 

the overall increase occurred in the 

northern portion of the range (southeast 

Alaska and British Columbia), but pup 

counts in Oregon and California also 

increased significantly (e.g., Merrick et 

al., 1992; Sease et al., 2001; Olesiuk and 

Trites, 2003; Fritz et al. 2008; Olesiuk, 

2008; NMFS, 2008, 2013). In 

Washington, Pitcher et al. (2007) 

reported that Steller sea lions, 

presumably immature animals and nonbreeding adults, regularly used four 

haul-outs, including two ‘‘major’’ haulouts (>50 animals). The same study 

reported that the numbers of sea lions 

counted between 1989 and 2002 on 

Washington haul-outs increased 

significantly (average annual rate of 9.2 

percent) (Pitcher et al., 2007). Although 

the stock size has increased, its status 

relative to OSP size is unknown. 

However, the consistent long-term 

estimated annual rate of increase may 

indicate that the stock is reaching OSP 

size (Allen and Angliss, 2014). 

The eastern stock breeds in rookeries 

located in southeast Alaska, British 

Columbia, Oregon, and California. There 

are no known breeding rookeries in 

Washington (Allen and Angliss, 2014) 

but eastern stock Steller sea lions are 

present year-round along the outer coast 

of Washington, including immature 

animals or non-breeding adults of both 

sexes. In 2011, the minimum count for 

Steller sea lions in Washington was 

1,749 (Allen and Angliss, 2014), up 

from 516 in 2001 (Pitcher et al., 2007). 

In Washington, Steller sea lions 

primarily occur at haul-out sites along 

the outer coast from the Columbia River 

to Cape Flattery and in inland waters 

sites along the Vancouver Island 

coastline of the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

(Jeffries et al., 2000; Olesiuk and Trites, 

2003; Olesiuk, 2008). Numbers vary 

seasonally in Washington waters with 

peak numbers present during the fall 

and winter months (Jeffries et al., 2000). 

Beginning in 2008, Steller sea lions have 

been observed at NBKB hauled out on 

submarines at Delta Pier (located 

approximately 1.25 km south of the 

project site) during fall through spring 

months, with September 26 as the 

earliest documented arrival. When 

Steller sea lions are present, there are 

typically one to four individuals, with a 

maximum observed group size of 

eleven. 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and 

estuarine waters and shoreline areas of 

the northern hemisphere from temperate 

to polar regions. The eastern North 

Pacific subspecies is found from Baja 

California north to the Aleutian Islands 

and into the Bering Sea. Multiple lines 

of evidence support the existence of 

geographic structure among harbor seal 

populations from California to Alaska 

(e.g., O’Corry-Crowe et al., 2003; Temte, 

1986; Calambokidis et al., 1985; Kelly, 

1981; Brown, 1988; Lamont, 1996; Burg, 

1996). Harbor seals are generally nonmigratory, and analysis of genetic 

information suggests that genetic 

differences increase with geographic 

distance (Westlake and O’Corry-Crowe, 

2002). However, because stock 

boundaries are difficult to meaningfully 

draw from a biological perspective, 

three separate harbor seal stocks have 

been recognized for management 

purposes along the west coast of the 

continental U.S.: (1) Inland waters of 

Washington (including Hood Canal, 

Puget Sound, and the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca out to Cape Flattery), (2) outer 

coast of Oregon and Washington, and (3) 

California (Carretta et al., 2014). 

Multiple stocks are recognized in 

Alaska. Samples from Washington, 

Oregon, and California demonstrate a 

high level of genetic diversity and 

indicate that the harbor seals of 

Washington inland waters possess 

unique haplotypes not found in seals 

from the coasts of Washington, Oregon, 

and California (Lamont et al., 1996). 

Recent genetic evidence indicates that 

harbor seals of Washington inland 

waters have sufficient population 

structure to warrant division into 

multiple distinct stocks (Huber et al., 

2010, 2012). Based on studies of 

pupping phenology, mitochondrial 

DNA, and microsatellite variation, 

Carretta et al. (2014) divide the 

Washington inland waters stock into 

three new populations, and present 

these as stocks: (1) Southern Puget 

Sound (south of the Tacoma Narrows 

Bridge); (2) Washington northern inland 

waters (including Puget Sound north of 

the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the San 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22482 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 

Juan Islands, and the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca); and (3) Hood Canal. Only the 

Hood Canal stock of harbor seals is 

expected to occur in the action area. 

The best available abundance estimate 

was derived from aerial surveys of 

harbor seals in Washington conducted 

during the pupping season in 1999, 

during which time the total numbers of 

hauled-out seals (including pups) were 

counted (711; Jeffries et al., 2003). 

Radio-tagging studies conducted at six 

locations collected information on 

harbor seal haul-out patterns in 1991– 

92, resulting in a pooled correction 

factor (across three coastal and three 

inland sites) of 1.53 to account for 

animals in the water which are missed 

during the aerial surveys (Huber et al., 

2001), which, coupled with the aerial 

survey counts, previously provided the 

abundance estimate. More recent 

tagging information specifically 

conducted in Hood Canal suggests that 

harbor seals in Hood Canal haul out 

twenty percent of the time (London et 

al., 2012). Therefore, the aerial surveys 

represented only twenty percent of the 

population, and the abundance 

estimate has been revised accordingly 

(see Table 1). 

Harbor seal counts in Washington 

State increased at an annual rate of six 

percent from 1983–96, increasing to ten 

percent for the period 1991–96 (Jeffries 

et al., 1997). The population is thought 

to be stable, and harbor seals in 

Washington inland waters have 

generally been considered to be within 

OSP size (Jeffries et al., 2003). 

Harbor seals are the most abundant 

marine mammal in Hood Canal, where 

they can occur anywhere year-round 

and are considered resident, and are the 

only pinniped that breeds in inland 

Washington waters (Jeffries et al., 2003). 

They are year-round, non-migratory 

residents, pup (i.e., give birth) in Hood 

Canal, and the population is considered 

closed, meaning that they do not have 

much movement outside of Hood Canal 

(London, 2006). Surveys in the Hood 

Canal from the mid-1970s to 2000 show 

a fairly stable population between 600– 

1,200 seals, and the abundance of 

harbor seals in Hood Canal has likely 

stabilized at its carrying capacity of 

approximately 1,000 seals (Jeffries et al., 

2003). Harbor seals have been 

consistently sighted during Navy 

surveys, found in all marine habitats 

including nearshore waters and deeper 

water, and have been observed hauled 

out on manmade objects such as buoys 

(Agness and Tannenbaum, 2009; 

Tannenbaum et al., 2009, 2011). Harbor 

seals were commonly observed in the 

water during monitoring conducted for 

other projects at NBKB in 2011–13 

(HDR, 2012a, 2012b; Hart Crowser, 

2013). 

The project area is not known as a 

regular pupping or haul-out site, as 

harbor seals in Hood Canal prefer river 

deltas and exposed tidal areas (London, 

2006). The closest haul-out to the 

project area is approximately 16 km 

southwest of NBKB at Dosewallips River 

mouth, outside the potential area of 

effect for this project (see Figure 4–1 of 

the Navy’s application). However, 

recent observations have shown that 

harbor seals frequently haul-out 

opportunistically along the NBKB 

waterfront (though not on many of the 

larger structures, which are inaccessible 

to harbor seals, or on docked 

submarines, which are favored by sea 

lions) and that pupping does occur 

along the NBKB waterfront. Pupping has 

been observed on the NBKB waterfront 

at Carderock Pier and Service Pier (both 

locations over a mile south of the 

project site), and a harbor seal neonate 

was observed on a small floating dock 

near the project site in 2013. Evidence 

of pupping has been observed in other 

locations, and Navy biologists now 

believe that pupping may occur 

regularly at the Service Pier. During 

most of the year, all age and sex classes 

(except neonates) occur in the project 

area throughout the period of 

construction activity. Despite evidence 

of pupping, harbor seal neonates would 

not generally be expected to be present 

during pile driving. 

California Sea Lion 

California sea lions range from the 

Gulf of California north to the Gulf of 

Alaska, with breeding areas located in 

the Gulf of California, western Baja 

California, and southern California. Five 

genetically distinct geographic 

populations have been identified: (1) 

Pacific temperate, (2) Pacific 

subtropical, and (3–5) southern, central, 

and northern Gulf of California 

(Schramm et al., 2009). Rookeries for 

the Pacific temperate population are 

found within U.S. waters and just south 

of the U.S.-Mexico border, and animals 

belonging to this population may be 

found from the Gulf of Alaska to 

Mexican waters off Baja California. For 

management purposes, a stock of 

California sea lions comprising those 

animals at rookeries within the U.S. is 

defined (i.e., the U.S. stock of California 

sea lions) (Carretta et al., 2014). Pup 

production at the Coronado Islands 

rookery in Mexican waters is considered 

an insignificant contribution to the 

overall size of the Pacific temperate 

population (Lowry and MaravillaChavez, 2005). 

Trends in pup counts from 1975 

through 2008 have been assessed for 

four rookeries in southern California 

and for haul-outs in central and 

northern California. During this time 

period counts of pups increased at an 

annual rate of 5.4 percent, excluding six 

El Nin ̃ o years when pup production 

declined dramatically before quickly 

rebounding (Carretta et al., 2014). The 

maximum population growth rate was 

9.2 percent when pup counts from the 

El Nin ̃ o years were removed. There are 

indications that the California sea lion 

may have reached or is approaching 

carrying capacity, although more data 

are needed to confirm that leveling in 

growth persists (Carretta et al., 2014). 

Sea lion mortality has been linked to 

the algal-produced neurotoxin domoic 

acid (Scholin et al., 2000). Future 

mortality may be expected to occur, due 

to the sporadic occurrence of such 

harmful algal blooms. There is currently 

an Unusual Mortality Event (UME) 

declaration in effect for California sea 

lions. Beginning in January 2013, 

elevated strandings of California sea 

lion pups have been observed in 

southern California, with live sea lion 

strandings nearly three times higher 

than the historical average. Findings to 

date indicate that a likely contributor to 

the large number of stranded, 

malnourished pups was a change in the 

availability of sea lion prey for nursing 

mothers, especially sardines. The causes 

and mechanisms of this UME remain 

under investigation 

(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/

mmume/californiasealions2013.htm; 

accessed March 28, 2015). 

An estimated 3,000 to 5,000 California 

sea lions migrate northward along the 

coast to central and northern California, 

Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver 

Island during the non-breeding season 

from September to May (Jeffries et al., 

2000) and return south the following 

spring (Mate, 1975; Bonnell et al., 1983). 

In past years, peak numbers of up to 

1,000 California sea lions occur in Puget 

Sound (including Hood Canal) during 

this time period (Jeffries et al., 2000). 

Given the overall population increase, it 

is likely that seasonal occurrence in 

Puget Sound has also increased. 

California sea lions are present in 

Hood Canal during much of the year 

with the exception of mid-June through 

August, and occur regularly at NBKB, as 

observed during Navy waterfront 

surveys conducted from April 2008 

through December 2013 (DoN, 2013). 

They are known to utilize a diversity of 

man-made structures for hauling out 

(Riedman, 1990) and, although there are 

no regular California sea lion haul-outs 

known within the Hood Canal (Jeffries 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 22483 

et al., 2000), they are frequently 

observed hauled out at several 

opportune areas at NBKB (e.g., 

submarines, floating security fence, 

barges). All documented instances of 

California sea lions hauling out at NBKB 

have been on submarines docked at 

Delta Pier, where a maximum of 122 

California sea lions have been observed 

at any one time (DoN, 2013), and on 

pontoons of the NBKB floating security 

fence. 

Killer Whale 

Killer whales are one of the most 

cosmopolitan marine mammals, found 

in all oceans with no apparent 

restrictions on temperature or depth, 

although they do occur at higher 

densities in colder, more productive 

waters at high latitudes and are more 

common in nearshore waters 

(Leatherwood and Dahlheim, 1978; 

Forney and Wade, 2006). Killer whales 

are found throughout the North Pacific, 

including the entire Alaska coast, in 

British Columbia and Washington 

inland waterways, and along the outer 

coasts of Washington, Oregon, and 

California. On the basis of differences in 

morphology, ecology, genetics, and 

behavior, populations of killer whales 

have largely been classified as 

‘‘resident’’, ‘‘transient’’, or ‘‘offshore’’ 

(e.g., Dahlheim et al., 2008). Several 

studies have also provided evidence 

that these ecotypes are genetically 

distinct, and that further genetic 

differentiation is present between 

subpopulations of the resident and 

transient ecotypes (e.g., Barrett-Lennard, 

2000). The taxonomy of killer whales is 

unresolved, with expert opinion 

generally following one of two lines: 

Killer whales are either (1) a single 

highly variable species, with locally 

differentiated ecotypes representing 

recently evolved and relatively 

ephemeral forms not deserving species 

status, or (2) multiple species, 

supported by the congruence of several 

lines of evidence for the distinctness of 

sympatrically occurring forms (Krahn et 

al., 2004). Resident and transient whales 

are currently considered to be unnamed 

subspecies (Committee on Taxonomy, 

2014). 

The resident and transient 

populations have been divided further 

into different subpopulations on the 

basis of genetic analyses, distribution, 

and other factors. Recognized stocks in 

the North Pacific include Alaska 

residents; northern residents; southern 

residents; Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian 

Islands, and Bering Sea transients; and 

west coast transients, along with a 

single offshore stock. See Allen and 

Angliss (2014) for more detail about 

these stocks. West coast transient killer 

whales, which occur from California 

through southeastern Alaska, are the 

only type expected to potentially occur 

in the project area. 

It is thought that the stock grew 

rapidly from the mid-1970s to mid1990s as a result of a combination of 

high birth rate, survival, as well as 

greater immigration of animals into the 

nearshore study area (DFO, 2009). The 

rapid growth of the population during 

this period coincided with a dramatic 

increase in the abundance of the whales’ 

primary prey, harbor seals, in nearshore 

waters. Population growth began 

slowing in the mid-1990s and has 

continued to slow in recent years (DFO, 

2009). Population trends and status of 

this stock relative to its OSP level are 

currently unknown. Analyses in DFO 

(2009) estimated a rate of increase of 

about six percent per year from 1975 to 

2006, but this included recruitment of 

non-calf whales into the population. 

Transient occurrence in inland waters 

appears to peak during August and 

September, which is the peak time for 

harbor seal pupping, weaning, and postweaning (Baird and Dill, 1995). The 

number of transient killer whales in 

Washington waters at any one time is 

probably fewer than twenty individuals 

(Wiles, 2004). In 2003 and 2005, small 

groups of transient killer whales (eleven 

and six individuals, respectively) were 

present in Hood Canal for significant 

periods of time (59 and 172 days, 

respectively) between the months of 

January and July. While present, the 

whales preyed on harbor seals in the 

subtidal zone of the nearshore marine 

and inland marine deeper water habitats 

(London, 2006). 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises are found primarily 

in inshore and relatively shallow coastal 

waters (< 100 m) from Point Barrow 

(Alaska) to Point Conception 

(California). Various genetic analyses 

and investigation of pollutant loads 

indicate a low mixing rate for harbor 

porpoises along the west coast of North 

America and likely fine-scale 

geographic structure along an almost 

continuous distribution from California 

to Alaska (e.g., Calambokidis and 

Barlow, 1991; Osmek et al., 1994; 

Chivers et al., 2002, 2007). However, 

stock boundaries are difficult to draw 

because any rigid line is generally 

arbitrary from a biological perspective. 

On the basis of genetic data and density 

discontinuities identified from aerial 

surveys, eight stocks have been 

identified in the eastern North Pacific, 

including northern Oregon/Washington 

coastal and inland Washington stocks 

(Carretta et al., 2013a). The Washington 

inland waters stock includes 

individuals found east of Cape Flattery 

and is the only stock that may occur in 

the project area. 

Although long-term harbor porpoise 

sightings in southern Puget Sound 

declined from the 1940s through the 

1990s, sightings and strandings have 

increased in Puget Sound and northern 

Hood Canal in recent years and harbor 

porpoise are now considered to 

regularly occur year-round in these 

waters (Carretta et al., 2014). Reasons 

for the apparent decline, as well as the 

apparent rebound, are unknown. Recent 

observations may represent a return to 

historical conditions, when harbor 

porpoises were considered one of the 

most common cetaceans in Puget Sound 

(Scheffer and Slipp, 1948). The status of 

harbor porpoises in Washington inland 

waters relative to OSP is not known 

(Carretta et al., 2014). 

In 2006, a UME was declared for 

harbor porpoises throughout Oregon 

and Washington, and a total of 114 

strandings were reported in 2006–07. 

The cause of the UME has not been 

determined and several factors, 

including contaminants, genetics, and 

environmental conditions, are still being 

investigated (Carretta et al., 2014). 

Prior to recent construction projects 

conducted by the Navy at NBKB, harbor 

porpoises were considered to have only 

occasional occurrence in the project 

area. A single harbor porpoise had been 

sighted in deeper water at NBKB during 

2010 field observations (Tannenbaum et 

al., 2011). However, while 

implementing monitoring plans for 

work conducted from July–October, 

2011, the Navy recorded multiple 

sightings of harbor porpoise in the 

deeper waters of the project area (HDR, 

2012). Following these sightings, the 

Navy conducted dedicated line transect 

surveys, recording multiple additional 

sightings of harbor porpoises, and have 

revised local density estimates 

accordingly. 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals. This discussion also 

includes reactions that we consider to 

rise to the level of a take and those that 

we do not consider to rise to the level 

of a take (for example, with acoustics, 

we may include a discussion of studies 

that showed animals not reacting at all 

to sound or exhibiting barely 

measurable avoidance). This section is 

intended as a background of potential 

effects and does not consider either the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22484 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 

specific manner in which this activity 

will be carried out or the mitigation that 

will be implemented, and how either of 

those will shape the anticipated impacts 

from this specific activity. The 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section later in this 

document will include a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis’’ section will include the 

analysis of how this specific activity 

will impact marine mammals and will 

consider the content of this section, the 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section, the ‘‘Proposed 

Mitigation’’ section, and the 

‘‘Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat’’ section to draw conclusions 

regarding the likely impacts of this 

activity on the reproductive success or 

survivorship of individuals and from 

that on the affected marine mammal 

populations or stocks. In the following 

discussion, we provide general 

background information on sound and 

marine mammal hearing before 

considering potential effects to marine 

mammals from sound produced by 

vibratory and impact pile driving. 

Description of Sound Sources 

Sound travels in waves, the basic 

components of which are frequency, 

wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. 

Frequency is the number of pressure 

waves that pass by a reference point per 

unit of time and is measured in hertz 

(Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is 

the distance between two peaks of a 

sound wave; lower frequency sounds 

have longer wavelengths than higher 

frequency sounds and attenuate 

(decrease) more rapidly in shallower 

water. Amplitude is the height of the 

sound pressure wave or the ‘loudness’ 

of a sound and is typically measured 

using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the 

ratio between a measured pressure (with 

sound) and a reference pressure (sound 

at a constant pressure, established by 

scientific standards). It is a logarithmic 

unit that accounts for large variations in 

amplitude; therefore, relatively small 

changes in dB ratings correspond to 

large changes in sound pressure. When 

referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs; 

the sound force per unit area), sound is 

referenced in the context of underwater 

sound pressure to 1 microPascal (mPa). 

One pascal is the pressure resulting 

from a force of one newton exerted over 

an area of one square meter. The source 

level (SL) represents the sound level at 

a distance of 1 m from the source 

(referenced to 1 mPa). The received level 

is the sound level at the listener’s 

position. Note that all underwater sound 

levels in this document are referenced 

to a pressure of 1 mPa and all airborne 

sound levels in this document are 

referenced to a pressure of 20 mPa. 

Root mean square (rms) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. Rms is 

calculated by squaring all of the sound 

amplitudes, averaging the squares, and 

then taking the square root of the 

average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for 

both positive and negative values; 

squaring the pressures makes all values 

positive so that they may be accounted 

for in the summation of pressure levels 

(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This 

measurement is often used in the 

context of discussing behavioral effects, 

in part because behavioral effects, 

which often result from auditory cues, 

may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak pressures. 

When underwater objects vibrate or 

activity occurs, sound-pressure waves 

are created. These waves alternately 

compress and decompress the water as 

the sound wave travels. Underwater 

sound waves radiate in all directions 

away from the source (similar to ripples 

on the surface of a pond), except in 

cases where the source is directional. 

The compressions and decompressions 

associated with sound waves are 

detected as changes in pressure by 

aquatic life and man-made sound 

receptors such as hydrophones. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is typically loud due to 

ambient sound. Ambient sound is 

defined as environmental background 

sound levels lacking a single source or 

point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the 

sound level of a region is defined by the 

total acoustical energy being generated 

by known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric 

sound), biological (e.g., sounds 

produced by marine mammals, fish, and 

invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound 

(e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, 

construction). A number of sources 

contribute to ambient sound, including 

the following (Richardson et al., 1995): 

• Wind and waves: The complex 

interactions between wind and water 

surface, including processes such as 

breaking waves and wave-induced 

bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a 

main source of naturally occurring 

ambient noise for frequencies between 

200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In 

general, ambient sound levels tend to 

increase with increasing wind speed 

and wave height. Surf noise becomes 

important near shore, with 

measurements collected at a distance of 

8.5 km from shore showing an increase 

of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band 

during heavy surf conditions. 

• Precipitation: Sound from rain and 

hail impacting the water surface can 

become an important component of total 

noise at frequencies above 500 Hz, and 

possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 

times. 

• Biological: Marine mammals can 

contribute significantly to ambient noise 

levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The 

frequency band for biological 

contributions is from approximately 12 

Hz to over 100 kHz. 

• Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient 

noise related to human activity include 

transportation (surface vessels and 

aircraft), dredging and construction, oil 

and gas drilling and production, seismic 

surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean 

acoustic studies. Shipping noise 

typically dominates the total ambient 

noise for frequencies between 20 and 

300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of 

anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz 

and, if higher frequency sound levels 

are created, they attenuate rapidly 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from 

identifiable anthropogenic sources other 

than the activity of interest (e.g., a 

passing vessel) is sometimes termed 

background sound, as opposed to 

ambient sound. 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’ 

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and shipping activity) but 

also on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is 

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

Underwater ambient noise was 

measured at approximately 113 dB rms 

between 50 Hz and 20 kHz during the 

recent TPP project, approximately 1.85 

mi from the project area (Illingworth & 

Rodkin, 2012). In 2009, the average 

broadband ambient underwater noise 

levels were measured at 114 dB between 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 22485 

100 Hz and 20 kHz (Slater, 2009). Peak 

spectral noise from industrial activity 

was noted below the 300 Hz frequency, 

with maximum levels of 110 dB noted 

in the 125 Hz band. In the 300 Hz to 5 

kHz range, average levels ranged 

between 83 and 99 dB. Wind-driven 

wave noise dominated the background 

noise environment at approximately 5 

kHz and above, and ambient noise 

levels flattened above 10 kHz. Known 

sound levels and frequency ranges 

associated with anthropogenic sources 

similar to those that would be used for 

this project are summarized in Table 2. 

Details of the source types are 

described in the following text. 

TABLE 2—REPRESENTATIVE SOUND LEVELS OF ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES

Sound source 

Frequency 

range 

(Hz) 

Underwater sound level Reference 

Small vessels .......................................... 250–1,000 151 dB rms at 1 m ................................. Richardson et al., 1995. 

Tug docking gravel barge ....................... 200–1,000 149 dB rms at 100 m ............................. Blackwell and Greene, 2002. 

Vibratory driving of 72-in steel pipe pile 10–1,500 180 dB rms at 10 m ............................... Reyff, 2007. 

Impact driving of 36-in steel pipe pile ..... 10–1,500 195 dB rms at 10 m ............................... Laughlin, 2007. 

Impact driving of 66-in cast-in-steel-shell 

(CISS) pile.

10–1,500 195 dB rms at 10 m ............................... Reviewed in Hastings and Popper, 2005. 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the project would 

include impact pile driving and 

vibratory pile driving. The sounds 

produced by these activities fall into 

one of two general sound types: pulsed 

and non-pulsed (defined in the 

following). The distinction between 

these two sound types is important 

because they have differing potential to 

cause physical effects, particularly with 

regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in 

Southall et al., 2007). Please see 

Southall et al., (2007) for an in-depth 

discussion of these concepts. 

Pulsed sound sources (e.g., 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) produce signals 

that are brief (typically considered to be 

less than one second), broadband, atonal 

transients (ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998; 

NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003; ANSI, 2005) 

and occur either as isolated events or 

repeated in some succession. Pulsed 

sounds are all characterized by a 

relatively rapid rise from ambient 

pressure to a maximal pressure value 

followed by a rapid decay period that 

may include a period of diminishing, 

oscillating maximal and minimal 

pressures, and generally have an 

increased capacity to induce physical 

injury as compared with sounds that 

lack these features. 

Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, 

narrowband, or broadband, brief or 

prolonged, and may be either 

continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 

1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these nonpulsed sounds can be transient signals 

of short duration but without the 

essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid 

rise time). Examples of non-pulsed 

sounds include those produced by 

vessels, aircraft, machinery operations 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems 

(such as those used by the U.S. Navy). 

The duration of such sounds, as 

received at a distance, can be greatly 

extended in a highly reverberant 

environment. 

Impact hammers operate by 

repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto 

a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. 

Sound generated by impact hammers is 

characterized by rapid rise times and 

high peak levels, a potentially injurious 

combination (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). Vibratory hammers install piles 

by vibrating them and allowing the 

weight of the hammer to push them into 

the sediment. Vibratory hammers 

produce significantly less sound than 

impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be 180 

dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 

dB lower than SPLs generated during 

impact pile driving of the same-sized 

pile (Oestman et al., 2009). Rise time is 

slower, reducing the probability and 

severity of injury, and sound energy is 

distributed over a greater amount of 

time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; 

Carlson et al., 2005). 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals, and 

exposure to sound can have deleterious 

effects. To appropriately assess these 

potential effects, it is necessary to 

understand the frequency ranges marine 

mammals are able to hear. Current data 

indicate that not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok 

and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 

2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. 

(2007) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into functional 

hearing groups based on measured or 

estimated hearing ranges on the basis of 

available behavioral data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. The lower and/or upper 

frequencies for some of these functional 

hearing groups have been modified from 

those designated by Southall et al. 

(2007). The functional groups and the 

associated frequencies are indicated 

below (note that these frequency ranges 

do not necessarily correspond to the 

range of best hearing, which varies by 

species): 

• Low-frequency cetaceans 

(mysticetes): functional hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 30 kHz 

(extended from 22 kHz; Watkins, 1986; 

Au et al., 2006; Lucifredi and Stein, 

2007; Ketten and Mountain, 2009; 

Tubelli et al., 2012); 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger 

toothed whales, beaked whales, and 

most delphinids): functional hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz; 

• High-frequency cetaceans 

(porpoises, river dolphins, and members 

of the genera Kogia and 

Cephalorhynchus; now considered to 

include two members of the genus 

Lagenorhynchus on the basis of recent 

echolocation data and genetic data 

[May-Collado and Agnarsson, 2006; 

Kyhn et al. 2009, 2010; Tougaard et al. 

2010]): functional hearing is estimated 

to occur between approximately 200 Hz 

and 180 kHz; and 

• Pinnipeds in water: functional 

hearing is estimated to occur between 

approximately 75 Hz to 100 kHz for 

Phocidae (true seals) and between 100 

Hz and 40 kHz for Otariidae (eared 

seals), with the greatest sensitivity 

between approximately 700 Hz and 20 

kHz. The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 

2009; Reichmuth et al., 2013). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22486 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 

There are five marine mammal 

species (two cetacean and three 

pinniped [two otariid and one phocid] 

species) with expected potential to cooccur with Navy construction activities. 

Please refer to Table 1. Of the two 

cetacean species that may be present, 

the killer whale is classified as a midfrequency cetacean and the harbor 

porpoise is classified as a highfrequency cetacean. 

Acoustic Effects, Underwater 

Potential Effects of Pile Driving 

Sound—The effects of sounds from pile 

driving might result in one or more of 

the following: temporary or permanent 

hearing impairment, non-auditory 

physical or physiological effects, 

behavioral disturbance, and masking 

(Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 

2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et 

al., 2007). The effects of pile driving on 

marine mammals are dependent on 

several factors, including the size, type, 

and depth of the animal; the depth, 

intensity, and duration of the pile 

driving sound; the depth of the water 

column; the substrate of the habitat; the 

standoff distance between the pile and 

the animal; and the sound propagation 

properties of the environment. Impacts 

to marine mammals from pile driving 

activities are expected to result 

primarily from acoustic pathways. As 

such, the degree of effect is intrinsically 

related to the received level and 

duration of the sound exposure, which 

are in turn influenced by the distance 

between the animal and the source. The 

further away from the source, the less 

intense the exposure should be. The 

substrate and depth of the habitat affect 

the sound propagation properties of the 

environment. Shallow environments are 

typically more structurally complex, 

which leads to rapid sound attenuation. 

In addition, substrates that are soft (e.g., 

sand) would absorb or attenuate the 

sound more readily than hard substrates 

(e.g., rock) which may reflect the 

acoustic wave. Soft porous substrates 

would also likely require less time to 

drive the pile, and possibly less forceful 

equipment, which would ultimately 

decrease the intensity of the acoustic 

source. 

In the absence of mitigation, impacts 

to marine species would be expected to 

result from physiological and behavioral 

responses to both the type and strength 

of the acoustic signature (Viada et al., 

2008). The type and severity of 

behavioral impacts are more difficult to 

define due to limited studies addressing 

the behavioral effects of impulsive 

sounds on marine mammals. Potential 

effects from impulsive sound sources 

can range in severity from effects such 

as behavioral disturbance or tactile 

perception to physical discomfort, slight 

injury of the internal organs and the 

auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton 

et al., 1973). 

Hearing Impairment and Other 

Physical Effects—Marine mammals 

exposed to high intensity sound 

repeatedly or for prolonged periods can 

experience hearing threshold shift (TS), 

which is the loss of hearing sensitivity 

at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et 

al., 1999; Schlundt et al., 2000; 

Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). TS can be 

permanent (PTS), in which case the loss 

of hearing sensitivity is not recoverable, 

or temporary (TTS), in which case the 

animal’s hearing threshold would 

recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). 

Marine mammals depend on acoustic 

cues for vital biological functions, (e.g., 

orientation, communication, finding 

prey, avoiding predators); thus, TTS 

may result in reduced fitness in survival 

and reproduction. However, this 

depends on the frequency and duration 

of TTS, as well as the biological context 

in which it occurs. TTS of limited 

duration, occurring in a frequency range 

that does not coincide with that used for 

recognition of important acoustic cues, 

would have little to no effect on an 

animal’s fitness. Repeated sound 

exposure that leads to TTS could cause 

PTS. PTS constitutes injury, but TTS 

does not (Southall et al., 2007). The 

following subsections discuss in 

somewhat more detail the possibilities 

of TTS, PTS, and non-auditory physical 

effects. 

Temporary Threshold Shift—TTS is 

the mildest form of hearing impairment 

that can occur during exposure to a 

strong sound (Kryter, 1985). While 

experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold 

rises, and a sound must be stronger in 

order to be heard. In terrestrial 

mammals, TTS can last from minutes or 

hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). 

For sound exposures at or somewhat 

above the TTS threshold, hearing 

sensitivity in both terrestrial and marine 

mammals recovers rapidly after 

exposure to the sound ends. Few data 

on sound levels and durations necessary 

to elicit mild TTS have been obtained 

for marine mammals, and none of the 

published data concern TTS elicited by 

exposure to multiple pulses of sound. 

Available data on TTS in marine 

mammals are summarized in Southall et 

al. (2007). 

Given the available data, the received 

level of a single pulse (with no 

frequency weighting) might need to be 

approximately 186 dB re 1 mPa2-s (i.e., 

186 dB sound exposure level [SEL] or 

approximately 221–226 dB p-p [peak]) 

in order to produce brief, mild TTS. 

Exposure to several strong pulses that 

each have received levels near 190 dB 

rms (175–180 dB SEL) might result in 

cumulative exposure of approximately 

186 dB SEL and thus slight TTS in a 

small odontocete, assuming the TTS 

threshold is (to a first approximation) a 

function of the total received pulse 

energy. 

The above TTS information for 

odontocetes is derived from studies on 

the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus) and beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas). There is no 

published TTS information for other 

species of cetaceans. However, 

preliminary evidence from a harbor 

porpoise exposed to pulsed sound 

suggests that its TTS threshold may 

have been lower (Lucke et al., 2009). As 

summarized above, data that are now 

available imply that TTS is unlikely to 

occur unless odontocetes are exposed to 

pile driving pulses stronger than 180 dB 

re 1 mPa rms. 

Permanent Threshold Shift—When 

PTS occurs, there is physical damage to 

the sound receptors in the ear. In severe 

cases, there can be total or partial 

deafness, while in other cases the 

animal has an impaired ability to hear 

sounds in specific frequency ranges 

(Kryter, 1985). There is no specific 

evidence that exposure to pulses of 

sound can cause PTS in any marine 

mammal. However, given the possibility 

that mammals close to a sound source 

might incur TTS, there has been further 

speculation about the possibility that 

some individuals might incur PTS. 

Single or occasional occurrences of mild 

TTS are not indicative of permanent 

auditory damage, but repeated or (in 

some cases) single exposures to a level 

well above that causing TTS onset might 

elicit PTS. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals but are assumed to be 

similar to those in humans and other 

terrestrial mammals. PTS might occur at 

a received sound level at least several 

decibels above that inducing mild TTS 

if the animal were exposed to strong 

sound pulses with rapid rise time. 

Based on data from terrestrial mammals, 

a precautionary assumption is that the 

PTS threshold for impulse sounds (such 

as pile driving pulses as received close 

to the source) is at least 6 dB higher than 

the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure 

basis and probably greater than 6 dB 

(Southall et al., 2007). On an SEL basis, 

Southall et al. (2007) estimated that 

received levels would need to exceed 

the TTS threshold by at least 15 dB for 

there to be risk of PTS. Thus, for 

cetaceans, Southall et al. (2007) estimate 

that the PTS threshold might be an MVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:00 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22APN1.SGM 22APN1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 22487 

weighted SEL (for the sequence of 

received pulses) of approximately 198 

dB re 1 mPa2-s (15 dB higher than the 

TTS threshold for an impulse). Given 

the higher level of sound necessary to 

cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is 

considerably less likely that PTS could 

occur. 

Measured source levels from impact 

pile driving can be as high as 214 dB 

rms. Although no marine mammals 

have been shown to experience TTS or 

PTS as a result of being exposed to pile 

driving activities, captive bottlenose 

dolphins and beluga whales exhibited 

changes in behavior when exposed to 

strong pulsed sounds (Finneran et al., 

2000, 2002, 2005). The animals tolerated 

high received levels of sound before 

exhibiting aversive behaviors. 

Experiments on a beluga whale showed 

that exposure to a single watergun 

impulse at a received level of 207 kPa 

(30 psi) p-p, which is equivalent to 228 

dB p-p, resulted in a 7 and 6 dB TTS 

in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz, 

respectively. Thresholds returned to 

within 2 dB of the pre-exposure level 

within four minutes of the exposure 

(Finneran et al., 2002). Although the 

source level of pile driving from one 

hammer strike is expected to be much 

lower than the single watergun impulse 

cited here, animals being exposed for a 

prolonged period to repeated hammer 

strikes could receive more sound 

exposure in terms of SEL than from the 

single watergun impulse (estimated at 

188 dB re 1 mPa2-s) in the 

aforementioned experiment (Finneran et 

al., 2002). However, in order for marine 

mammals to experience TTS or PTS, the 

animals have to be close enough to be 

exposed to high intensity sound levels 

for a prolonged period of time. Based on 

the best scientific information available, 

these SPLs are far below the thresholds 

that could cause TTS or the onset of 

PTS. 

Non-auditory Physiological Effects— 

Non-auditory physiological effects or 

injuries that theoretically might occur in 

marine mammals exposed to strong 

underwater sound include stress, 

neurological effects, bubble formation, 

resonance effects, and other types of 

organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; 

Southall et al., 2007). Studies examining 

such effects are limited. In general, little 

is known about the potential for pile 

driving to cause auditory impairment or 

other physical effects in marine 

mammals. Available data suggest that 

such effects, if they occur at all, would 

presumably be limited to short distances 

from the sound source and to activities 

that extend over a prolonged period. 

The available data do not allow 

identification of a specific exposure 

level above which non-auditory effects 

can be expected (Southall et al., 2007) 

or any meaningful quantitative 

predictions of the numbers (if any) of 

marine mammals that might be affected 

in those ways. Marine mammals that 

show behavioral avoidance of pile 

driving, including some odontocetes 

and some pinnipeds, are especially 

unlikely to incur auditory impairment 

or non-auditory physical effects. 

Disturbance Reactions 

Disturbance includes a variety of 

effects, including subtle changes in 

behavior, more conspicuous changes in 

activities, and displacement. Behavioral 

responses to sound are highly variable 

and context-specific and reactions, if 

any, depend on species, state of 

maturity, experience, current activity, 

reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, 

time of day, and many other factors 

(Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 

2003; Southall et al., 2007). 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most 

likely to habituate to sounds that are 

predictable and unvarying. The opposite 

process is sensitization, when an 

unpleasant experience leads to 

subsequent responses, often in the form 

of avoidance, at a lower level of 

exposure. Behavioral state may affect 

the type of response as well. For 

example, animals that are resting may 

show greater behavioral change in 

response to disturbing sound levels than 

animals that are highly motivated to 

remain in an area for feeding 

(Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003; 

Wartzok et al., 2003). 

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals showed pronounced 

behavioral reactions, including 

avoidance of loud sound sources 

(Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 

2003). Observed responses of wild 

marine mammals to loud pulsed sound 

sources (typically seismic guns or 

acoustic harassment devices, but also 

including pile driving) have been varied 

but often consist of avoidance behavior 

or other behavioral changes suggesting 

discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; 

Thorson and Reyff, 2006; see also 

Gordon et al., 2004; Wartzok et al., 

2003; Nowacek et al., 2007). Responses 

to continuous sound, such as vibratory 

pile installation, have not been 

documented as well as responses to 

pulsed sounds. 

With both types of pile driving, it is 

likely that the onset of pile driving 

could result in temporary, short term 

changes in an animal’s typical behavior 

and/or avoidance of the affected area. 

These behavioral changes may include 

(Richardson et al., 1995): Changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where sound sources are located; 

and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds 

flushing into water from haul-outs or 

rookeries). Pinnipeds may increase their 

haul-out time, possibly to avoid inwater disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 

2006). 

The biological significance of many of 

these behavioral disturbances is difficult 

to predict, especially if the detected 

disturbances appear minor. However, 

the consequences of behavioral 

modification could be expected to be 

biologically significant if the change 

affects growth, survival, or 

reproduction. Significant behavioral 

modifications that could potentially 

lead to effects on growth, survival, or 

reproduction include: 

• Drastic changes in diving/surfacing 

patterns (such as those thought to cause 

beaked whale stranding due to exposure 

to military mid-frequency tactical 

sonar); 

• Habitat abandonment due to loss of 

desirable acoustic environment; and 

• Cessation of feeding or social 

interaction. 

The onset of behavioral disturbance 

from anthropogenic sound depends on 

both external factors (characteristics of 

sound sources and their paths) and the 

specific characteristics of the receiving 

animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography) and is difficult 

to predict (Southall et al., 2007). 

Auditory Masking 

Natural and artificial sounds can 

disrupt behavior by masking, or 

interfering with, a marine mammal’s 

ability to hear other sounds. Masking 

occurs when the receipt of a sound is 

interfered with by another coincident 

sound at similar frequencies and at 

similar or higher levels. Chronic 

exposure to excessive, though not highintensity, sound could cause masking at 

particular frequencies for marine 

mammals that utilize sound for vital 

biological functions. Masking can 

interfere with detection of acoustic 

signals such as communication calls, 

echolocation sounds, and 

environmental sounds important to 

marine mammals. Therefore, under 

certain circumstances, marine mammals 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22488 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 

whose acoustical sensors or 

environment are being severely masked 

could also be impaired from maximizing 

their performance fitness in survival 

and reproduction. If the coincident 

(masking) sound were man-made, it 

could be potentially harassing if it 

disrupted hearing-related behavior. It is 

important to distinguish TTS and PTS, 

which persist after the sound exposure, 

from masking, which occurs during the 

sound exposure. Because masking 

(without resulting in TS) is not 

associated with abnormal physiological 

function, it is not considered a 

physiological effect, but rather a 

potential behavioral effect. 

The frequency range of the potentially 

masking sound is important in 

determining any potential behavioral 

impacts. Because sound generated from 

in-water pile driving is mostly 

concentrated at low frequency ranges, it 

may have less effect on high frequency 

echolocation sounds made by porpoises. 

However, lower frequency man-made 

sounds are more likely to affect 

detection of communication calls and 

other potentially important natural 

sounds such as surf and prey sound. It 

may also affect communication signals 

when they occur near the sound band 

and thus reduce the communication 

space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) 

and cause increased stress levels (e.g., 

Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009). 

Masking has the potential to impact 

species at the population or community 

levels as well as at individual levels. 

Masking affects both senders and 

receivers of the signals and can 

potentially have long-term chronic 

effects on marine mammal species and 

populations. Recent research suggests 

that low frequency ambient sound levels 

have increased by as much as 20 dB 

(more than three times in terms of SPL) 

in the world’s ocean from pre-industrial 

periods, and that most of these increases 

are from distant shipping (Hildebrand, 

2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, 

such as those from vessel traffic, pile 

driving, and dredging activities, 

contribute to the elevated ambient 

sound levels, thus intensifying masking. 

The most intense underwater sounds 

in the proposed action are those 

produced by impact pile driving. Given 

that the energy distribution of pile 

driving covers a broad frequency 

spectrum, sound from these sources 

would likely be within the audible 

range of marine mammals present in the 

project area. Impact pile driving activity 

is relatively short-term, with rapid 

pulses occurring for approximately 

fifteen minutes per pile. The probability 

for impact pile driving resulting from 

this proposed action masking acoustic 

signals important to the behavior and 

survival of marine mammal species is 

likely to be negligible. Vibratory pile 

driving is also relatively short-term, 

with rapid oscillations occurring for 

approximately one and a half hours per 

pile. It is possible that vibratory pile 

driving resulting from this proposed 

action may mask acoustic signals 

important to the behavior and survival 

of marine mammal species, but the 

short-term duration and limited affected 

area would result in insignificant 

impacts from masking. Any masking 

event that could possibly rise to Level 

B harassment under the MMPA would 

occur concurrently within the zones of 

behavioral harassment already 

estimated for vibratory and impact pile 

driving, and which have already been 

taken into account in the exposure 

analysis. 

Acoustic Effects, Airborne 

Marine mammals that occur in the 

project area could be exposed to 

airborne sounds associated with pile 

driving that have the potential to cause 

harassment, depending on their distance 

from pile driving activities. Airborne 

pile driving sound would have less 

impact on cetaceans than pinnipeds 

because sound from atmospheric 

sources does not transmit well 

underwater (Richardson et al., 1995); 

thus, airborne sound would only be an 

issue for pinnipeds either hauled-out or 

looking with heads above water in the 

project area. Most likely, airborne sound 

would cause behavioral responses 

similar to those discussed above in 

relation to underwater sound. For 

instance, anthropogenic sound could 

cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit 

changes in their normal behavior, such 

as reduction in vocalizations, or cause 

them to temporarily abandon their 

habitat and move further from the 

source. Studies by Blackwell et al. 

(2004) and Moulton et al. (2005) 

indicate a tolerance or lack of response 

to unweighted airborne sounds as high 

as 112 dB peak and 96 dB rms. 

Anticipated Effects on Habitat 

The proposed activities at NBKB 

would not result in permanent impacts 

to habitats used directly by marine 

mammals, such as haul-out sites, but 

may have potential short-term impacts 

to food sources such as forage fish and 

salmonids. There are no rookeries or 

major haul-out sites within 16 km or 

ocean bottom structure of significant 

biological importance to marine 

mammals that may be present in the 

marine waters in the vicinity of the 

project area. Therefore, the main impact 

associated with the proposed activity 

would be temporarily elevated sound 

levels and the associated direct effects 

on marine mammals, as discussed 

previously in this document. The most 

likely impact to marine mammal habitat 

occurs from pile driving effects on likely 

marine mammal prey (i.e., fish) near 

NBKB and minor impacts to the 

immediate substrate during installation 

and removal of piles during the wharf 

maintenance project. 

Pile Driving Effects on Potential Prey 

Construction activities would produce 

both pulsed (i.e., impact pile driving) 

and continuous (i.e., vibratory pile 

driving) sounds. Fish react to sounds 

which are especially strong and/or 

intermittent low-frequency sounds. 

Short duration, sharp sounds can cause 

overt or subtle changes in fish behavior 

and local distribution. Hastings and 

Popper (2005) identified several studies 

that suggest fish may relocate to avoid 

certain areas of sound energy. 

Additional studies have documented 

effects of pile driving on fish, although 

several are based on studies in support 

of large, multiyear bridge construction 

projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 

2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). 

Sound pulses at received levels of 160 

dB may cause subtle changes in fish 

behavior. SPLs of 180 dB may cause 

noticeable changes in behavior (Pearson 

et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992). SPLs 

of sufficient strength have been known 

to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality. The most likely impact to fish 

from pile driving activities at the project 

area would be temporary behavioral 

avoidance of the area. The duration of 

fish avoidance of this area after pile 

driving stops is unknown, but a rapid 

return to normal recruitment, 

distribution and behavior is anticipated. 

In general, impacts to marine mammal 

prey species are expected to be minor 

and temporary due to the short 

timeframe for the wharf maintenance 

project. However, adverse impacts may 

occur to a few species of rockfish and 

salmon which may still be present in 

the project area despite operating in a 

reduced work window in an attempt to 

avoid important fish spawning time 

periods. Impacts to these species could 

result from potential impacts to their 

eggs and larvae. 

Pile Driving Effects on Potential 

Foraging Habitat 

The area likely impacted by the 

project is relatively small compared to 

the available habitat in the Hood Canal. 

Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish) 

of the immediate area due to the 

temporary loss of this foraging habitat is 

also possible. The duration of fish 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 22489 

avoidance of this area after pile driving 

stops is unknown, but a rapid return to 

normal recruitment, distribution and 

behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral 

avoidance by fish of the disturbed area 

would still leave significantly large 

areas of fish and marine mammal 

foraging habitat in the Hood Canal and 

nearby vicinity. 

In summary, given the short daily 

duration of sound associated with 

individual pile driving events and the 

relatively small areas being affected, 

pile driving activities associated with 

the proposed action are not likely to 

have a permanent, adverse effect on any 

fish habitat, or populations of fish 

species. Thus, any impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term 

consequences for individual marine 

mammals or their populations. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on such species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of such species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses. 

Measurements from similar pile 

driving events, including from 

previously monitored construction 

activity on the NBKB waterfront, were 

coupled with practical spreading loss to 

estimate zones of influence (ZOI; see 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’). These values were then 

used to develop mitigation measures for 

EHW–1 pile driving activities. The ZOIs 

effectively represent the mitigation zone 

that would be established around each 

pile to prevent Level A harassment to 

marine mammals, while providing 

estimates of the areas within which 

Level B harassment might occur. While 

the ZOIs vary between the different 

diameter piles and types of installation 

methods, the Navy is proposing to 

establish mitigation zones for the 

maximum ZOI for all pile driving 

conducted in support of the wharf 

maintenance project. In addition to the 

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. 

Monitoring and Shutdown for Pile 

Driving 

The following measures would apply 

to the Navy’s mitigation through 

shutdown and disturbance zones: 

Shutdown Zone—For all pile driving 

activities, the Navy will establish a 

shutdown zone intended to contain the 

area in which SPLs equal or exceed the 

180/190 dB rms acoustic injury criteria. 

The purpose of a shutdown zone is to 

define an area within which shutdown 

of activity would occur upon sighting of 

a marine mammal (or in anticipation of 

an animal entering the defined area), 

thus preventing injury of marine 

mammals. Modeled distances for 

shutdown zones are shown in Table 4. 

The Navy would implement a minimum 

shutdown zone of 29 m radius for 

cetaceans and 10 m radius for pinnipeds 

around all pile driving activity. 

However, no cetaceans have been 

observed within the floating port 

security barrier, which is approximately 

500 m from the wharf. 

Disturbance Zone—Disturbance zones 

are the areas in which SPLs equal or 

exceed 160 and 120 dB rms (for pulsed 

and non-pulsed continuous sound, 

respectively). Disturbance zones provide 

utility for monitoring conducted for 

mitigation purposes (i.e., shutdown 

zone monitoring) by establishing 

monitoring protocols for areas adjacent 

to the shutdown zones. Monitoring of 

disturbance zones enables observers to 

be aware of and communicate the 

presence of marine mammals in the 

project area but outside the shutdown 

zone and thus prepare for potential 

shutdowns of activity. However, the 

primary purpose of disturbance zone 

monitoring is for documenting incidents 

of Level B harassment; disturbance zone 

monitoring is discussed in greater detail 

later (see ‘‘Proposed Monitoring and 

Reporting’’). Nominal radial distances 

for disturbance zones are shown in 

Table 4. Given the size of the 

disturbance zone for vibratory pile 

driving, it is impossible to guarantee 

that all animals would be observed or to 

make comprehensive observations of 

fine-scale behavioral reactions to sound, 

and only a portion of the zone (e.g., 

what may be reasonably observed by 

visual observers stationed within the 

water front restricted area [WRA]) will 

be monitored. 

In order to document observed 

incidents of harassment, monitors 

record all marine mammal observations, 

regardless of location. The observer’s 

location, as well as the location of the 

pile being driven, is known from a GPS. 

The location of the animal is estimated 

as a distance from the observer, which 

is then compared to the location from 

the pile. The received level may be 

estimated on the basis of past or 

subsequent acoustic monitoring. It may 

then be determined whether the animal 

was exposed to sound levels 

constituting incidental harassment in 

post-processing of observational data, 

and a precise accounting of observed 

incidents of harassment created. 

Therefore, although the predicted 

distances to behavioral harassment 

thresholds are useful for estimating 

harassment for purposes of authorizing 

levels of incidental take, actual take may 

be determined in part through the use 

of empirical data. That information may 

then be used to extrapolate observed 

takes to reach an approximate 

understanding of actual total takes. 

Monitoring Protocols—Monitoring 

would be conducted before, during, and 

after pile driving activities. In addition, 

observers shall record all incidents of 

marine mammal occurrence, regardless 

of distance from activity, and shall 

document any behavioral reactions in 

concert with distance from piles being 

driven. Observations made outside the 

shutdown zone will not result in 

shutdown; that pile segment would be 

completed without cessation, unless the 

animal approaches or enters the 

shutdown zone, at which point all pile 

driving activities would be halted. 

Monitoring will take place from fifteen 

minutes prior to initiation through 

thirty minutes post-completion of pile 

driving activities. Pile driving activities 

include the time to 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. Please see the Marine Mammal 

Monitoring Plan (available at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/

incidental/ and as Appendix C of the 

Navy’s application), developed by the 

Navy with our approval, for full details 

of the monitoring protocols. 

The following additional measures 

apply to visual monitoring: 

(1) Monitoring will be conducted by 

qualified observers, who will be placed 

at the best vantage point(s) practicable 

to 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: 

• 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; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22490 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 

• Advanced education in biological 

science or related field (undergraduate 

degree or higher required); 

• Experience and ability to conduct 

field observations and collect data 

according to assigned protocols (this 

may include academic experience); 

• 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 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 

• 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. 

(2) Prior to the start of pile driving 

activity, the shutdown zone will be 

monitored for fifteen minutes to ensure 

that it is clear of marine mammals. Pile 

driving will only commence once 

observers have declared the shutdown 

zone clear of marine mammals; animals 

will be allowed to remain in the 

shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their 

own volition) and their behavior will be 

monitored and documented. The 

shutdown zone may only be declared 

clear, and pile driving started, when the 

entire shutdown zone is visible (i.e., 

when not obscured by dark, rain, fog, 

etc.). In addition, if such conditions 

should arise during impact pile driving 

that is already underway, the activity 

would be halted. 

(3) If a marine mammal approaches or 

enters the shutdown zone during the 

course of pile driving operations, 

activity will be halted and delayed until 

either the animal has voluntarily left 

and been visually confirmed beyond the 

shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have 

passed without re-detection of the 

animal. Monitoring will be conducted 

throughout the time required to drive a 

pile. 

Sound Attenuation Devices 

Sound levels can be greatly reduced 

during impact pile driving using sound 

attenuation devices. There are several 

types of sound attenuation devices 

including bubble curtains, cofferdams, 

and isolation casings (also called 

temporary noise attenuation piles 

[TNAP]), and cushion blocks. The Navy 

proposes to use bubble curtains, which 

create a column of air bubbles rising 

around a pile from the substrate to the 

water surface. The air bubbles absorb 

and scatter sound waves emanating 

from the pile, thereby reducing the 

sound energy. Bubble curtains may be 

confined or unconfined. An unconfined 

bubble curtain may consist of a ring 

seated on the substrate and emitting air 

bubbles from the bottom. An 

unconfined bubble curtain may also 

consist of a stacked system, that is, a 

series of multiple rings placed at the 

bottom and at various elevations around 

the pile. Stacked systems may be more 

effective than non-stacked systems in 

areas with high current and deep water 

(Oestman et al., 2009). 

A confined bubble curtain contains 

the air bubbles within a flexible or rigid 

sleeve made from plastic, cloth, or pipe. 

Confined bubble curtains generally offer 

higher attenuation levels than 

unconfined curtains because they may 

physically block sound waves and they 

prevent air bubbles from migrating away 

from the pile. For this reason, the 

confined bubble curtain is commonly 

used in areas with high current velocity 

(Oestman et al., 2009). 

Both environmental conditions and 

the characteristics of the sound 

attenuation device may influence the 

effectiveness of the device. According to 

Oestman et al. (2009): 

• In general, confined bubble curtains 

attain better sound attenuation levels in 

areas of high current than unconfined 

bubble curtains. If an unconfined device 

is used, high current velocity may 

sweep bubbles away from the pile, 

resulting in reduced levels of sound 

attenuation. 

• Softer substrates may allow for a 

better seal for the device, preventing 

leakage of air bubbles and escape of 

sound waves. This increases the 

effectiveness of the device. Softer 

substrates also provide additional 

attenuation of sound traveling through 

the substrate. 

• Flat bottom topography provides a 

better seal, enhancing effectiveness of 

the sound attenuation device, whereas 

sloped or undulating terrain reduces or 

eliminates its effectiveness. 

• Air bubbles must be close to the 

pile; otherwise, sound may propagate 

into the water, reducing the 

effectiveness of the device. 

• Harder substrates may transmit 

ground-borne sound and propagate it 

into the water column. 

The literature presents a wide array of 

observed attenuation results for bubble 

curtains (e.g., Oestman et al., 2009; 

Coleman, 2011; see Appendix B of the 

Navy’s application). The variability in 

attenuation levels is due to variation in 

design, as well as differences in site 

conditions and difficulty in properly 

installing and operating in-water 

attenuation devices. As a general rule, 

reductions of greater than 10 dB cannot 

be reliably predicted. The TPP reported 

a range of measured values for realized 

attenuation mostly within 6 to 12 dB 

(Illingworth & Rodkin, 2012). For 36-in 

piles the average peak and rms 

reduction with use of the bubble curtain 

was 8 dB, where the averages of all 

bubble-on and bubble-off data were 

compared. For 48-in piles, the average 

SPL reduction with use of a bubble 

curtain was 6 dB for average peak values 

and 5 dB for rms values. 

To avoid loss of attenuation from 

design and implementation errors, the 

Navy has required specific bubble 

curtain design specifications, including 

testing requirements for air pressure and 

flow prior to initial impact hammer use, 

and a requirement for placement on the 

substrate. We considered TPP 

measurements (approximately 7 dB 

overall) and other monitored projects 

(typically at least 8 dB realized 

attenuation), and consider 8 dB as 

potentially a reasonable estimate of 

average SPL (rms) reduction, assuming 

appropriate deployment and no 

problems with the equipment. 

Bubble curtains shall be used during 

all impact pile driving. The device will 

distribute air bubbles around one 

hundred percent of the piling perimeter 

for the full depth of the water column, 

and the lowest bubble ring shall be in 

contact with the mudline for the full 

circumference of the ring. Testing of the 

device by comparing attenuated and 

unattenuated strikes is not possible 

because of requirements in place to 

protect marbled murrelets (an ESAlisted bird species under the jurisdiction 

of the USFWS). However, in order to 

avoid loss of attenuation from design 

and implementation errors in the 

absence of such testing, a performance 

test of the device shall be conducted 

prior to initial use. The performance test 

shall confirm the calculated pressures 

and flow rates at each manifold ring. In 

addition, the contractor shall also train 

personnel in the proper balancing of air 

flow to the bubblers and shall submit an 

inspection/performance report to the 

Navy within 72 hours following the 

performance test. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 22491 

Timing Restrictions 

In Hood Canal, designated timing 

restrictions exist for pile driving 

activities to avoid in-water work when 

salmonids and other spawning forage 

fish are likely to be present. The inwater work window is July 16-January 

15. Until September 23, impact pile 

driving will only occur starting two 

hours after sunrise and ending two 

hours before sunset due to marbled 

murrelet nesting season. After 

September 23, in-water construction 

activities will occur during daylight 

hours (sunrise to sunset). 

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 

vibratory hammers for fifteen seconds at 

reduced energy followed by a thirtysecond waiting period. This procedure 

is repeated two additional times. 

However, implementation of soft start 

for vibratory pile driving during 

previous pile driving work for the 

EHW–2 project at NBKB has led to 

equipment failure and serious human 

safety concerns. Project staff have 

reported that, during power down from 

the soft start, the energy from the 

hammer is transferred to the crane boom 

and block via the load fall cables and 

rigging resulting in unexpected damage 

to both the crane block and crane boom. 

This differs from what occurs when the 

hammer is powered down after a pile is 

driven to refusal in that the rigging and 

load fall cables are able to be slacked 

prior to powering down the hammer, 

and the vibrations are transferred into 

the substrate via the pile rather than 

into the equipment via the rigging. One 

dangerous incident of equipment failure 

has already occurred, with a portion of 

the equipment shearing from the crane 

and falling to the deck. Subsequently, 

the crane manufacturer has inspected 

the crane booms and discovered 

structural fatigue in the boom lacing and 

main structural components, which will 

ultimately result in a collapse of the 

crane boom. All cranes were new at the 

beginning of the job. In addition, the 

vibratory hammer manufacturer has 

attempted to install dampers to mitigate 

the problem, without success. In 

consultation with the Navy and experts 

in the field of marine construction, it 

was determined that the likely cause of 

the issue was that larger vibratory 

hammers (e.g., APE Model 600) are not 

designed to handle the additional 

vibration resulting from the soft start 

procedure. Large hammers were 

required due to the design specifications 

of the EHW–2, but are not expected to 

be necessary for the EHW–1 

maintenance work. Use of smaller 

variable moment style vibratory 

hammers has not resulted in similar 

issues to date. 

Therefore, vibratory soft start will be 

required as previously described. 

However, if a variable moment hammer 

proves infeasible for use with this 

project, or if unsafe working conditions 

during soft starts are reported by the 

contractor and verified by an 

independent safety inspection, the Navy 

may discontinue use of the vibratory 

soft start measure. 

For impact driving, soft start will be 

required, and contractors will provide 

an initial set of strikes from the impact 

hammer at reduced energy, followed by 

a thirty-second waiting period, then two 

subsequent reduced energy strike sets. 

The reduced energy of an individual 

hammer cannot be quantified because of 

variation in individual drivers. The 

actual number of strikes at reduced 

energy will vary because operating the 

hammer at less than full power results 

in ‘‘bouncing’’ of the hammer as it 

strikes the pile, resulting in multiple 

‘‘strikes.’’ Soft start for impact driving 

will be required at the beginning of each 

day’s pile driving work and at any time 

following a cessation of impact pile 

driving of thirty minutes or longer. 

We have carefully evaluated the 

Navy’s proposed mitigation measures 

and considered their effectiveness in 

past implementation to preliminarily 

determine whether they are likely to 

effect the least practicable impact on the 

affected marine mammal species and 

stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation 

of potential measures included 

consideration of the following factors in 

relation to one another: (1) The manner 

in which, and the degree to which, the 

successful implementation of the 

measure is expected to minimize 

adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) 

the proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned; and (3) the 

practicability of the measure for 

applicant implementation. 

Any mitigation measure(s) we 

prescribe should be able to accomplish, 

have a reasonable likelihood of 

accomplishing (based on current 

science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed below: 

(1) Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may 

contribute to this goal). 

(2) A reduction in the number (total 

number or number at biologically 

important time or location) of 

individual marine mammals exposed to 

stimuli expected to result in incidental 

take (this goal may contribute to 1, 

above, or to reducing takes by 

behavioral harassment only). 

(3) A reduction in the number (total 

number or number at biologically 

important time or location) of times any 

individual marine mammal would be 

exposed to stimuli expected to result in 

incidental take (this goal may contribute 

to 1, above, or to reducing takes by 

behavioral harassment only). 

(4) A reduction in the intensity of 

exposure to stimuli expected to result in 

incidental take (this goal may contribute 

to 1, above, or to reducing the severity 

of behavioral harassment only). 

(5) Avoidance or minimization of 

adverse effects to marine mammal 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

the prey base, blockage or limitation of 

passage to or from biologically 

important areas, permanent destruction 

of habitat, or temporary disturbance of 

habitat during a biologically important 

time. 

(6) For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation, an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation. 

Based on our evaluation of the Navy’s 

proposed measures, including 

information from monitoring of the 

Navy’s implementation of the mitigation 

measures as prescribed under previous 

IHAs for this and other projects in the 

Hood Canal, we have preliminarily 

determined that the proposed mitigation 

measures provide the means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on marine 

mammal species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking’’. The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) 

indicate that requests for incidental take 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22492 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 

Any monitoring requirement we 

prescribe should accomplish one or 

more of the following general goals: 

1. An increase in the probability of 

detecting marine mammals, both within 

defined zones of effect (thus allowing 

for more effective implementation of the 

mitigation) and in general to generate 

more data to contribute to the analyses 

mentioned below; 

2. An increase in our understanding 

of how many marine mammals are 

likely to be exposed to stimuli that we 

associate with specific adverse effects, 

such as behavioral harassment or 

hearing threshold shifts; 

3. An increase in our understanding 

of how marine mammals respond to 

stimuli expected to result in incidental 

take and how anticipated adverse effects 

on individuals may impact the 

population, stock, or species 

(specifically through effects on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival) through 

any of the following methods: 

• Behavioral observations in the 

presence of stimuli compared to 

observations in the absence of stimuli 

(need to be able to accurately predict 

pertinent information, e.g., received 

level, distance from source); 

• Physiological measurements in the 

presence of stimuli compared to 

observations in the absence of stimuli 

(need to be able to accurately predict 

pertinent information, e.g., received 

level, distance from source); 

• Distribution and/or abundance 

comparisons in times or areas with 

concentrated stimuli versus times or 

areas without stimuli; 

4. An increased knowledge of the 

affected species; or 

5. An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of certain mitigation 

and monitoring measures. 

The Navy submitted a marine 

mammal monitoring plan as part of their 

IHA application, and can be found on 

the Internet at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

permits/incidental/. Similar plans have 

been successfully implemented by the 

Navy under previous IHAs issued for 

work conducted at NBKB and the plan 

may be modified or supplemented based 

on comments or new information 

received from the public during the 

public comment period. 

Visual Marine Mammal Observations 

The Navy will collect sighting data 

and behavioral responses to 

construction for marine mammal 

species observed in the region of 

activity during the period of activity. All 

observers will be trained in marine 

mammal identification and behaviors 

and are required to have no other 

construction-related tasks while 

conducting monitoring. The Navy will 

monitor the shutdown zone and 

disturbance zone before, during, and 

after pile driving, with observers located 

at the best practicable vantage points. 

Based on our requirements, the Marine 

Mammal Monitoring Plan would 

implement the following procedures for 

pile driving: 

• A dedicated monitoring coordinator 

will be on-site during all construction 

days. The monitoring coordinator will 

oversee marine mammal observers. The 

monitoring coordinator will serve as the 

liaison between the marine mammal 

monitoring staff and the construction 

contractor to assist in the distribution of 

information. 

• MMOs would be located at the best 

vantage point(s) in order to properly see 

the entire shutdown zone and as much 

of the disturbance zone as possible. A 

minimum of three MMOs will be on 

duty during all pile driving activity, 

with two of these monitoring the 

shutdown zones. 

• During all observation periods, 

observers will use binoculars and the 

naked eye to search continuously for 

marine mammals. 

• If the shutdown zones are obscured 

by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile 

driving at that location will not be 

initiated until that zone is visible. 

Should such conditions arise while 

impact driving is underway, the activity 

would be halted. 

• The shutdown and disturbance 

zones around the pile will be monitored 

for the presence of marine mammals 

before, during, and after any pile driving 

or removal activity. 

Individuals implementing the 

monitoring protocol will assess its 

effectiveness using an adaptive 

approach. Monitoring biologists will use 

their best professional judgment 

throughout implementation and seek 

improvements to these methods when 

deemed appropriate. Any modifications 

to protocol will be coordinated between 

NMFS and the Navy. 

Data Collection 

We require that observers use 

approved data forms. Among other 

pieces of information, the Navy will 

record detailed information about any 

implementation of shutdowns, 

including the distance of animals to the 

pile and description of specific actions 

that ensued and resulting behavior of 

the animal, if any. In addition, the Navy 

will attempt to distinguish between the 

number of individual animals taken and 

the number of incidents of take. We 

require that, at a minimum, the 

following information be collected on 

the sighting forms: 

• Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period; 

• Weather parameters (e.g., percent 

cover, visibility); 

• Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tide state); 

• Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

sex and age class of marine mammals; 

• Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 

including bearing and direction of travel 

and distance from pile driving activity; 

• Distance from pile driving activities 

to marine mammals and distance from 

the marine mammals to the observation 

point; 

• Locations of all marine mammal 

observations; and 

• Other human activity in the area. 

Reporting 

A draft report would be submitted 

within ninety calendar days of the 

completion of the in-water work 

window. The report will include marine 

mammal observations pre-activity, 

during-activity, and post-activity during 

pile driving days, and will also provide 

descriptions of any problems 

encountered in deploying sound 

attenuating devices, any behavioral 

responses to construction activities by 

marine mammals and a complete 

description of all mitigation shutdowns 

and the results of those actions and an 

extrapolated total take estimate based on 

the number of marine mammals 

observed during the course of 

construction. A final report must be 

submitted within thirty days following 

resolution of comments on the draft 

report. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

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].’’ 

All anticipated takes would be by 

Level B harassment resulting from 

vibratory and impact pile driving and 

involving temporary changes in 

behavior. The proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

minimize the possibility of injurious or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 22493 

lethal takes such that take by Level A 

harassment, serious injury, or mortality 

is considered discountable. However, it 

is unlikely that injurious or lethal takes 

would occur even in the absence of the 

planned mitigation and monitoring 

measures. 

If a marine mammal responds to a 

stimulus by changing its behavior (e.g., 

through relatively minor changes in 

locomotion direction/speed or 

vocalization behavior), the response 

may or may not constitute taking at the 

individual level, and is unlikely to 

affect the stock or the species as a 

whole. However, if a sound source 

displaces marine mammals from an 

important feeding or breeding area for a 

prolonged period, impacts on animals or 

on the stock or species could potentially 

be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 

2007; Weilgart, 2007). Given the many 

uncertainties in predicting the quantity 

and types of impacts of sound on 

marine mammals, it is common practice 

to estimate how many animals are likely 

to be present within a particular 

distance of a given activity, or exposed 

to a particular level of sound. 

This practice potentially 

overestimates the numbers of marine 

mammals taken. For example, during 

the past fifteen years, killer whales have 

been observed within the project area 

twice. On the basis of that information, 

an estimated amount of potential takes 

for killer whales is presented here. 

However, while a pod of killer whales 

could potentially visit again during the 

project timeframe, and thus be taken, it 

is more likely that they will not. 

Although incidental take of killer 

whales has been authorized under past 

IHAs for activities at NBKB on the basis 

of past observations of these species, no 

such takes have been recorded and no 

individuals of these species have been 

observed. Similarly, estimated actual 

take levels (observed takes extrapolated 

to the remainder of unobserved but 

ensonified area) were significantly less 

than authorized levels of take for the 

remaining species. In addition, it is 

often difficult to distinguish between 

the individuals harassed and incidences 

of harassment. In particular, for 

stationary activities, it is more likely 

that some smaller number of individuals 

may accrue a number of incidences of 

harassment per individual than for each 

incidence to accrue to a new individual, 

especially if those individuals display 

some degree of residency or site fidelity 

and the impetus to use the site (e.g., 

because of foraging opportunities) is 

stronger than the deterrence presented 

by the harassing activity. 

The project area is not believed to be 

particularly important habitat for 

marine mammals, nor is it considered 

an area frequented by marine mammals, 

although harbor seals are year-round 

residents of Hood Canal and sea lions 

are known to haul-out on submarines 

and other man-made objects at the 

NBKB waterfront (although typically at 

a distance of a mile or greater from the 

project site). Therefore, behavioral 

disturbances that could result from 

anthropogenic sound associated with 

these activities are expected to affect 

only a relatively small number of 

individual marine mammals, although 

those effects could be recurring over the 

life of the project if the same individuals 

remain in the project vicinity. 

The Navy has requested authorization 

for the incidental taking of small 

numbers of Steller sea lions, California 

sea lions, harbor seals, transient killer 

whales, and harbor porpoises in the 

Hood Canal that may result from pile 

driving during construction activities 

associated with the wharf maintenance 

project described previously in this 

document. In order to estimate the 

potential incidents of take that may 

occur incidental to the specified 

activity, we must first estimate the 

extent of the sound field that may be 

produced by the activity and then 

consider in combination with 

information about marine mammal 

density or abundance in the project 

area. We first provide information on 

applicable sound thresholds for 

determining effects to marine mammals 

before describing the information used 

in estimating the sound fields, the 

available marine mammal density or 

abundance information, and the method 

of estimating potential incidences of 

take. 

Sound Thresholds 

We use generic sound exposure 

thresholds to determine when an 

activity that produces sound might 

result in impacts to a marine mammal 

such that a take by harassment might 

occur. To date, no studies have been 

conducted that explicitly examine 

impacts to marine mammals from pile 

driving sounds or from which empirical 

sound thresholds have been established. 

These thresholds should be considered 

guidelines for estimating when 

harassment may occur (i.e., when an 

animal is exposed to levels equal to or 

exceeding the relevant criterion) in 

specific contexts; however, useful 

contextual information that may inform 

our assessment of effects is typically 

lacking and we consider these 

thresholds as step functions. NMFS is 

currently revising these acoustic 

guidelines; for more information on that 

process, please visit 

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

guidelines.htm. Vibratory pile driving 

produces non-pulsed noise and impact 

pile driving produces impulsive noise. 

TABLE 3—CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA

Criterion Definition Threshold 

Level A harassment (underwater) .......... Injury (PTS—any level above that 

which is known to cause TTS).

180 dB (cetaceans)/190 dB (pinnipeds) (rms). 

Level B harassment (underwater) .......... Behavioral disruption ............................. 160 dB (impulsive source)/120 dB (continuous source) 

(rms). 

Level B harassment (airborne)* .............. Behavioral disruption ............................. 90 dB (harbor seals)/100 dB (other pinnipeds) 

(unweighted). 

* NMFS has not established any formal criteria for harassment resulting from exposure to airborne sound. However, these thresholds represent 

the best available information regarding the effects of pinniped exposure to such sound and NMFS’ practice is to associate exposure at these 

levels with Level B harassment. 

Distance to Sound Thresholds 

Underwater Sound Propagation 

Formula—Pile driving generates 

underwater noise that can potentially 

result in disturbance to marine 

mammals in the project area. 

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: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22494 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 

TL = B * log10(R1/R2), where 

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]). A practical 

spreading value of fifteen is often used 

under conditions, such as Hood Canal, 

where water increases with depth as the 

receiver moves away from the shoreline, 

resulting in an expected propagation 

environment that would lie between 

spherical and cylindrical spreading loss 

conditions. Practical spreading loss (4.5 

dB reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance) is assumed here. 

Underwater Sound—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. A 

large quantity of literature regarding 

SPLs recorded from pile driving projects 

is available for consideration. In order to 

determine reasonable SPLs and their 

associated effects on marine mammals 

that are likely to result from pile driving 

at NBKB, studies with similar properties 

to the specified activity were evaluated, 

including measurements conducted for 

driving of steel piles at NBKB as part of 

the TPP (Illingworth & Rodkin, 2012). 

Please see Appendix B of the Navy’s 

application for a detailed description of 

the information considered in 

determining reasonable proxy source 

level values. The Navy used 

representative source levels (for 

installation of 30-in steel pipe pile) of 

195 dB rms for impact driving and 166 

dB rms for vibratory driving. For impact 

driving, 8 dB effective attenuation was 

assumed due to use of a bubble curtain 

and was therefore subtracted from the 

source level. 

We assume here that consideration of 

vibratory pile driving, and that vibratory 

driving could occur on any of the eight 

days, is conservative in relation to pile 

removal via pneumatic chipping. 

Acoustic measurements for pneumatic 

chipping were previously performed 

during maintenance work at EHW–1 in 

2012. The average value measured at 10 

m was 141 dB rms (RMDT, 2013). 

Therefore, we do not explicitly consider 

pile removal (via pneumatic chipping) 

separately from pile installation activity. 

TABLE 4—CALCULATED DISTANCE(S) 

TO AND AREA ENCOMPASSED BY

UNDERWATER MARINE MAMMAL

SOUND THRESHOLDS DURING PILE

INSTALLATION

Threshold Distance Area 

Impact driving, pinniped 

injury (190 dB).

6 m ...... 113 m2

Impact driving, cetacean 

injury (180 dB).

29 m .... 2,630 

m2

Impact driving, disturbance (160 dB).631 m .. 0.9 

km2

Vibratory driving, pinniped 

injury (190 dB).

n/a ....... — 

Vibratory driving, cetacean injury (180 dB).n/a ....... — 

Vibratory driving, disturbance (120 dB).6.3 km 32.4 

km2

Hood Canal does not represent open 

water, or free field, conditions. 

Therefore, sounds would attenuate as 

they encounter land masses or bends in 

the canal. As a result, the calculated 

distance and areas of impact for the 120- 

dB threshold cannot actually be attained 

at the project area. See Figure 6–1 of the 

Navy’s application for a depiction of the 

size of areas in which each underwater 

sound threshold is predicted to occur at 

the project area due to pile driving. 

Airborne Sound—Pile driving can 

generate airborne sound that could 

potentially result in disturbance to 

marine mammals (specifically, 

pinnipeds) which are hauled out or at 

the water’s surface. As a result, the Navy 

analyzed the potential for pinnipeds 

hauled out or swimming at the surface 

near NBKB to be exposed to airborne 

SPLs that could result in Level B 

behavioral harassment. A spherical 

spreading loss model (i.e., 6 dB 

reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance from the source), in 

which there is a perfectly unobstructed 

(free-field) environment not limited by 

depth or water surface, is appropriate 

for use with airborne sound and was 

used to estimate the distance to the 

airborne thresholds. 

As was discussed for underwater 

sound from pile driving, 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. In 

order to determine reasonable airborne 

SPLs and their associated effects on 

marine mammals that are likely to result 

from pile driving at NBKB, studies with 

similar properties to the proposed 

action, as described previously, were 

evaluated. The Navy used representative 

source levels of 112 dB Lmax

(unweighted) for impact driving (for 36- 

in steel pipe piles) and 95 dB Lmax

(unweighted) for vibratory driving (for 

30-in steel pipe piles). Please see 

Appendix B of the Navy’s application 

for details of the information 

considered. These values give a 

maximum disturbance zone (radial 

distance) of 189 m for harbor seals and 

60 m for sea lions (see Table 6–6 in the 

Navy’s application). 

However, no incidents of incidental 

take resulting solely from airborne 

sound are likely, as distances to the 

harassment thresholds would not reach 

areas where pinnipeds may haul out. 

Harbor seals can haul out at a variety of 

natural or manmade locations, but the 

closest known harbor seal haul-out is at 

the Dosewallips River mouth (London, 

2006) and Navy waterfront surveys and 

boat surveys have found it rare for 

harbor seals to haul out along the NBKB 

waterfront (Agness and Tannenbaum, 

2009; Tannenbaum et al., 2009, 2011; 

DoN, 2013). Individual seals have been 

observed hauled out on pontoons of the 

floating security fence within the 

restricted areas of NBKB, but this area 

is not within the airborne disturbance 

ZOI. Nearby piers are elevated well 

above the surface of the water and are 

inaccessible to pinnipeds, and seals 

have not been observed hauled out on 

the adjacent shoreline. Sea lions 

typically haul out on submarines 

docked at Delta Pier, approximately one 

mile from the project site. 

We recognize that pinnipeds in the 

water could be exposed to airborne 

sound that may result in behavioral 

harassment when looking with heads 

above water. However, these animals 

would previously have been ‘taken’ as a 

result of exposure to underwater sound 

above the behavioral harassment 

thresholds, which are in all cases larger 

than those associated with airborne 

sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment 

of these animals is already accounted 

for in these estimates of potential take. 

Multiple incidents of exposure to sound 

above NMFS’ thresholds for behavioral 

harassment are not believed to result in 

increased behavioral disturbance, in 

either nature or intensity of disturbance 

reaction. Therefore, we do not believe 

that authorization of incidental take 

resulting from airborne sound for 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 22495 

pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne 

sound is not discussed further here. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

The Navy has developed, with input 

from regional marine mammal experts, 

estimates of marine mammal densities 

in Washington inland waters for the 

Navy Marine Species Density Database 

(NMSDD). A technical report (Hanser et 

al., 2014) describes methodologies and 

available information used to derive 

these densities, which are generally 

considered the best available 

information for Washington inland 

waters, except where specific local 

abundance information is available. 

With the exception of the harbor 

porpoise density (derived from vesselbased surveys conducted in Hood 

Canal), we do not believe the NMSDD 

density values are appropriate for use 

here, for the following reasons: (1) Local 

abundance information exists for sea 

lions, which regularly haul out at the 

NBKB waterfront; (2) harbor seal density 

for Hood Canal has recently been 

revised as described below; and (3) 

density values are not appropriate for 

rarely occurring species, such as 

transient killer whales in Hood Canal. 

Please see Appendix A of the Navy’s 

application for more information about 

survey effort at NBKB. 

For all species, the most appropriate 

information available was used to 

estimate the number of potential 

incidences of take. For harbor seals, this 

involved published literature describing 

harbor seal research conducted in 

Washington and Oregon, including 

counts and research specific to Hood 

Canal (Huber et al., 2001; Jeffries et al., 

2003; London et al., 2012). Killer whales 

are known from two periods of 

occurrence (2003 and 2005) and are not 

known to preferentially use any specific 

portion of the Hood Canal. Therefore, 

potential occurrence was assumed as 

likely maximum group size (Houghton 

et al., in prep.) in concert with a 

nominal number of days present, in 

order to provide for small possibility 

that killer whales could be present. The 

best information available for the 

remaining species in Hood Canal came 

from surveys conducted by the Navy at 

the NBKB waterfront or in the vicinity 

of the project area (see Appendix A of 

the Navy’s application). 

Due to their occurrence in deeper 

waters of Hood Canal, this analysis 

assumes that harbor porpoise are 

uniformly distributed in the project 

area. However, it should be noted that 

there have been no observations of 

cetaceans within the floating security 

barriers at NBKB; these barriers thus 

appear to effectively prevent cetaceans 

from approaching the shutdown zones. 

Although the Navy will implement a 

precautionary shutdown zone for 

cetaceans, anecdotal evidence suggests 

that cetaceans are not at risk of Level A 

harassment at NBKB even from louder 

activities (e.g., impact pile driving). As 

described previously, any potential 

occurrence of killer whales would be a 

rare event likely consisting of a single 

group of whales. Harbor seals likely 

occur in greater numbers of along the 

NBKB waterfront than in deeper waters 

of Hood Canal, but are observed 

throughout the action area and through 

use of a density value here we assume 

that they are uniformly distributed 

(likely overestimating occurrence in the 

larger Level B harassment zone for 

vibratory driving). The remaining 

species that occur in the project area, 

Steller sea lion and California sea lion, 

do not appear to utilize most of Hood 

Canal. The sea lions appear to be 

attracted to the man-made haul-out 

opportunities along the NBKB 

waterfront while dispersing for foraging 

opportunities elsewhere in Hood Canal. 

California sea lions were not reported 

during aerial surveys of Hood Canal 

(Jeffries et al., 2000), and Steller sea 

lions have been documented almost 

solely at the NBKB waterfront. 

Description of Take Calculation 

The take calculations presented here 

rely on the best data currently available 

for marine mammal populations in the 

Hood Canal. The formula was 

developed for calculating take due to 

pile driving activity and applied to each 

group-specific sound impact threshold. 

The formula is founded on the following 

assumptions: 

• All marine mammal individuals 

potentially available are assumed to be 

present within the relevant area, and 

thus incidentally taken; 

• An individual can only be taken 

once during a 24-h period; 

• There were will be eight total days 

of activity and the largest ZOI equals 

32.4 km2; 

• Exposure modeling assumes that 

one impact pile driver and three 

vibratory pile drivers are operating 

concurrently; and, 

• Exposures to sound levels above the 

relevant thresholds equate to take, as 

defined by the MMPA. 

The calculation for marine mammal 

takes is estimated by: 

Exposure estimate = (n * ZOI) * days 

of total activity 

Where: 

n = density estimate used for each species/ 

season 

ZOI = sound threshold ZOI area; the area 

encompassed by all locations where the 

SPLs equal or exceed the threshold being 

evaluated 

n * ZOI produces an estimate of the 

abundance of animals that could be 

present in the area for exposure, and is 

rounded to the nearest whole number 

before multiplying by days of total 

activity. Where simple abundance is 

used, this value replaces the product of 

n * ZOI. 

The ZOI impact area is the estimated 

range of impact to the sound criteria. 

The relevant distances specified in 

Table 4 were used to calculate ZOIs 

around each pile. The ZOI impact area 

took into consideration the possible 

affected area of the Hood Canal from the 

pile driving site furthest from shore 

with attenuation due to land shadowing 

from bends in the canal. Because of the 

close proximity of some of the piles to 

the shore, the narrowness of the canal 

at the project area, and the maximum 

fetch, the ZOIs for each threshold are 

not necessarily spherical and may be 

truncated. 

While pile driving can occur any day 

throughout the in-water work window, 

and the analysis is conducted on a per 

day basis, only a fraction of that time 

(typically a matter of hours on any given 

day) is actually spent pile driving. Also 

of note is the fact that the effectiveness 

of mitigation measures in reducing takes 

is typically not quantified in the take 

estimation process. In addition, 

equating exposure with response (i.e., a 

behavioral response meeting the 

definition of take under the MMPA) is 

a simplistic and conservative 

assumption. For these reasons, these 

take estimates are likely to be 

conservative. See Table 5 for total 

estimated incidents of take. 

California Sea Lion—California sea 

lions occur regularly in the vicinity of 

the project site, with the exception of 

approximately mid-June through midAugust, as determined by Navy 

waterfront surveys conducted from 

April 2008 through December 2013. The 

first California sea lion was observed at 

NBKB in August 2009, and their 

occurrence has been increasing since 

that time (DoN, 2013). With regard to 

the range of this species in Hood Canal 

and the project area, we assume on the 

basis of waterfront observations (Agness 

and Tannenbaum, 2009; Tannenbaum et 

al., 2009, 2011; HDR 2012a, 2012b; Hart 

Crowser, 2013) that the opportunity to 

haul out on submarines docked at Delta 

Pier is a primary attractant for California 

sea lions in Hood Canal, as they are not 

typically observed elsewhere in Hood 

Canal. Abundance is calculated as the 

monthly average of the maximum 

number observed in a given month, as 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22496 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 

opposed to the overall average. That is, 

the maximum number of animals 

observed on any one day in a given 

month was averaged for 2008–13, 

providing a monthly average of the 

maximum daily number observed. The 

largest monthly average (71 animals) 

was recorded in November, as was the 

largest single daily count (122 animals). 

We conservatively assume that a 

maximum of 71 California sea lions 

could be in the vicinity of the action 

area and potentially subject to 

incidental harassment on each of the 

maximum eight days of pile driving 

activity. 

Steller Sea Lion—Steller sea lions 

were first documented at the NBKB 

waterfront in November 2008, while 

hauled out on submarines at Delta Pier, 

and have been periodically observed 

from October to April since that time, as 

determined by Navy waterfront surveys 

conducted from April 2008 through 

December 2013. Steller sea lions are 

occasionally observed in early May or 

late September, but have never been 

observed from approximately mid-May 

through mid-September. We assume, on 

the basis of waterfront observations 

(Agness and Tannenbaum, 2009; 

Tannenbaum et al., 2009, 2011; HDR 

2012a, 2012b; Hart Crowser, 2013), that 

Steller sea lions use available haul-outs 

and foraging habitat similarly to 

California sea lions. On occasions when 

Steller sea lions are observed, they 

typically occur in mixed groups with 

California sea lions also present, 

allowing observers to confirm their 

identifications based on discrepancies 

in size and other physical 

characteristics. 

Abundance is calculated in the same 

manner described for California sea 

lions. That is, the maximum number of 

animals observed on any one day in a 

given month was averaged for 2008–13, 

providing a monthly average of the 

maximum daily number observed. The 

largest monthly average (six animals) 

was recorded in November, as was the 

largest single daily count (eleven 

animals). We conservatively assume that 

a maximum of six Steller sea lions could 

be in the vicinity of the action area and 

potentially subject to incidental 

harassment on each of the maximum 

eight days of pile driving activity. 

Harbor Seal—The harbor seal density 

used here is revised from that in the 

NMSDD (Hanser et al., 2014), on the 

basis of information regarding harbor 

seal haul-out behavior specific to Hood 

Canal (London et al., 2012). Jeffries et al. 

(2003) conducted aerial surveys of 

harbor seals in 1999 for the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

dividing the survey areas into seven 

strata (including five in inland waters 

and two in coastal waters). Survey effort 

in the Hood Canal stratum yielded a 

count of 711 harbor seals hauled out. In 

order to produce a total abundance 

estimate, a correction factor based on 

the proportion of time seals spend on 

land versus in the water over the course 

of a day must then be applied to account 

for animals in the water and not 

observed during survey counts. Previous 

density estimates used a correction 

factor of 1.53 (Huber et al., 2001) to 

derive a total Hood Canal population of 

1,088 seals. That factor was based on 

data from tags (VHF transmitters) 

applied to harbor seals at six areas 

(Grays Harbor, Tillamook Bay, Umpqua 

River, Gertrude Island, Protection/Smith 

Islands, and Boundary Bay, BC) within 

two different harbor seal stocks (the 

coastal stock and the Washington inland 

waters stock) over four survey years. 

Although the sampling areas included 

both coastal and inland waters, with 

pooled correction factors of 1.50 and 

1.57, respectively, Huber et al. (2001) 

found no significant difference in the 

proportion of seals ashore among the six 

sites and no interannual variation at one 

site studied across years. The Hood 

Canal population is part of the inland 

waters stock, and while not specifically 

sampled, Jeffries et al. (2003) found the 

VHF data to be broadly applicable to the 

entire Washington harbor seal 

population. However, London et al. 

(2012) provide more recent data that is 

specific to Hood Canal. This more 

recent tagging data indicates that harbor 

seals in Hood Canal haul out only 

twenty percent of the time; therefore, 

the 1999 aerial surveys are considered 

to represent only twenty percent of the 

population, and the 1999 population 

estimate was updated to approximately 

3,555 animals. This abundance, 

considered with the area of Hood Canal 

(358 km2), gives an abundance estimate 

of 9.9 animals/km2. 

At any given time, some animals will 

be hauled out and some will be in the 

water and, to determine an 

instantaneous in-water density estimate, 

a secondary correction may be applied 

to account for harbor seals that are 

hauled out at any given moment. The 

London et al. (2012) data indicate that 

eighty percent of the population might 

be in the water at a given time; therefore 

a corrected density was derived from 

the number of harbor seals that are 

present in the water at any one time 

(eighty percent of 3,555, or 

approximately 2,844 individuals), 

divided by the area of the Hood Canal, 

yielding an estimate of 7.93 animals/

km2. 

We recognize that over the course of 

the day, while the proportion of animals 

in the water may not vary significantly, 

different individuals may enter and exit 

the water (i.e., it is probable that greater 

than eighty percent of seals will enter 

the water at some point during the day). 

Therefore, an instantaneous estimate of 

animals in the water at a given time may 

not produce an accurate assessment of 

the number of individuals that enter the 

water over the daily duration of the 

activity. However, no data exist 

regarding fine-scale harbor seal 

movements within the project area on 

time durations of less than a day, thus 

precluding an assessment of ingress or 

egress of different animals through the 

action area. As such, it is impossible, 

given available data, to determine 

exactly what number of individuals 

above eighty percent may potentially be 

exposed to underwater sound. 

Therefore, we are left to make a 

decision, on the basis of limited 

available information, regarding which 

of these two scenarios (i.e., one hundred 

percent versus eighty percent of harbor 

seals are in the water and exposed to 

sound) produces a more accurate 

estimate of the potential incidents of 

take. 

First, we understand that hauled-out 

harbor seals are necessarily at haul-outs. 

No significant harbor seal haul-outs are 

located within or near the action area. 

Harbor seals observed in the vicinity of 

the NBKB shoreline are rarely hauledout (for example, in formal surveys 

during 2007–08, approximately 86 

percent of observed seals were 

swimming), and when hauled-out, they 

do so opportunistically (i.e., on floating 

booms rather than established haulouts). Harbor seals are typically 

unsuited for using manmade haul-outs 

at NBKB, which are used by the larger 

sea lions. Primary harbor seal haul-outs 

in Hood Canal are generally located at 

significant distance (20 km or more) 

from the action area in Dabob Bay or 

further south (see Figure 4–1 in the 

Navy’s application), meaning that 

animals casually entering the water 

from haul-outs or flushing due to some 

disturbance at those locations would not 

be exposed to underwater sound from 

the project; rather, only those animals 

embarking on foraging trips and 

entering the action area may be exposed. 

Second, we know that harbor seals in 

Hood Canal are not likely to have a 

uniform distribution as is assumed 

through use of a density estimate, but 

are likely to be relatively concentrated 

near areas of interest such as the haulouts found in Dabob Bay or foraging 

areas. The majority of the action area 

consists of the Level B harassment zone 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 22497 

in deeper waters of Hood Canal; past 

observations from surveys and required 

monitoring have confirmed that harbor 

seals are less abundant in these waters. 

Third, a typical pile driving day (in 

terms of the actual time spent driving) 

is somewhat shorter than may be 

assumed (i.e., 8–15 hours) as a 

representative pile driving day based on 

daylight hours. Construction scheduling 

and notional production rates in concert 

with typical delays mean that hammers 

are active for only some fraction of time 

on pile driving ‘‘days’’. During recent 

years of construction at NBKB, pile 

driving occurred for an approximate 

average of seven hours per pile driving 

day. 

What we know tells us that (1) the 

turnover of harbor seals (in and out of 

the water) is occurring primarily outside 

the action area and would not be 

expected to result in a greater number 

of individuals entering the action area 

within a given day and being harassed 

than is assumed; (2) there are likely to 

be significantly fewer harbor seals in the 

majority of the action area than would 

be indicated by the uncorrected density; 

and (3) pile driving actually occurs over 

a limited timeframe on any given day 

(i.e., less total time per day than would 

be assumed based on daylight hours and 

non-continuously), reducing the amount 

of time over which new individuals 

might enter the action area within a 

given day. These factors lead us to 

believe that the corrected density is 

likely to more closely approximate the 

number of seals that may be found in 

the action area than does the 

uncorrected density, and there are no 

existing data that would indicate that 

the proportion of individuals entering 

the water within the predicted area of 

effect during pile driving would be 

dramatically larger than eighty percent. 

Therefore, using one hundred percent of 

the population to estimate density 

would likely result in an overestimate of 

potential take. Moreover, because the 

Navy is typically unable to determine 

from field observations whether the 

same or different individuals are being 

exposed, each observation is recorded as 

a new take, although an individual 

theoretically would only be considered 

as taken once in a given day. 

Finally, we note that during the 

course of previous IHAs issued for Navy 

activity at NBKB, the total estimate of 

actual incidents of take (observed takes 

and observations extrapolated to 

unobserved area) has been substantially 

less than the estimated numbers of take. 

This is almost certainly negatively 

biased, but the disparity does provide 

confirmation that we are not 

significantly underestimating takes. 

Killer Whales—Transient killer 

whales are uncommon visitors to Hood 

Canal, and may be present anytime 

during the year. Transient pods (six to 

eleven individuals per event) were 

observed in Hood Canal for lengthy 

periods of time (59–172 days) in 2003 

(January–March) and 2005 (February– 

June), feeding on harbor seals (London, 

2006). These whales used the entire 

expanse of Hood Canal for feeding. The 

NMSDD used monthly unique sightings 

data collected over the period 2004– 

2010 and an average group size of 5.16 

(Houghton et al., in prep.) to calculate 

densities on a seasonal basis for each of 

five geographic strata (Hanser et al., 

2014). 

While transient killer whales are rare 

in the Hood Canal, it is possible that a 

pod of animals could be present. In the 

event that this occurred in a similar 

manner to prior occurrences (e.g., 59– 

172 days) and incidental take were not 

authorized appropriately, there could be 

significant project delays. In estimating 

potential incidences of take here, we 

make three assumptions: (1) Transient 

killer whales have a reasonable 

likelihood of occurrence in the project 

area; (2) if whales were present, they 

would occur in a pod of six animals (the 

minimum pod size seen in the 2003/

2005 events but equivalent to the 

average pod size reported by Houghton 

et al. [in prep.]); and (3) the pod would 

be present and affected by project 

activities (i.e., within the larger 

vibratory Level B harassment zone) for 

two of the maximum eight days. We 

believe that it is unlikely the whales 

would remain in the area for a longer 

period in the presence of a harassing 

stimulus (i.e., pile driving). In the 

absence of any overriding contextual 

element (e.g., NBKB is not important as 

a breeding area, and provides no 

unusual concentration of prey), it is 

reasonable to assume that whales would 

leave the area if exposed to potentially 

harassing levels of sound on each day 

that they were present. In summary, we 

assume here that, if killer whales 

occurred in the project area, a pod of six 

whales would be present—and could 

potentially be harassed—for two days. 

Harbor Porpoise—During vessel-based 

line transect surveys on nonconstruction days during the TPP, 

harbor porpoises were frequently 

sighted within several kilometers of the 

base, mostly to the north or south of the 

project area, but occasionally directly 

across from the NBKB waterfront on the 

far side of Toandos Peninsula. Harbor 

porpoise presence in the immediate 

vicinity of the base (i.e., within one 

kilometer) remained low. These data 

were used to generate a density for 

Hood Canal. Based on guidance from 

other line transect surveys conducted 

for harbor porpoises using similar 

monitoring parameters (e.g., boat speed, 

number of observers) (Barlow, 1988; 

Calambokidis et al., 1993; Carretta et al., 

2001), the Navy determined the effective 

strip width for the surveys to be one 

kilometer, or a perpendicular distance 

of 500 m from the transect to the left or 

right of the vessel. The effective strip 

width was set at the distance at which 

the detection probability for harbor 

porpoises was equivalent to one, which 

assumes that all individuals on a 

transect are detected. Only sightings 

occurring within the effective strip 

width were used in the density 

calculation. By multiplying the trackline 

length of the surveys by the effective 

strip width, the total area surveyed 

during the surveys was 471.2 km2. 

Thirty-eight individual harbor porpoises 

were sighted within this area, resulting 

in a density of 0.0806 animals/km2. To 

account for availability bias, or the 

animals which are unavailable to be 

detected because they are submerged, 

the Navy utilized a g(0) value of 0.54, 

derived from other similar line transect 

surveys (Barlow, 1988; Calambokidis et 

al., 1993; Carretta et al., 2001). This 

resulted in a corrected density of 0.149 

animals/km2. 

TABLE 5—NUMBER OF POTENTIAL INCIDENTAL TAKES OF MARINE MAMMALS WITHIN VARIOUS ACOUSTIC THRESHOLD

ZONES

Species Density 

Underwater Percentage 

of stock 

Level A abundance Level B 

(120 dB) 1 2

California sea lion ............................................................................................ 71 3 0 568 0.2 

Steller sea lion ................................................................................................. 6 3 0 48 0.1 

Harbor seal ...................................................................................................... 7.93 0 2,056 57 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22498 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 

TABLE 5—NUMBER OF POTENTIAL INCIDENTAL TAKES OF MARINE MAMMALS WITHIN VARIOUS ACOUSTIC THRESHOLD

ZONES—Continued 

Species Density 

Underwater Percentage 

of stock 

Level A abundance Level B 

(120 dB) 1 2

Killer whale (transient) ..................................................................................... n/a 0 12 4.9 4

Harbor porpoise ............................................................................................... 0.149 0 40 0.4 

1The 160-dB acoustic harassment zone associated with impact pile driving would always be subsumed by the 120-dB harassment zone produced by vibratory driving. Therefore, takes are not calculated separately for the two zones. 2For species with associated density, density was multiplied by largest ZOI (i.e., 32.4 km). The resulting value was rounded to the nearest 

whole number and multiplied by the days of activity. For species with abundance only, that value was multiplied directly by the days of activity. 

We assume for reasons described earlier that no takes would result from airborne noise. 3Figures presented are abundance numbers, not density, and are calculated as the average of average daily maximum numbers per month, 

and presented for the month with the highest value. Abundance numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number for take estimation. 4We assumed that a single pod of six killer whales could be present for as many as two days of the duration, and that harbor porpoise have 

the likely potential to be affected by project activities for as many as four days of the duration. 

Analyses and Preliminary 

Determinations 

Negligible Impact Analysis 

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.’’ 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 Level B harassment 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 behavioral harassment, we 

consider 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 the 

number and nature of estimated Level A 

harassment takes, the number of 

estimated mortalities, and effects on 

habitat. 

Pile driving activities associated with 

the wharf maintenance project, as 

outlined previously, have the potential 

to disturb or displace marine mammals. 

Specifically, the specified activities may 

result in take, in the form of Level B 

harassment (behavioral disturbance) 

only, from underwater sounds generated 

from pile driving. Potential takes could 

occur if individuals of these species are 

present in the ensonified zone when 

pile driving is happening, which is 

likely to occur because (1) harbor seals, 

which are frequently observed along the 

NBKB waterfront, are present within the 

WRA; (2) sea lions, which are less 

frequently observed, transit the WRA en 

route to haul-outs to the south at Delta 

Pier; or (3) cetaceans or pinnipeds 

transit the larger Level B harassment 

zone outside of the WRA. 

No injury, serious injury, or mortality 

is anticipated given the methods of 

installation and measures designed to 

minimize the possibility of injury to 

marine mammals. The potential for 

these outcomes is minimized through 

the construction method and duration 

and the implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures. Specifically, 

vibratory hammers will be the primary 

method of installation, and this activity 

does not have significant potential to 

cause injury to marine mammals due to 

the relatively low source levels 

produced (less than 180 dB rms) and the 

lack of potentially injurious source 

characteristics. Impact pile driving 

produces short, sharp pulses with 

higher peak levels and much sharper 

rise time to reach those peaks. The 

entire duration of the specified activity 

would be eight days; given the intensity 

of potential effects as described below, 

we do not expect that such a short 

duration could produce a greater than 

negligible impact on the affected stocks. 

When impact driving is necessary, 

required measures (use of a sound 

attenuation system, which reduces 

overall source levels as well as 

dampening the sharp, potentially 

injurious peaks, and implementation of 

shutdown zones) significantly reduce 

any possibility of injury. 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. The likelihood 

that marine mammal detection ability 

by trained observers is high under the 

environmental conditions described for 

Hood Canal further enables the 

implementation of shutdowns to avoid 

injury, serious injury, or mortality. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment, on the basis of 

reports in the literature as well as 

monitoring from past projects at NBKB, 

will likely be limited to reactions such 

as increased swimming speeds, 

increased surfacing time, or decreased 

foraging (if such activity were 

occurring). 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. In response to 

vibratory driving, harbor seals (which 

may be somewhat habituated to human 

activity along the NBKB waterfront) 

have been observed to orient towards 

and sometimes move towards the 

sound. Repeated exposures of 

individuals to levels of sound that may 

cause Level B harassment are unlikely 

to result in hearing impairment or to 

significantly disrupt foraging behavior. 

Thus, even repeated Level B harassment 

of some small subset of the overall stock 

is unlikely to result in any significant 

realized decrease in fitness to those 

individuals, and thus would not result 

in any adverse impact to the stock as a 

whole. Level B harassment will be 

reduced to the level of least practicable 

impact through use of mitigation 

measures described herein and, if sound 

produced by project activities is 

sufficiently disturbing, animals are 

likely to simply avoid the project area 

while the activity is occurring. 

For pinnipeds, no rookeries are 

present in the project area, there are no 

haul-outs other than those provided 

opportunistically by man-made objects, 

and the project area is not known to 

provide foraging habitat of any special 

importance (other than is afforded by 

the known migration of salmonids 

generally along the Hood Canal 

shoreline). No cetaceans are expected 

within the WRA. The pile driving 

activities analyzed here are similar to 

other nearby construction activities 

within the Hood Canal, including recent 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 22499 

projects conducted by the Navy at the 

same location as well as work 

conducted in 2005 for the Hood Canal 

Bridge (SR–104) by the Washington 

State Department of Transportation, 

which have taken place with no 

reported injuries or mortality to marine 

mammals, and no known long-term 

adverse consequences from behavioral 

harassment. 

In summary, this negligible impact 

analysis is founded on the following 

factors: (1) The possibility of injury, 

serious injury, or mortality may 

reasonably be considered discountable; 

(2) the anticipated incidences of Level B 

harassment consist of, at worst, 

temporary (maximum of eight days) 

modifications in behavior; (3) the 

absence of any major rookeries and only 

a few isolated and opportunistic haulout areas near or adjacent to the project 

site; (4) the absence of cetaceans within 

the WRA and generally sporadic 

occurrence outside the WRA; (5) the 

absence of any other known areas or 

features of special significance for 

foraging or reproduction within the 

project area; and (6) the presumed 

efficacy of the planned mitigation 

measures in reducing the effects of the 

specified activity to the level of least 

practicable impact. In addition, none of 

these stocks are listed under the ESA or 

designated as depleted under the 

MMPA. All of the stocks for which take 

is authorized are thought to be 

increasing or to be within OSP size. In 

combination, we believe that these 

factors, as well as the available body of 

evidence from other similar activities, 

including those conducted at the same 

time of year and in the same location, 

demonstrate that the potential effects of 

the specified activity will have only 

short-term effects on individuals. The 

specified activity is not expected to 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

and will therefore not result in 

population-level impacts. Based on the 

analysis contained herein of the likely 

effects of the specified activity on 

marine mammals and their habitat, and 

taking into consideration the 

implementation of the proposed 

monitoring and mitigation measures, we 

preliminarily find that the total marine 

mammal take from Navy’s wharf 

maintenance activities will have a 

negligible impact on the affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers Analysis 

The numbers of animals authorized to 

be taken for all stocks (other than harbor 

seals) would be considered small 

relative to the relevant stocks or 

populations (ranging from 0.1 to 4.9 

percent) even if each estimated taking 

occurred to a new individual—an 

extremely unlikely scenario. For 

pinnipeds occurring at the NBKB 

waterfront, there will almost certainly 

be some overlap in individuals present 

day-to-day. Further, for the pinniped 

species, these takes could potentially 

occur only within some small portion of 

the overall regional stock. For example, 

of the estimated 296,750 California sea 

lions, only certain adult and subadult 

males—believed to number 

approximately 3,000–5,000 by Jeffries et 

al. (2000)—travel north during the nonbreeding season. That number has 

almost certainly increased with the 

population of California sea lions—the 

2000 SAR for California sea lions 

reported an estimated population size of 

204,000–214,000 animals—but likely 

remains a relatively small portion of the 

overall population. 

For harbor seals, takes are likely to 

occur only within some portion of the 

population, rather than to animals from 

the Hood Canal stock as a whole. As 

described previously (see ‘‘Description 

of Marine Mammals in the Area of the 

Specified Activity’’), established harbor 

seal haul-outs are located at such a 

distance from the project site that we 

would not expect the majority of 

individual animals comprising the total 

stock to occur within the affected area, 

especially over such a short duration 

(eight days maximum). Therefore, we 

expect that the proposed authorized 

take level represents repeated exposures 

of a much smaller number of 

individuals in relation to the total stock 

size. Further, animals that are resident 

to Hood Canal, to which any incidental 

take would accrue, represent only seven 

percent of the best estimate of the larger 

Washington inland waters harbor seal 

abundance. 

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 

mitigation and monitoring measures, we 

preliminarily find that small numbers of 

marine mammals will be taken relative 

to the populations of the affected 

species or stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals implicated by this 

action. Therefore, we have 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) 

No marine mammal species listed 

under the ESA are expected to be 

affected by these activities. Therefore, 

we have determined that a section 7 

consultation under the ESA is not 

required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

The Navy prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) to consider the direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects to the 

human environment resulting from the 

wharf maintenance project. NMFS has 

reviewed the EA and believes it 

appropriate to adopt the EA in order to 

assess the impacts to the human 

environment of issuance of an IHA to 

the Navy and subsequently sign our 

own Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). Information in the Navy’s 

application, the Navy’s EA, and this 

notice collectively provide the 

environmental information related to 

proposed issuance of this IHA for public 

review and comment. The EA is 

available for review at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/

incidental/construction.htm. We will 

review all comments submitted in 

response to this notice as we complete 

the NEPA process, including a final 

decision of whether to adopt the Navy’s 

EA and sign a FONSI, prior to a final 

decision on the incidental take 

authorization request. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, we propose to issue an 

IHA to the Navy for conducting the 

described wharf maintenance activities 

in the Hood Canal, from July 16, 2015 

through January 15, 2016, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. The proposed IHA 

language is provided next. 

This section contains a draft of the 

IHA itself. The wording contained in 

this section is proposed for inclusion in 

the IHA (if issued). 

1. This Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) is valid from July 

16, 2015 through January 15, 2016. 

2. This IHA is valid only for pile 

driving and removal activities 

associated with maintenance of 

Explosive Handling Wharf #1 (EHW–1) 

in the Hood Canal, Washington. 

3. General Conditions 

(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the 

possession of the Navy, its designees, 

and work crew personnel operating 

under the authority of this IHA. 

(b) The species authorized for taking 

are the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22500 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 

California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus), killer whale (transient 

only; Orcinus orca), Steller sea lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus), and the harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). 

(c) The taking, by Level B harassment 

only, is limited to the species listed in 

condition 3(b). See Table 1 (attached) 

for numbers of take authorized. 

(d) The taking by injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, or death of 

any of the species listed in condition 

3(b) of the Authorization or any taking 

of any other species of marine mammal 

is prohibited and may result in the 

modification, suspension, or revocation 

of this IHA. 

(e) The Navy shall 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. 

4. Mitigation Measures 

In order to ensure the least practicable 

impact on the species listed in 

condition 3(b), the holder of this 

Authorization is required to implement 

the following mitigation measures: 

(a) During impact pile driving, the 

Navy shall implement a minimum 

shutdown zone of 10 m radius around 

the pile, to be effective for all species of 

pinniped, and a minimum shutdown 

zone of 29 m radius around the pile, to 

be effective for all species of cetacean. 

If a marine mammal comes within the 

relevant zone, such operations shall 

cease. 

(b) During vibratory pile driving and 

removal, the Navy shall implement a 

minimum shutdown zone of 10 m 

radius around the pile for marine 

mammals. If a marine mammal comes 

within this zone, such operations shall 

cease. 

(c) The Navy shall establish 

monitoring locations as described in the 

Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan 

(Monitoring Plan; attached). For all pile 

driving and removal activities, a 

minimum of three observers shall be on 

duty, in addition to a monitoring 

coordinator. Two of the observers’ 

primary responsibility shall be to 

monitor the shutdown zones, while the 

additional observer shall be positioned 

for optimal monitoring of the 

surrounding waters within the 

Waterfront Restricted Area (WRA). 

These observers shall record all 

observations of marine mammals, 

regardless of distance from the pile 

being driven, as well as behavior and 

potential behavioral reactions of the 

animals. 

(d) Monitoring shall take place from 

fifteen minutes prior to initiation of pile 

driving activity through thirty minutes 

post-completion of pile driving activity. 

Pre-activity monitoring shall be 

conducted for fifteen minutes to ensure 

that the shutdown zone is clear of 

marine mammals, and pile driving may 

commence when observers have 

declared the shutdown zone clear of 

marine mammals. In the event of a delay 

or shutdown of activity resulting from 

marine mammals in the shutdown zone, 

animals shall be allowed to remain in 

the shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of 

their own volition) and their behavior 

shall be monitored and documented. 

Monitoring shall occur throughout the 

time required to drive a pile. The 

shutdown zone must be determined to 

be clear during periods of good visibility 

(i.e., the entire shutdown zone and 

surrounding waters within the WRA 

must be visible to the naked eye). 

(e) If a marine mammal approaches or 

enters the shutdown zone, all pile 

driving activities at that location shall 

be halted (i.e., implementation of 

shutdown at one pile driving location 

may not necessarily trigger shutdown at 

other locations when pile driving is 

occurring concurrently). If pile driving 

is halted or delayed at a specific 

location due to the presence of a marine 

mammal, the activity may not 

commence or resume until either the 

animal has voluntarily left and been 

visually confirmed beyond the 

shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have 

passed without re-detection of the 

animal. 

(f) Monitoring shall be conducted by 

qualified observers, as described in the 

Monitoring Plan. Trained observers 

shall be placed from the best vantage 

point(s) practicable (i.e., provides the 

most unobstructed view of the 

monitoring zones and are at the highest 

elevation possible) to monitor for 

marine mammals and implement 

shutdown or delay procedures when 

applicable through communication with 

the equipment operator. 

(g) Approved sound attenuation 

devices shall be used during impact pile 

driving operations. The Navy shall 

implement the necessary contractual 

requirements to ensure that such 

devices are capable of achieving optimal 

performance, and that deployment of 

the device is implemented properly 

such that no reduction in performance 

may be attributable to faulty 

deployment. 

(h) The Navy shall use soft start 

techniques recommended by NMFS for 

vibratory and impact pile driving. Soft 

start for vibratory drivers requires 

contractors to initiate sound for fifteen 

seconds at reduced energy followed by 

a thirty-second waiting period. This 

procedure is repeated two additional 

times. Soft start for impact drivers 

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 

pile driving and at any time following 

cessation of pile driving for a period of 

thirty minutes or longer. Soft start for 

impact drivers must be implemented at 

any time following cessation of impact 

driving for a period of thirty minutes or 

longer. The Navy may discontinue use 

of vibratory soft starts if unsafe working 

conditions believed to result from 

implementation of the measure are 

reported by the contractor, verified by 

an independent safety inspection, and 

reported to NMFS. 

(i) Pile driving shall only be 

conducted during daylight hours and 

when the entire shutdown zone is 

visible. 

5. Monitoring 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to conduct marine mammal 

monitoring during pile driving activity. 

Marine mammal monitoring and 

reporting shall be conducted in 

accordance with the Monitoring Plan. 

(a) The Navy shall collect sighting 

data and behavioral responses to pile 

driving for marine mammal species 

observed in the region of activity during 

the period of activity. All observers 

shall be trained in marine mammal 

identification and behaviors, and shall 

have no other construction related tasks 

while conducting monitoring. 

(b) For all marine mammal 

monitoring, the information shall be 

recorded as described in the Monitoring 

Plan. 

6. Reporting 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to: 

(a) Submit a draft report on all marine 

mammal monitoring conducted under 

the IHA within ninety calendar days of 

the end of the in-water work period. A 

final report shall be prepared and 

submitted within thirty days following 

resolution of comments on the draft 

report from NMFS. This report must 

contain the informational elements 

described in the Monitoring Plan, at 

minimum (see attached). 

(b) Reporting injured or dead marine 

mammals: 

i. In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by this IHA (as determined 

by the lead observer), such as an injury 

(Level A harassment), serious injury, or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Notices 22501 

mortality, Navy shall immediately cease 

the specified activities and report the 

incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources (301–427–8425), NMFS, and 

the West Coast Regional Stranding 

Coordinator (206–526–6550), NMFS. 

The report must include the following 

information: 

A. Time and date of the incident; 

B. Description of the incident; 

C. Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

D. Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

E. Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

F. Fate of the animal(s); and 

G. Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

Activities shall not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS will work with Navy to 

determine what measures are necessary 

to minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. Navy may not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS. 

i. In the event that Navy discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead observer determines that the 

cause of the injury or death is unknown 

and the death is relatively recent (e.g., 

in less than a moderate state of 

decomposition), Navy shall immediately 

report the incident to the Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

West Coast Regional Stranding 

Coordinator, NMFS. 

The report must include the same 

information identified in 6(b)(i) of this 

IHA. Activities may continue while 

NMFS reviews the circumstances of the 

incident and makes a final 

determination on the cause of the 

reported injury or death. NMFS will 

work with Navy to determine whether 

additional mitigation measures or 

modifications to the activities are 

appropriate. 

ii. In the event that Navy discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead observer determines that the 

injury or death is not associated with or 

related to the activities authorized in the 

IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, 

carcass with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, scavenger damage), 

Navy shall report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and the West Coast Regional Stranding 

Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of 

the discovery. Navy shall provide 

photographs or video footage or other 

documentation of the stranded animal 

sighting to NMFS. The cause of injury 

or death may be subject to review and 

a final determination by NMFS. 

7. This Authorization may be 

modified, suspended or withdrawn if 

the holder fails to abide by the 

conditions prescribed herein, or if the 

authorized taking is having more than a 

negligible impact on the species or stock 

of affected marine mammals. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analysis, 

the draft authorization, and any other 

aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA 

for Navy’s wharf maintenance activities. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform our final decision on Navy’s 

request for an MMPA authorization. 

Dated: April 16, 2015. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09253 Filed 4–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Marine Protected Areas Federal 

Advisory Committee; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean 

Service (NOS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a 

meeting of the Marine Protected Areas 

Federal Advisory Committee 

(Committee) in Tacoma, Washington. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

Tuesday, June 2, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 

p.m.; Wednesday, June 3, 2015, from 

8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Thursday, June 

4, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. These 

times and the agenda topics described 

below are subject to change. Refer to the 

Web page listed below for the most upto-date meeting agenda. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Hotel Murano, 1320 Broadway 

Plaza, Tacoma, WA 98402. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lauren Wenzel, Acting Designated 

Federal Officer, MPA FAC, National 

Marine Protected Areas Center, 1305 

East West Highway, Silver Spring, 

Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301–713– 

7265, Fax: 301–713–3110); email: 

lauren.wenzel@noaa.gov; or visit the 

National MPA Center Web site at 

http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Committee, composed of external, 

knowledgeable representatives of 

stakeholder groups, was established by 

the Department of Commerce (DOC) to 

provide advice to the Secretaries of 

Commerce and the Interior on 

implementation of Section 4 of 

Executive Order 13158, on marine 

protected areas (MPAs). The meeting is 

open to the public, and public comment 

will be accepted from 4:30 p.m. to 5 

p.m. on Tuesday, June 2, 2015. In 

general, each individual or group will 

be limited to a total time of five (5) 

minutes. If members of the public wish 

to submit written statements, they 

should be submitted to the Designated 

Federal Official by May 29, 2015. 

Matters to be Considered: The focus of 

the Committee’s meeting will be the 

development of workplans by the 

Subcommittees (MPA Connectivity and 

External Financing for MPAs) to address 

the Committee’s charge and begin 

discussion of issues; provide an 

opportunity for updates and input on 

Subcommittee and Working Group 

workplans from all Committee 

members; and gain a perspective on 

tribal marine resource management, and 

on MPA management issues in the 

Pacific Northwest. The agenda is subject 

to change. The latest version will be 

posted at http://

marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/. 

Dated: April 9, 2015. 

Daniel J. Basta, 

Director, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09313 Filed 4–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Observer 

Programs’ Information That Can Be 

Gathered Only Through Questions. 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES