[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59238-59247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23339]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XD393
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Pier Maintenance Project
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that we have issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the
U.S. Navy (Navy) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only,
three species of marine mammals during construction activities
associated with a pier maintenance project at Naval Base Kitsap
Bremerton, Washington.
DATES: This authorization is effective from October 1, 2014, through
March 1, 2015.
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. A memorandum describing our
adoption of the Navy's Environmental Assessment (2013) and our
associated Finding of No Significant Impact, prepared pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act, are also available at the same site.
In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact
listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
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, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are
[[Page 59239]]
issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103
as ``. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot
be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.''
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process
by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to
incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of
an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on
any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine
mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must
either issue or deny the authorization. Except with respect to certain
activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as ``any
act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to
injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A
harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing,
breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].''
Summary of Request
On June 16, 2014, we received a request from the Navy for
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and
removal associated with the Pier 6 pile replacement project at Naval
Base Kitsap Bremerton, WA (NBKB). The Navy submitted a revised version
of the request on July 29, 2014, which we deemed adequate and complete.
The Navy plans to continue this multi-year project, involving impact
and vibratory pile driving conducted within the approved in-water work
window. This IHA covers only the second year (in-water work window) of
the project, from October 1, 2014, through March 1, 2015. Hereafter,
use of the generic term ``pile driving'' may refer to both pile
installation and removal unless otherwise noted.
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 the in-water work window include the
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus monteriensis), California sea lion
(Zalophus californianus), and harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii).
All of these species may be present throughout the period of validity
for this IHA.
This is the second such IHA issued to the Navy for this project,
following the IHA issued effective from December 1, 2013, through March
1, 2014 (78 FR 69825). A monitoring report, provided as Appendix D of
the Navy's application, is available on the Internet at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm and provides
environmental information related to proposed issuance of this IHA for
public review and comment.
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
NBKB serves as the homeport for a nuclear aircraft carrier and
other Navy vessels and as a shipyard capable of overhauling and
repairing all types and sizes of ships. Other significant capabilities
include alteration, construction, deactivation, and dry-docking of
naval vessels. Pier 6 was completed in 1926 and requires substantial
maintenance to maintain readiness. Over the length of the entire
project, the Navy plans to remove up to 400 deteriorating fender piles
and to replace them with up to 330 new pre-stressed concrete fender
piles.
Dates and Duration
The allowable season for in-water work, including pile driving, at
NBKB is June 15 through March 1, a window established by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife in coordination with NMFS and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to protect fish. The total three-year
project is expected to require 25 days of vibratory pile removal and 77
days of impact pile driving. Under the specified activity--which
includes only the portion of the project planned for completion under
this IHA--a maximum of sixty pile driving days would occur. The Navy
plans to conduct fifteen days of vibratory pile removal and 45 days of
pile installation with an impact hammer. Either type of pile driving
may occur on any day during the period of validity, including
concurrent pile removal and installation. Pile driving may occur only
during daylight hours.
Specific Geographic Region
NBKB is located on the north side of Sinclair Inlet in Puget Sound
(see Figures 1-1 and 2-1 of the Navy's application). Sinclair Inlet, an
estuary of Puget Sound extending 3.5 miles southwesterly from its
connection with the Port Washington Narrows, connects to the main basin
of Puget Sound through Port Washington Narrows and then Agate Pass to
the north or Rich Passage to the east. Sinclair Inlet has been
significantly modified by development activities. Fill associated with
transportation, commercial, and residential development of NBKB, the
City of Bremerton, and the local ports of Bremerton and Port Orchard
has resulted in significant changes to the shoreline. The area
surrounding Pier 6 is industrialized, armored and adjacent to railroads
and highways. Sinclair Inlet is also the receiving body for a
wastewater treatment plant located just west of NBKB. Sinclair Inlet is
relatively shallow and does not flush fully despite freshwater stream
inputs.
Detailed Description of Activities
The Navy plans to remove deteriorated fender piles at Pier 6 and
replace them with pre-stressed concrete piles. The entire project calls
for the removal of 380 12-in diameter creosoted timber piles and twenty
12-in steel pipe piles. These will be replaced with 240 18-in square
concrete piles and ninety 24-in square concrete piles. It is not
possible to specify accurately the number of piles that might be
installed or removed in any given work window, due to various delays
that may be expected during construction work and uncertainty inherent
to estimating production rates. The Navy assumes a notional production
rate of sixteen piles per day (removal) and four piles per day
(installation) in determining the number of days of pile driving
expected, and scheduling--as well as exposure analyses--is based on
this assumption.
All piles are planned for removal via vibratory driver. The driver
is suspended from a barge-mounted crane and positioned on top of a
pile. Vibration from the activated driver loosens the pile from the
substrate. Once the pile is released, the crane raises the driver and
pulls the pile from the sediment. Vibratory extraction is expected to
take approximately 5-30 minutes per pile. If piles break during
removal, the remaining portion may be
[[Page 59240]]
removed via direct pull or with a clamshell bucket. Replacement piles
will be installed via impact driver and are expected to require
approximately 15-60 minutes of driving time per pile, depending on
subsurface conditions. Impact driving and/or vibratory removal could
occur on any work day during the period of the IHA. Only one pile
driving rig is planned for operation at any given time.
Description of Work Accomplished
During the first in-water work season, the contractor completed
installation of two concrete piles, on two separate days. Please see
the Navy's report in Appendix D of their application. The Navy
initially estimated that 200 work days would be required to complete
the project, but has revised that estimate downwards to 102 total days.
Therefore, if the Navy completes sixty days of in-water work during
year two of the project, we would anticipate that the project would be
completed in a third year, with forty additional work days.
Comments and Responses
We published a notice of receipt of the Navy's application and
proposed IHA in the Federal Register on August 6, 2014 (79 FR 45765).
We received a letter from the Marine Mammal Commission, which concurred
with our preliminary findings and recommended that we issue the
requested IHA, subject to inclusion of the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures. All mitigation and monitoring measures described
in our notice of proposed IHA have been included in the IHA as issued.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
There are five marine mammal species with records of occurrence in
waters of Sinclair Inlet in the action area. These are the California
sea lion, harbor seal, Steller sea lion, gray whale (Eschrichtius
robustus), and killer whale (Orcinus orca). The harbor seal is a year-
round resident of Washington inland waters, including Puget Sound,
while the sea lions are absent for portions of the summer. For the
killer whale, both transient (west coast stock) and resident (southern
stock) animals have occurred in the area. However, southern resident
animals are known to have occurred only once, with the last confirmed
sighting from 1997 in Dyes Inlet. A group of 19 whales from the L-25
subpod entered and stayed in Dyes Inlet, which connects to Sinclair
Inlet northeast of NBKB, for 30 days. Dyes Inlet may be reached only by
traversing from Sinclair Inlet through the Port Washington Narrows, a
narrow connecting body that is crossed by two bridges, and it was
speculated at the time that the whales' long stay was the result of a
reluctance to traverse back through the Narrows and under the two
bridges. There is one other unconfirmed report of a single southern
resident animal occurring in the project area, in January 2009. Of
these stocks, the southern resident killer whale is listed (as
endangered) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
An additional seven species have confirmed occurrence in Puget
Sound, but are considered rare to extralimital in Sinclair Inlet and
the surrounding waters. These species--the humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata scammoni),
Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), harbor
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena vomerina), Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides
dalli dalli), and northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris)--
along with the southern resident killer whale--are considered extremely
unlikely to occur in the action area or to be affected by the specified
activities, and are not considered further in this document. A review
of sightings records available from the Orca Network
(www.orcanetwork.org; accessed July 14, 2014) confirms that there are
no recorded observations of these species in the action area (with the
exception of the southern resident sightings described above).
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 May 2,
2014). We provided additional information for marine mammals with
potential for occurrence in the area of the specified activity in our
Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (79 FR 45765; August
6, 2014).
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 gray whale are addressed in the
Pacific SARs (e.g., Carretta et al., 2014), while the Steller sea lion
and transient killer whale are treated in the Alaska SARs (e.g., Allen
and Angliss, 2014).
Table 1--Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of NBKB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA
status; Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, most Annual M/ Relative occurrence
Species Stock strategic recent abundance survey) \2\ PBR \3\ SI \4\ in Sinclair Inlet;
(Y/N) \1\ season of occurrence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray whale.................... Eastern North Pacific -; N 19,126 (0.071; 18,017; 2007) 558 \11\ 127 Rare; year-round.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
[[Page 59241]]
Killer whale.................. West coast -; N 243 (n/a; 2006) 2.4 0 Rare; year-round.
transient.\5,6\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
sea lions):
California sea lion........... U.S.................. -; N 296,750 (n/a; 153,337; 2008) 9,200 >=431 Common; year-round
(excluding July).
Steller sea lion.............. Eastern U.S.\5\...... -; N \8\ \9\ 63,160-78,198 (n/a; 57,966; \10\ 1,552 65.1 Occasional/seasonal;
2008-11) Oct-May.
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor seal................... Washington inland -; N 14,612 (0.15; 12,844; 1999) 771 13.4 Common; year-round.
waters \7\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or
designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (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 specie's (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.
\3\ Potential 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).
\4\ These 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 2013 SARs (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm).
\5\ Abundance estimates (and resulting PBR values) for these stocks are new values presented in the draft 2013 SARs. This information was made available
for public comment and is currently under review and therefore may be revised prior to finalizing the 2013 SARs. However, we consider this information
to be the best available for use in this document.
\6\ The 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.
\7\ Abundance estimates for these stocks are greater than eight years old and are therefore not considered current. PBR is considered undetermined for
these stocks, as there is no current minimum abundance estimate for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimates
and PBR values, as these represent the best available information for use in this document.
\8\ The eastern distinct population segment of the Steller sea lion, previously listed under the ESA as threatened, was delisted on December 4, 2013 (78
FR 66140; November 4, 2013). Because this stock is not below its OSP size and the level of direct human-caused mortality does not exceed PBR, this
delisting action implies that the stock is no longer designated as depleted or as a strategic stock under the MMPA.
\9\ Best 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).
\10\ PBR 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 2,069.
\11\ Includes annual Russian harvest of 123 whales.
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals
Our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (79 FR 45765;
August 6, 2014) provides a general background on sound relevant to the
specified activity as well as a detailed description of marine mammal
hearing and of the potential effects of these construction activities
on marine mammals.
Anticipated Effects on Habitat
We described potential impacts to marine mammal habitat in detail
in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (79 FR 45765;
August 6, 2014). In summary, we have determined that 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. The
area around NBKB, including the adjacent ferry terminal and nearby
marinas, is heavily altered with significant levels of industrial and
recreational activity, and is unlikely to harbor significant amounts of
forage fish. Thus, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not
expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual
marine mammals or their populations.
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.
[[Page 59242]]
Measurements from similar pile driving events were coupled with
practical spreading loss to estimate zones of influence (ZOI; see
``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment''); these values were used to
develop mitigation measures for pile driving activities at NBKB. 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. In addition to the specific measures described
later in this section, the Navy will 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 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 acoustic injury criteria for pinnipeds (190 dB root
mean square [rms]). 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 (as described previously under
``Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals'' in
our notice of proposed authorization [79 FR 45765; August 6, 2014],
serious injury or death are unlikely outcomes even in the absence of
mitigation measures). Modeled radial distances for shutdown zones are
shown in Table 2. However, a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m (which is
larger than the maximum predicted injury zone) will be established
during all pile driving activities, regardless of the estimated zone.
Vibratory pile driving activities are not predicted to produce sound
exceeding the 190-dB Level A harassment threshold, but these
precautionary measures are intended to prevent the already unlikely
possibility of physical interaction with construction equipment and to
further reduce any possibility of acoustic injury.
Disturbance Zone--Disturbance zones are the areas in which SPLs
equal or exceed 160 and 120 dB rms (for impulse and 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 ``Monitoring and
Reporting''). Nominal radial distances for disturbance zones are shown
in Table 2.
In order to document observed incidences 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. It may then be estimated whether the animal was exposed to
sound levels constituting incidental harassment on the basis of
predicted distances to relevant thresholds in post-processing of
observational and acoustic data, and a precise accounting of observed
incidences of harassment created. This information may then be used to
extrapolate observed takes to reach an approximate understanding of
actual total takes.
Monitoring Protocols--Monitoring will 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 must 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 install or
remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed
between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty
minutes. Please see the Monitoring Plan (Appendix C in the Navy's
application), developed by the Navy in consultation with NMFS, 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;
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,
[[Page 59243]]
etc.). In addition, if such conditions should arise during impact pile
driving that is already underway, the activity must 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.
Special Conditions
The Navy did not request the authorization of incidental take for
killer whales or gray whales (see discussion below in ``Estimated Take
by Incidental Harassment''). Therefore, shutdown will be implemented in
the event that either of these species is observed in the vicinity,
prior to entering the defined disturbance zone. As described later in
this document, we believe that occurrence of these species during the
in-water work window would be uncommon and that the occurrence of an
individual or group would likely be highly noticeable and would attract
significant attention in local media and with local whale watchers and
interested citizens. Prior to the start of pile driving on any day, the
Navy will contact and/or review the latest sightings data from the Orca
Network and/or Center for Whale Research to determine the location of
the nearest marine mammal sightings. The Orca Sightings Network
consists of a list of over 600 residents, scientists, and government
agency personnel in the U.S. and Canada, and includes passive acoustic
detections. The presence of a killer whale or gray whale in the
southern reaches of Puget Sound would be a notable event, drawing
public attention and media scrutiny. With this level of coordination in
the region of activity, the Navy should be able to effectively receive
real-time information on the presence or absence of whales, sufficient
to inform the day's activities. Pile driving will not occur if there
was the risk of incidental harassment of a species for which incidental
take was not authorized.
During vibratory pile removal, four land-based observers will
monitor the area; these will be positioned with two at the pier work
site, one at the eastern extent of the ZOI in the Manette neighborhood
of Bremerton, and one at the southern extent of the ZOI near the
Annapolis ferry landing in Port Orchard (please see Figure 1 of
Appendix C in the Navy's application). Additionally, one vessel-based
observer will travel through the monitoring area, completing an entire
loop approximately every thirty minutes. If any killer whales or gray
whales are detected, activity will not begin or will shut down.
Timing Restrictions
In the project area, designated timing restrictions exist to avoid
in-water work when salmonids and other spawning forage fish are likely
to be present. The in-water work window is June 15-March 1. All in-
water construction activities will occur only 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 the hammer at reduced
energy followed by a waiting period. This procedure is repeated two
additional times. It is difficult to specify the reduction in energy
for any given hammer because of variation across drivers and, for
impact hammers, 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.'' The pier maintenance project will utilize soft
start techniques for both impact and vibratory pile driving. We require
the Navy to initiate sound from vibratory hammers for fifteen seconds
at reduced energy followed by a thirty-second waiting period, with the
procedure repeated two additional times. For impact driving, we require
an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at reduced
energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent
three strike sets. Soft start will be required at the beginning of each
day's pile driving work and at any time following a cessation of pile
driving of thirty minutes or longer (specific to impact and vibratory
driving).
We have carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed mitigation measures
and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to 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, as well as
any other potential measures that may be relevant to the specified
activity, we have 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.
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
[[Page 59244]]
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.
Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our
understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (e.g.,
presence, abundance, distribution, density).
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
Affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) Co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) Biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of
chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population,
species, or stock.
Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to
marine mammals.
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The Navy submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the
IHA application for year one of this project. It will be carried
forward for year two of this project and can be found as Appendix C of
the Navy's application, on the Internet at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm.
Acoustic Monitoring
The Navy will implement a sound source level verification study
during the specified activities. Data will be collected in order to
estimate airborne and underwater source levels for vibratory removal of
timber piles and impact driving of concrete piles, with measurements
conducted for ten piles of each type. Monitoring will include one
underwater and one airborne monitoring position. These exact positions
will be determined in the field during consultation with Navy
personnel, subject to constraints related to logistics and security
requirements. Reporting of measured sound level signals will include
the average, minimum, and maximum rms value and frequency spectra for
each pile monitored. Please see section 11.4.4 of the Navy's
application for details of the Navy's acoustic monitoring plan.
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 Navy would
implement the following procedures for pile driving:
MMOs will 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.
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 must 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 will be submitted to NMFS within 45 days of the
completion of marine mammal monitoring, or sixty days prior to the
issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project, whichever comes first.
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 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.
Monitoring Results From Previously Authorized Activities
The Navy complied with the mitigation and monitoring required under
the previous authorization for this project. Marine mammal monitoring
occurred before, during, and after each pile driving event. During the
course of these activities, the Navy did not exceed the take levels
authorized under the IHA.
In accordance with the 2013 IHA, the Navy submitted a monitoring
report (Appendix D of the Navy's application). The Navy's specified
activity in relation to the 2013 IHA included a total of 65 pile
driving days; however, only a limited program of test pile driving
actually took place. Pile driving
[[Page 59245]]
occurred on only two days, with a total of only two piles driven (both
impact-driven concrete piles). The only species observed was the
California sea lion. A total of 24 individuals were observed within the
defined Level B harassment zone, but all were hauled-out on port
security barrier floats outside of the defined Level B harassment zone
for airborne sound. Therefore, no take of marine mammals occurred
incidental to project activity under the year one IHA.
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 planned mitigation and monitoring measures are expected
to minimize the possibility of injurious or lethal takes such that take
by Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality is considered
extremely unlikely. 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.
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.
This practice potentially overestimates the numbers of marine
mammals taken because 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 may be present year-round and sea
lions are known to haul-out on man-made objects at the NBKB waterfront.
Sightings of other species are rare. 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 requested authorization for the incidental taking of small
numbers of Steller sea lions, California sea lions, and harbor seals in
Sinclair Inlet and nearby waters that may result from pile driving
during construction activities associated with the pier 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 first estimated the extent of the sound field that may be
produced by the activity and then considered that in combination with
information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project
area. We provided detailed information on applicable sound thresholds
for determining effects to marine mammals as well as 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, in our Federal Register notice of
proposed authorization (79 FR 45765; August 6, 2014). That information
is unchanged, and our take estimates were calculated in the same manner
and on the basis of the same information as what was described in the
Federal Register notice. Modeled distances to relevant thresholds are
shown in Table 2 and total estimated incidents of take are shown in
Table 3. Please see our Federal Register notice of proposed
authorization (79 FR 32828; June 6, 2014) for full details of the
process and information used in estimating potential incidents of take.
Table 2--Distances to Relevant Sound Thresholds and Areas of Ensonification, Underwater
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to threshold (m) and associated area of ensonification (km\2\)
\1\
Description ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
190 dB 180 dB 160 dB 120 dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concrete piles, impact.............. 1.2, <0.0001 5.4, 0.0001 117, 0.04 n/a
Steel piles, vibratory.............. 0 0 n/a \2\ 2,154, 7.5
Timber piles, vibratory............. 0 0 n/a 1,585; 5.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SPLs used for calculations were: 191 dB for impact driving, 170 dB for vibratory removal of steel piles, and
168 dB for vibratory removal of timber piles.
\2\ Areas presented take into account attenuation and/or shadowing by land. Please see Figures B-1 and B-2 in
the Navy's application.
[[Page 59246]]
Sinclair Inlet does not represent open water, or free field,
conditions. Therefore, sounds would attenuate according to the
shoreline topography. Distances shown in Table 2 are estimated for
free-field conditions, but areas are calculated per the actual
conditions of the action area. See Figures B-1 and B-2 of the Navy's
application for a depiction of areas in which each underwater sound
threshold is predicted to occur at the project area due to pile
driving.
Table 3--Calculations for Incidental Take Estimation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n * ZOI
n (animals/km \2\) (vibratory steel Total authorized
Species \1\ pile removal) Abundance \3\ takes (% of total
\2\ stock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion.............. 0.1266.............. 1 45 2,700 (0.9)
Steller sea lion................. 0.0368.............. 0 1 60 (0.09)
Harbor seal...................... 1.219 \4\........... 9 11 660 (4.5)
Killer whale (transient)......... 0.0024 (fall)....... 0 n/a 0
Gray whale....................... 0.0005 (winter)..... 0 n/a 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Best available species- and season-specific density estimate, with season noted in parentheses where
applicable (Hanser et al., 2014).
\2\ Product of density and largest ZOI (7.5 km\2\) rounded to nearest whole number; presented for reference
only.
\3\ Best abundance numbers multiplied by expected days of activity (60) to produce take estimate.
\4\ Uncorrected density; presented for reference only.
Analyses and 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., population-level 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 pier 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.
No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the
nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the
possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these
outcomes is minimized through the construction method and the
implementation of the planned mitigation measures. Specifically, piles
will be removed via vibratory means--an activity that does not have the
potential to cause injury to marine mammals due to the relatively low
source levels produced (less than 180 dB) and the lack of potentially
injurious source characteristics--and, while impact pile driving
produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and much sharper
rise time to reach those peaks, only small diameter concrete piles are
planned for impact driving. Predicted source levels for such impact
driving events are significantly lower than those typical of impact
driving of steel piles and/or larger diameter piles. In addition,
implementation of soft start and shutdown zones significantly reduces
any possibility of injury. Given sufficient ``notice'' through use of
soft start (for impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move
away from a sound source that is annoying prior to its becoming
potentially injurious. Environmental conditions in Sinclair Inlet are
expected to generally be good, with calm sea states, although Sinclair
Inlet waters may be more turbid than those further north in Puget Sound
or in Hood Canal. Nevertheless, we expect conditions in Sinclair Inlet
will allow a high marine mammal detection capability for the trained
observers required, enabling a high rate of success in implementation
of shutdowns to avoid injury, serious injury, or mortality. In
addition, the topography of Sinclair Inlet should allow for placement
of observers sufficient to detect cetaceans, should any occur (see
Figure 1 of Appendix C in the Navy's application).
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the
basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other
similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as
increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased
foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff,
2006; HDR, 2012). 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. The pile driving activities
analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful than, numerous other
construction activities conducted in San Francisco Bay and in the Puget
Sound region, which have taken place with no reported injuries or
mortality to marine mammals, and no known long-term adverse
consequences from behavioral harassment. Repeated exposures of
individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are
unlikely to result in 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 viability for the affected 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 area while the activity is occurring.
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,
[[Page 59247]]
temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the absence of any significant
habitat within the project area, including rookeries, significant haul-
outs, or known areas or features of special significance for foraging
or reproduction; (4) 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, these stocks are not listed
under the ESA or considered depleted under the MMPA. In combination, we
believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence
from other similar activities, 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 planned
monitoring and mitigation measures, we find that the total marine
mammal take from Navy's pier maintenance activities will have a
negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers Analysis
The number of incidences of take authorized for these stocks would
be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations
(less than one percent for both sea lion stocks and less than five
percent for harbor seals; Table 3) even if each estimated taking
occurred to a new individual. This is an extremely unlikely scenario
as, for pinnipeds in estuarine/inland waters, there is likely to be
some overlap in individuals present day-to-day.
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 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)
In compliance with the NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as
implemented by the regulations published by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Navy prepared
an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the direct, indirect and
cumulative effects to the human environment resulting from the pier
maintenance project. We made the Navy's EA available to the public for
review and comment, in relation to its suitability for adoption in
order to assess the impacts to the human environment of issuance of an
IHA to the Navy. In compliance with NEPA, the CEQ regulations, and NOAA
Administrative Order 216-6, we subsequently adopted that EA and signed
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on November 8, 2013.
We have reviewed the Navy's application for a renewed IHA for
ongoing construction activities for 2014-15 and the 2013-14 monitoring
report. Based on that review, we have determined that the proposed
action is very similar to that considered in the previous IHA. In
addition, no significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns have been identified. Thus, we have determined
that the preparation of a new or supplemental NEPA document is not
necessary, and, after review of public comments, reaffirm our 2013
FONSI. The 2013 NEPA documents are available for review at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to the
Navy for conducting the described pier maintenance activities in
Sinclair Inlet, from October 1, 2014 through March 1, 2015, provided
the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated.
Dated: September 24, 2014.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-23339 Filed 9-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P