[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 203 (Friday, October 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53033-53048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22812]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XG454


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to US 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour 
Repair in Washington State

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

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the Washington State 
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for authorization to take marine 
mammals incidental to the US 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour Repair 
Project in Washington State. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an 
incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine 
mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting 
comments on a possible one-year renewal that could be issued under 
certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in 
Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will 
consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the 
issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will 
be summarized in the final notice of our decision.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than November 
19, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments 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 [email protected].
    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any 
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the 
end of the comment period. 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 online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities without change. All 
personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily 
submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit 
confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Pauline, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application 
and supporting documents may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. In case of problems 
accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain 
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to 
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of 
small numbers of

[[Page 53034]]

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity 
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region 
if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if 
the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed incidental 
take authorization may be provided to the public for review.
    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses 
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods 
of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying 
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for 
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as 
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, 
monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
    The National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 108-136) removed 
the small numbers and specified geographical region limitations 
indicated above and amended the definition of harassment as it applies 
to a military readiness activity.

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, 
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts 
on the human environment.
    This action is consistent with categories of activities identified 
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with 
no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for 
NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or 
cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality 
of the human environment and for which we have not identified any 
extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical 
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the 
issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded 
from further NEPA review.
    We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice 
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the 
IHA request.

Summary of Request

    On July 26, 2018, NMFS received a request from WSDOT for an IHA to 
take marine mammals incidental to US 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour 
Repair in the State of Washington. The application was deemed adequate 
and complete on September 21, 2018. WSDOT's request is for take of 
small numbers of harbor seal (Phoca vitulina); California sea lion 
(Zalophus californianus); Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus); gray 
whale (Eschrichtius robustus); and harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) 
by Level B harassment only. Neither WSDOT nor NMFS expects serious 
injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA 
is appropriate. NMFS previously issued an IHA to WSDOT to incidentally 
take five species of marine mammal by Level B harassment. The IHA was 
issued on October 10, 2017 (82 FR 50628; November 1, 2017) and is valid 
from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. However, WSDOT has made minor 
changes to the project plan and delayed the work by one year. 
Therefore, WSDOT has requested that NOAA Fisheries re-issue the IHA 
with the dates changed to accommodate the analyzed work with minor 
modifications to the number of piles driven and removed as well as the 
number of animals authorized for take. No work was conducted under the 
original IHA.

Description of the Proposed Activity

Overview

    The proposed IHA would authorize work for the US 101/Chehalis River 
Bridge-Scour Repair Project in Washington State between July 15, 2019 
and February 15, 2020. Vibratory pile driving will be required to 
remove and install timber piles, steel sheets and steel H-piles. Sound 
in the water from vibratory driving may result in behavioral 
harassment. NMFS previously issued an IHA to WSDOT to incidentally take 
five species of marine mammal by Level B harassment on October 18, 2017 
(82 FR 50628; November 1, 2017). That IHA is valid from July 1, 2018 
through June 30, 2019. However, WSDOT has made minor changes to the 
project plan and delayed the work by one year. Therefore, WSDOT has 
requested that NMFS re-issue the IHA with the dates changed to 
accommodate the analyzed work with minor modifications to the number of 
piles driven and removed as well as the number of animals authorized 
for take. No work was conducted or is planned to occur under the 
original IHA.The purpose of the US 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour 
Repair Project is to make the bridge foundation stable and protect the 
foundation from further scour. Bridge scour is the removal of sediment 
such as sand and gravel from around bridge abutments or piles. Scour, 
caused by swiftly moving water, can scoop out scour holes, compromising 
the integrity of a structure. WSDOT plans to remove debris from the 
scour area, fill the scour void under Pier 14 with cement (to protect 
the pilings from marine borers), fill the scour hole, and protect the 
pier with scour resistant material.
    Note that WSDOT has made revisions to the number and types of piles 
that would be installed and removed under the proposed 2019 IHA. The 
first change is the removal of 44 timber piles (some of which may be 
treated with creosote) from the immediate vicinity of the scour repair 
project. Additionally, 18 sheet piles will be temporarily installed 
adjacent to Pier 14, instead of the 44 sheet piles originally proposed.

Dates and Duration

    Due to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in-water 
work timing restrictions to protect Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed 
salmonids, planned WSDOT in-water construction is limited each year to 
July 15 through February 15. For this project, in-water construction is 
planned to take place between July 15, 2019 and September 30, 2019. The 
proposed IHA would be effective from July 15, 2019 to February 15, 
2020. The estimated maximum time period for pile installation and 
removal is 37 hours over 6 days (Table 1).

Specific Geographic Region

    The US 101/Chehalis River Bridge is located in the City of 
Aberdeen, Grays Harbor County, Washington (Figure 1-1 in the IHA 
application). Grays Harbor is an estuarine bay located 45 miles (72 km) 
north of the mouth of the Columbia River, on the Southwest Pacific 
coast of Washington state. The bridge is located in Township 17 North, 
Range 9 West, Section 9, where the Chehalis River enters Grays Harbor. 
Land use in the Aberdeen area is a mix of residential, commercial, 
industrial, and open space and/or undeveloped lands (Figure 1-2 in the 
IHA application).

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

    Vibratory hammers are commonly used in steel pile driving and 
removal when appropriate sediments are found at a specific project 
site. A pile is

[[Page 53035]]

typically placed into position using a choker and crane, and then 
vibrated between 1,200 and 2,400 vibrations per minute. The vibrations 
liquefy the sediment surrounding the pile allowing it to penetrate to 
the required seating depth, or to be removed.
    Forty-four 14-inch diameter timber piles/stubs located immediately 
north of Pier 14 will be removed using a vibratory hammer. If 
necessary, some deteriorated piles may require cutting below the ground 
level to minimize turbidity. If use of a clamshell bucket is required 
due to pile breakage, turbidity curtains will be employed.
    A steel template will be located adjacent to or attached to Pier 
14. The template will likely be constructed using six steel H piles 
which will be installed using a vibratory hammer. Using the template as 
a guide, 18 sheet piles will be driven with a vibratory hammer into the 
substrate to form a temporary interlocked sheet pile wall shoring 
system around the scour repair area (Table 1). After the sheet piles 
have been installed, the template will be removed.

                         Table 1--Pile Removal Mitigation and Scour Repair Pile Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Duration
                                                  Number    Minutes     Total     Duration  Piles per   (11-hour
            Method                Pile type      of piles   per pile   minutes    (hours)       day       work
                                                                                                         days)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Removal............  14-inch                 44         30      1,320         22         22          2
                                diameter
                                timber.
Vibratory Driving............  Sheet..........         18         30        540          9         10          2
Vibratory Driving............  H pile.........          6         30        180          3          6          1
Vibratory Removal............  H pile.........          6         30        180          3          6          1
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................  ...............  .........  .........      2,220         37  .........        6.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the shoring system is in place, cementitious material will be 
tremie pumped underwater inside the shoring system to fill the voids 
between the riverbed and the pier seal. A tremie is a large metal 
hopper and pipe used to distribute freshly mixed concrete over an 
underwater site. The foot of the pipe is kept below the concrete level, 
while the upper level of the concrete in the pipe is kept above the 
water level to prevent the water diluting the concrete. The concrete 
falls by gravity and is continuously placed until the shaft is full. 
This material will protect the untreated wood pier piling from marine 
borers. Following installation of the cementitious sealing material, 
the shoring system will be considered a permanent feature of the scour 
repair. The sheet piles will be cut off and removed to the level of 
final concrete placement. The final steps will be the placement of 
scour resistant material, such as rip rap, on and around the pier and 
in the scour hole to protect the pier from future erosion. The cutting 
of sheet piles and placement of rip rap is not anticipated to result in 
take.
    Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are 
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed 
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information 
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and 
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. 
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be 
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species 
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's 
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
    Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
the project location and summarizes information related to the 
population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA 
and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 
maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may 
be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to 
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in 
NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR 
and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are 
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and 
other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend 
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in 
NMFS's U.S. 2017 SARs (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and draft U.S. 2018 
SARS (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports). All values presented in 
Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication.

[[Page 53036]]



                                    Table 2--Marine Mammals With Potential Presence Within the Proposed Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    ESA/MMPA
                                                                                    status;     Stock abundance (CV,                         Annual M/SI
            Common name                Scientific name             Stock           Strategic      Nmin, most recent             PBR              \3\
                                                                                   (Y/N) \1\    abundance survey) \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) Family Eschrichtiidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale........................  Eschrichtius robustus  Eastern North Pacific            N  20,990 (0.05, 20,125,   624.................          132
                                                                                                2011)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise...................  Phocoena phocoena....  Northern Oregon/                 N  21,487 (0.44, 15,123,   151.................        >=3.0
                                                            Washington Coast.                   2011)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion...............  Zalophus               U.S..................            N  296,750 (n/a, 153,337,  9,200...............          389
                                     californianus.                                             2011)
Steller sea lion..................  Eumetopias jubatus...  Eastern U.S..........            N  41,638 (n/a, 41,638,    2,498...............          108
                                                                                                2015) \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Family Phocidae (earless seals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal.......................  Phoca vitulina.......  Oregon/Washington                N  Unk \5\                 Undet...............         10.6
                                                            Coast.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases a CV is not applicable. 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.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
  commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
  associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ Best estimate of pup and non-pup counts, which have not been corrected to account for animals at sea during abundance surveys.
\5\ Harbor seal estimate is based on data that are 8 years old, but this is the best available information for use here.

    All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey 
areas are included in Table 2.

Harbor Seals

    Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs and beaches, and feed in 
marine, estuarine and occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals display 
strong fidelity for haul out sites (Pitcher and Calkins 1979; Pitcher 
and McAllister 1981). Harbor seals in Grays Harbor are part of the 
Oregon/Washington Coast Stock. In Grays Harbor, pups are born from mid-
April through July (WDFW 2012). Of the pinniped species that commonly 
occur within the region of activity, harbor seals are the most common 
and the only pinniped that breeds and remains in the inland marine 
waters of Washington year-round (Calambokidis and Baird 1994). Harbor 
seals are non-migratory; their local movements are associated with such 
factors as tides, weather, season, food availability and reproduction 
(Scheffer and Slipp 1944; Fisher 1952; Bigg 1969, 1981). They are not 
known to make extensive pelagic migrations, although some long-distance 
movements of tagged animals in Alaska (108 miles) and along the U.S. 
west coast (up to 342 miles) have been recorded (Pitcher and McAllister 
1981).
    In order to estimate abundance, aerial surveys of harbor seals in 
Oregon and Washington were conducted by the National Marine Mammal 
Laboratory (NMML) and the Oregon and Washington Departments of Fish and 
Wildlife (ODFW and WDFW) during the 1999 pupping season. Total numbers 
of hauled-out seals (including pups) were counted during these surveys. 
In 1999, the mean count of harbor seals occurring along the Washington 
coast was 10,430 (CV = 0.14) animals. In 1999, the mean count of harbor 
seals occurring along the Oregon coast and in the Columbia River was 
5,735 (CV = 0.14) animals. Combining these counts results in 16,165 (CV 
= 0.10) harbor seals in the Oregon/Washington Coast stock. However, 
because the most recent abundance estimate is >8 years old, there is no 
current estimate of abundance available for this stock and the current 
population trend is unknown.
    The nearest documented harbor seal haul out site to the US 101/
Chehalis River Bridge is a low-tide haul out located seven miles to the 
west. According to Jeffries, et al. (2000), all haul outs in Grays 
Harbor are associated with tidal flats; at high tide it is assumed that 
these animals are foraging elsewhere in the estuary.

California Sea Lion

    California sea lions are found along the west coast from the 
southern tip of Baja California to southeast Alaska. They breed mainly 
on offshore islands from Southern California's Channel

[[Page 53037]]

Islands south to Mexico. Non-breeding males often roam north in spring 
foraging for food (Everitt et al. 1980). Since the mid-1980s, 
increasing numbers of California sea lions have been documented feeding 
on fish along the Washington coast and,more recently, in the Columbia 
River as far upstream as Bonneville Dam, 145 mi (233 km) from the river 
mouth. All age classes of males are seasonally present in Washington 
waters (Jeffries, et al. 2000). California sea lions do not avoid areas 
with heavy or frequent human activity, but rather may approach certain 
areas to investigate. This species typically does not flush from a buoy 
or haul out if approached. The nearest documented California sea lion 
haul out sites to the U.S. 101 Chehalis River Bridge project site are 
at Split Rock, 35 miles north of the entrance to Grays Harbor; and at 
the mouth of the Columbia River, 46 miles south of the entrance to 
Grays Harbor (Jeffries, et al. 2000). A few California sea lions may 
haul out on docks and buoys in the vicinity of the Westport 
marina,located 15 miles west of the project site.

Steller Sea Lion

    The Steller sea lion is a pinniped and the largest of the eared 
seals. Steller sea lion populations that primarily occur east of 
144[deg] W (Cape Suckling, Alaska) comprise the Eastern Distinct 
Population Segment (DPS), which was de-listed and removed from the 
Endangered Species List on November 4, 2013 (78 FR 66140). This stock 
is found in the vicinity of Grays Harbor. Steller sea lions congregate 
at rookeries in California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia 
for pupping and breeding from late May to early June (Gisiner 1985; 
NMFS 2016a). Rookeries are usually located on beaches of relatively 
remote islands, often in areas exposed to wind and waves, where access 
by humans and other mammalian predators is difficult (WDFW 1993).
    The nearest documented Steller sea lion haul out sites to the U.S. 
101 Chehalis River Bridge project site are at Split Rock, 35 miles 
north of the entrance to Grays Harbor; and at the mouth of the Columbia 
River, 46 miles south of the entrance to Grays Harbor (Jeffries, et al. 
2000). A few Steller sea lions may haul out on buoys in the vicinity of 
the Westport marina, located 15 miles west of the project site.

Gray Whale

    During summer and fall, most whales in the Eastern North Pacific 
population feed in the Chukchi, Beaufort and northwestern Bering Seas. 
An exception to this is the relatively small number of whales 
(approximately 200) that summer and feed along the Pacific coast 
between Kodiak Island, Alaska and northern California (Calambokidis et 
al. 2012), referred to as the ``Pacific Coast Feeding Group'' (NMFS 
2015a).
    Gray whales are known to use Grays Harbor. For example, during a 
1996 survey 27 different whales were recorded in the Harbor. 
(Calambokidis and Guan 1997). However, between 1998 and 2010, gray 
whale numbers peaked in the spring followed by slightly lesser numbers 
in the fall in a study area that included Grays Harbor and coastal 
waters along the south Washington coast. Note, that much of the in-
water pile driving work for the proposed action is likely to occur 
during summer months. (Calambokidis, et al. 2012)

Harbor Porpoise

    The harbor porpoise inhabits temporal, subarctic, and arctic 
waters. Harbor porpoise are known to occur year-round along the Oregon/
Washington coast. Aerial survey data from coastal Oregon and 
Washington, collected during all seasons, suggest that harbor porpoise 
distribution varies by depth. Although distinct seasonal changes in 
abundance along the west coast have been noted, and attributed to 
possible shifts in distribution to deeper offshore waters during late 
winter, seasonal movement patterns are not fully understood.
    The Northern Oregon/Washington Coast Stock of harbor porpoise may 
be found near the project site. This stock occurs in waters from 
Lincoln City, Oregon to Cape Flattery Washington. Little information 
exists on harbor porpoise movements and stock structure in Grays 
Harbor, although it is suspected that in some areas harbor porpoises 
migrate (based on seasonal shifts in distribution).
    Harbor porpoise primarily frequent coastal waters and occur most 
frequently in waters less than 328 ft (100 m) deep (Hobbs and Waite 
2010). They may occasionally be found in deeper offshore waters. Hall 
(WSDOT 2018) found that the highest numbers were observed at water 
depths ranging from 61 to 100 m. Harbor porpoises are most often 
observed in small groups of one to eight animals (Baird 2003).

Marine Mammal Hearing

    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals 
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious 
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to 
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine 
mammals are able to hear. 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 directly measured or estimated 
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, 
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, 
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements 
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes 
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described 
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. 
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 dB 
threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception 
for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was 
deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall 
et al. (2007) retained. The functional groups and the associated 
frequencies are indicated below (note that these frequency ranges 
correspond to the range for the composite group, with the entire range 
not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of every species within 
that group):
     Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing 
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz;
     Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked 
whales, and most delphinids): Generalized 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; including two members 
of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data 
and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
     Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized 
hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz;
     Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized 
hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 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

[[Page 53038]]

(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 
2013).
    For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency 
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information. 
Five marine mammal species (2 cetacean and 3 pinniped (2 otariid and 1 
phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the 
proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean 
species that may be present, one is classified as a low-frequency 
cetacean (i.e., gray whale), and one is classified as a high-frequency 
cetacean (i.e., harbor porpoise).

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and 
their habitat. The Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section 
later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number 
of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The 
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the 
content of this section, the Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment 
section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions 
regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive 
success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on 
individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
    The proposed River Bridge-Scour repair project will utilize in-
water vibratory pile driving and pile removal that could adversely 
affect marine mammal species and stocks by exposing them to elevated 
noise levels in the vicinity of the activity area.
    Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may 
result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift 
(TS)--an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise 
(Finneran et al. 2005). Factors that influence the amount of threshold 
shift include the amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal 
pattern, and energy distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of 
hearing threshold shift normally decreases over time following 
cessation of the noise exposure. The amount of threshold shift just 
after exposure is the initial threshold shift. If the threshold shift 
eventually returns to zero (i.e., the threshold returns to the pre-
exposure value), it is a temporary threshold shift (Southall et al. 
2007).
    Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)--When animals 
exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an 
animal to detect them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound 
for long duration, it is referred to as TS. An animal can experience 
temporary threshold shift (TTS) or permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS 
can last from minutes or hours to days (i.e., there is complete 
recovery), can occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., an animal 
might only have a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity between the 
frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can be of varying amounts (for 
example, an animal's hearing sensitivity might be reduced initially by 
only 6 dB or reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, but some recovery is 
possible. PTS can also occur in a specific frequency range and amount 
as mentioned above for TTS.
    For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive 
bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless 
porpoise (Finneran et al., 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010a, 2010b; 
Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; Lucke et al., 2009; Popov et al., 2011a, 
2011b; Kastelein et al., 2012a; Schlundt et al., 2000; Nachtigall et 
al., 2003, 2004). For pinnipeds in water, data are limited to 
measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an elephant seal, and California 
sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012b).
    Lucke et al. (2009) found a TS of a harbor porpoise after exposing 
it to airgun noise with a received SPL at 200.2 dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 
[mu]Pa, which corresponds to a sound exposure level (SEL) of 164.5 dB 
re: 1 [mu]Pa2 s after integrating exposure. Because the airgun noise is 
a broadband impulse, one cannot directly determine the equivalent of 
rms SPL from the reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a 
conservative conversion factor of 16 dB for broadband signals from 
seismic surveys (McCauley et al. 2000) to correct for the difference 
between peak-to-peak levels reported in Lucke et al. (2009) and rms 
SPLs, the rms SPL for TTS would be approximately 184 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa, 
and the received levels associated with PTS (Level A harassment) would 
be higher. However, NMFS recognizes that TTS of harbor porpoises is 
lower than other cetacean species empirically tested (Finneran and 
Schlundt 2010; Finneran et al. 2002; Kastelein and Jennings 2012).
    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with 
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes 
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree 
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and 
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS 
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious 
(similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a 
marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively 
small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs 
during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many 
competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer 
duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical 
for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious 
impacts. Also, depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects 
of PTS on an animal could range in severity, although it is considered 
generally more serious because it is a permanent condition. Of note, 
reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been 
observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall 
et al. 2007), so one can infer that strategies exist for coping with 
this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.
    Masking--In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not 
high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for 
marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark 
et al. 2009). Acoustic masking is when other noises such as from human 
sources interfere with animal detection of acoustic signals such as 
communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds 
important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances, 
marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being 
severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their 
performance fitness in survival and reproduction.
    Masking occurs at the frequency band that the animals utilize. 
Therefore, since noise generated from vibratory pile driving activity 
is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect 
on high frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). 
However, lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect 
detection of communication calls and other potentially important 
natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. It may also affect 
communication signals when they occur near the noise 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 and Noren 
et al. 2009).
    Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial 
scales, can potentially affect the species at

[[Page 53039]]

population, community, or even ecosystem levels, as well as individual 
levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and 
could have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and 
populations. Recent science suggests that low frequency ambient sound 
levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in 
terms of sound pressure level) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial 
periods, and most of these increases are from distant shipping 
(Hildebrand 2009).
    Acoustic Effects, Airborne--Pinnipeds that occur near the project 
site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile driving 
that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment, depending on 
their distance from pile driving activities. Cetaceans are not expected 
to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in harassment as 
defined under the MMPA.
    Airborne noise will primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are 
swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise 
levels elevated above the acoustic criteria. We recognize that 
pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may 
result in behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above 
water. 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 the area and move 
further from the source. However, these animals would previously have 
been `taken' because 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. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of 
incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is 
warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further here.
    Behavioral disturbance--Finally, marine mammals' exposure to 
certain sounds could lead to behavioral disturbance (Richardson et al., 
1995), such as: 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 noise sources are located; and/or flight 
responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or 
rookeries).
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and 
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et 
al., 2007). Currently NMFS uses a received level of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms) to predict the onset of behavioral harassment from impulse noises 
(such as impact pile driving), and 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for 
continuous noises (such as vibratory pile driving). For the proposed 
project, only 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) is considered for effects 
analysis because only vibratory pile driving and removal will be 
employed.
    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 biologically significant if the change affects 
growth, survival, and/or reproduction, which depends on the severity, 
duration, and context of the effects.
    Habitat--The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are 
associated with elevated sound levels produced by pile driving and 
removal associated with marine mammal prey species. However, other 
potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance 
are also possible. Prey species for the various marine mammals include 
marine invertebrates and fish species. Short-term effects would occur 
to marine invertebrates during removal of existing piles. This effect 
is expected to be minor and short-term on the overall population of 
marine invertebrates in Grays Harbor. Construction will also have 
temporary effects on salmonids and other fish species in the project 
area due to disturbance, turbidity, noise, and the potential 
resuspension of contaminants. All in-water work will occur during the 
designated in-water work window, to minimize effects on juvenile 
salmonids.
    SPLs from vibratory driving generally do not have the potential to 
injure or kill fish in the immediate area. Experiments have shown that 
fish can sense both the strength and direction of sound (Hawkins and 
Horner 1981). Primary factors determining whether a fish can sense a 
sound signal, and potentially react to it, are the frequency of the 
signal and the strength of the signal in relation to the natural 
background noise level. The level of sound at which a fish will react 
or alter its behavior is usually well above the detection level. Fish 
have been found to react to sounds when the sound level increased to 
about 20 dB above the detection level of 120 dB; however, the response 
threshold can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological 
condition (Engas et al. 1993). Any disturbance to fish species would be 
short-term and fish would return to their pre-disturbance behavior once 
the pile driving activity ceases. The proposed construction would have 
little, if any, impact on the abilities of marine mammals to feed in 
the area where construction work is proposed.
    There are no critical habitats or other biologically important 
areas near the proposed project location, although biologically 
important feeding and migration areas for gray whales have been 
established along the coast beyond the mouth of Grays Harbor. However, 
the project site is upriver to the east of the Harbor, so there will be 
no impacts to these areas. While harbor seals, California sea lions, 
and other marine mammals may be present, the area is not an established 
rookery or breeding ground for local populations. Additionally, during 
construction activity only a small fraction of the available habitat 
would be ensonified.
    Short-term turbidity is a water quality effect of most in-water 
work, including pile driving. Cetaceans are not expected to be close 
enough to the Chehalis River Bridge to experience turbidity, and any 
pinnipeds will be transiting the terminal area and could avoid 
localized areas of turbidity. Therefore, the impact from increased 
turbidity levels is expected to be discountable to marine mammals.
    For these reasons, any adverse effects to marine mammal habitat in 
the area from WSDOT's proposed project would be minor.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both 
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact 
determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent 
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral

[[Page 53040]]

patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, 
breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form 
of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals 
resulting from exposure to vibratory driving. Based on the nature of 
the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation 
measures (i.e., shutdown, establishment and monitoring of harassment 
zones) discussed in detail below in Proposed Mitigation section), Level 
A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
    As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to 
be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is 
estimated.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic 
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science 
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some 
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water 
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or 
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) 
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic 
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial 
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively 
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous 
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the 
factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take 
estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic 
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above 
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be 
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS 
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
    Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly 
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from 
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by 
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving 
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral 
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, 
Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates 
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is 
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a 
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the 
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are 
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B 
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above 
received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g., 
vibratory pile-driving, drilling) sources such as those used here.
    WSDOT's proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory 
driving and removal and, therefore, the 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) is 
applicable.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (NMFS, 2018) identifies dual criteria to 
assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine 
mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to 
noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). 
WSDOT's proposed activity includes the use non-impulsive (vibratory 
driving) sources.
    These thresholds are provided in Table 3 below. The references, 
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are 
described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

 Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      PTS Onset acoustic thresholds*
                                             (received level)
          Hearing group          ---------------------------------------
                                       Impulsive         Non-impulsive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans....  Cell 1............  Cell 2
                                  Lpk,flat: 219 dB..  LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
                                  LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans....  Cell 3............  Cell 4
                                  Lpk,flat: 230 dB..  LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
                                  LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans...  Cell 5............  Cell 6
                                  Lpk,flat: 202 dB..  LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
                                  LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW)             Cell 7............  Cell 8
 (Underwater).                    Lpk,flat: 218 dB..  LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
                                  LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW)            Cell 9............  Cell 10
 (Underwater).                    Lpk,flat: 232 dB..  LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
                                  LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever
  results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-
  impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure
  level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds
  should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and
  cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of
  1[mu]Pa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect
  American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However,
  peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency
  weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence,
  the subscript ``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound
  pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
  hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure
  level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory
  weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
  and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The
  cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a
  multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty
  cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to
  indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
  exceeded.


[[Page 53041]]

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss 
coefficient.
    Reference sound source levels used by WSDOT vibratory piling 
driving and removal activities were derived from several sources. WSDOT 
utilized in-water measurements generated by the Greenbusch Group (2018) 
from the WDOT Seattle Pier 62 project (83 FR 39709) to establish proxy 
sound source levels for vibratory removal of 14-inch timber piles. The 
results determined unweighted rms ranging from 140 dB to 169 dB. WSDOT 
used the 75th percentile of these values (161 dB rms measured at 10 
meters) as a proxy for vibratory removal of 14-inch timber piles at the 
Chehalis River Bridge. However, NMFS reviewed the report by the 
Greenbusch Group (2018) and determined that the findings were derived 
by pooling together all steel pile and timber pile at various distance 
measurements data together. The data was not normalized to the standard 
10 m distance. NMFS analyzed source measurements at different distances 
for all 63 individual timber piles that were removed and normalized the 
values to 10 m. The results showed that the median is 152 dB SPLrms. 
This value was used as the source level for vibratory removal of 14-
inch timber piles.
    The proposed project includes vibratory driving of 18 sheet piles 
as well as vibratory driving and removal of six steel H piles. Based on 
in-water measurements at the Elliot Bay Seawall Project, vibratory pile 
driving of steel sheet piles generated a source level of 165 dB rms 
measured at 10 m (Greenbush Group 2015). According to CalTrans (2015), 
150 dB rms at 10 m is a typical source level for vibratory driving and 
removal of steel H piles.

Level B Harassment Zones

    The practical spreading model was used by WSDOT to establish the 
Level B harassment zones for all vibratory pile installation and 
removal activities. Practical spreading is described in full detail 
below.
    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:

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 
(free-field) 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 15 is often used under conditions 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.
    Utilizing the practical spreading loss model, WSDOT determined the 
distance and area where the noise will fall below the behavioral 
effects threshold of 120 dB rms. The distances and areas are shown in 
Table 4. Note that the ensonified area is based on a GIS analysis of 
the area accounting for structures and landmasses which would block 
underwater sound transmission.

               Table 4--Level B Harassment Ensonified Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Level B
                                            harassment
                Pile type                  zone isopleth   Area (km\2\)
                                             (meters)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-inch timber vibratory removal........           1,359            0.93
Steel sheet vibratory driving...........          10,000            2.04
Steel H-pile vibratory driving and                 1,000            0.67
 removal................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Level A Harassment Zones

    When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in 
recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more 
technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in 
the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools 
to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with 
marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that 
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for 
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going 
to be overestimates of some degree. However, these tools offer the best 
way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D 
modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways 
to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address 
the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as vibratory 
driving, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, 
if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the 
activity, it would not incur PTS. User Spreadsheet inputs are shown in 
Table 5 and outputs are shown in Table 6. Note that since no Level A 
harassment take is proposed, the areas of Level A harassment zones were 
not calculated.

[[Page 53042]]



                            Table 5--Parameters of Pile Driving and Drilling Activity
                                            [User spreadsheet input]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            14-inch timber               Sheet                    H-Pile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spreadsheet Tab Used.................  A.1) Vibratory driving.  A.1) Vibratory driving.  A.1) Vibratory driving
Source Level (rms SPL)...............  152....................  165....................  150
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz)....  2.5....................  2.5....................  2.5
Number of piles in 24-h period.......  22.....................  9......................  6
Duration to drive a single pile        30.....................  30.....................  30
 (minutes).
Propagation (xLogR)..................  15.....................  15.....................  15
Distance of source level measurement   10.....................  10.....................  10
 (meters).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Table 6--Level A Harassment Zone Isopleths
                                            [User spreadsheet output]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               PTS Isopleth (meters)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Source type                                                 High-
                                   Low-frequency   Mid-frequency     frequency        Phocid          Otariid
                                     cetaceans       cetaceans       cetaceans       pinnipeds       pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-inch timber..................             8.5             0.8            12.5             5.2             0.4
Sheet pile......................            34.4               3            50.9            20.9             1.5
H-pile..........................             2.6             0.2             3.9             1.6             0.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marine Mammal Occurrence

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take 
calculations.
    There is little abundance or density data available for marine 
mammal species that are likely to occur within Grays Harbor and which 
could potentially be found in the Chehalis River near the project site. 
In most cases, WSDOT relied on density data from the U.S. Navy Marine 
Species Density Database (NMSDD) (U.S. Navy 2015). NMFS concurs that 
this, and the exceptions described below, represent the best available 
data for use here.
Harbor Seal
    While the NMSDD (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the density of harbor 
seals in the waters offshore of Grays Harbor as 0.279 animals per 
square kilometer, WSDOT relied on a study which identified 44 harbor 
seal haul outs in Grays Harbor and provided very rough estimates of the 
number of seals at each site. Twenty-seven haul outs had less than 100 
animals; 16 haul outs had 100-500 animals; and two haul outs were 
reported to support over 500 animals (Jeffries et al. 2000). These data 
likely represent the best estimate of harbor seal numbers in Grays 
Harbor. Using median numbers of each haul out estimate range resulted 
in an estimated 7,150 harbor seals in Grays Harbor. The area of the 
estuary during mean higher high water (243 km\2\) was used to derive a 
density estimate of 29.4 harbor seals per square kilometer.
California Sea Lion
    Only 10 California sea lion strandings have been documented between 
2006 and 2015 (NMFS 2016c), and no haul outs have been identified. 
Therefore, it is expected that the density of California sea lions in 
Grays Harbor is low. The NMSDD (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the density 
of California sea lions in the waters offshore of Grays Harbor as 
ranging from 0.020 to 0.033 animals per square kilometer in summer and 
fall. The higher estimate is used as a surrogate for Grays Harbor.
Steller Sea Lion
    According to the NMFS National Stranding Database, there were four 
confirmed Steller sea lion strandings in Grays Harbor between 2006 and 
2015 (NMFS 2016c) and no haul outs have been identified in Grays 
Harbor. The NMSDD (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the density of Steller sea 
lions in the waters offshore of Grays Harbor as 0.0145 animals per 
square kilometer. This estimate is used as a surrogate for Grays 
Harbor.
Gray Whale
    Between 1998 and 2010, gray whale numbers peaked in spring and fall 
in a study area that included waters inside Grays Harbor and coastal 
waters along the south Washington coast (Calambokidis, et al. 2012). 
However, no density estimates are available for Grays Harbor. The NMSDD 
(U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the density of gray whales in nearshore 
waters near Grays Harbor as 0.00045 animal per square kilometer in 
summer and fall. This density is used for Grays Harbor.
Harbor Porpoise
    The NMSDD (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the density of harbor 
porpoises in the waters offshore of Grays Harbor as a range between 
0.69 and 1.67 animals per square kilometer. According to Evenson et al. 
(2016), the maximum harbor porpoise density in the Strait of Juan de 
Fuca (approximately 105 miles north of Grays Harbor) in 2014 was 0.768 
animals per square kilometer. The higher density estimate for waters 
offshore of Grays Harbor (1.67) is used to estimate take.

Take Calculation and Estimation

    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
    No Level A harassment take is likely because of the small injury 
zones and relatively low average animal density in the area. Since the 
largest Level A harassment distance is only 50.9 m from the source for 
high-frequency cetaceans (harbor porpoise), NMFS considers that WSDOT 
can effectively monitor such small zones to implement shutdown measures 
and avoid Level A harassment takes. Therefore, no Level A harassment 
take of marine mammal is proposed or authorized.

[[Page 53043]]

    NMFS used an estimated harbor seal density of 29.4 animals/km\2\ in 
the US 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour Repair Project area to estimate 
the following number of Level B harassment exposures that may occur:

     14-inch timber pile removal: 29.4. animals/km\2\ * 0.93 
km\2\ * 2 days = 54.68
     Sheet pile installation: 29.4 animals/km\2\ * 2.04 km\2\ * 
2 days= 119.95
 H-pile installation and removal: 29.4 animals/km\2\ * 0.67 
km\2\ * 2 days = 39.39

    Based on the sum of the equations above, NMFS proposes to authorize 
214 takes of harbor seals by Level B harassment.
    NMFS inserted the California sea lion density of 0.033 animals/
km\2\ into the same equation used above for harbor seals to estimate 
Level B harassment exposures. Based on the sum of the equations, an 
estimated 0.24 California sea lions would be taken by Level B 
harassment. Due to this low value, NMFS conservatively proposes to 
authorize the take of two California sea lions each day of in-water 
activities, resulting in 12 takes by Level B harassment.
    NMFS estimated take of Steller sea lions by inserting a density of 
0.0145 animals/km\2\ into the same equation used above for harbor seals 
resulting in 0.10 takes of sea lions. Given the low value, NMFS 
conservatively proposes to authorize the take of two Steller sea lions 
during each day of in-water activities, resulting in 12 takes by Level 
B harassment.
    NMFS used the same equation that was used for harbor seals to 
estimate take for gray whales by inserting a density value of 0.00045 
animals/km\2\. Since this resulted in a value less than one, NMFS 
proposes to authorize Level B harassment take of two gray whales per 
day based on average group size.
    A density value of 1.67 animal/km\2\ for harbor porpoises was 
plugged into the harbor seal equation to arrive at an estimated 12.1 
takes. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to authorize 12 harbor porpoise 
takes by Level B harassment.
    Table 7 shows total number of authorized Level B harassment takes 
and take as a percentage of population for each of the species.

       Table 7--Take Estimates as a Percentage of Stock Abundance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Proposed
                                            authorized
                 Species                   take Level B    % population
                                            harassment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal.............................             214             1.9
California sea lion.....................              12           <0.01
Steller sea lion........................              12           <0.01
Gray whale..............................               2           <0.01
Harbor porpoise.........................              12           <0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS 
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to 
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic 
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such 
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 
216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. 
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being 
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the 
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented 
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as 
planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability 
implemented as planned), and;
    (2) the practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

    Temporal and Seasonal Restrictions--Timing restrictions would be 
used to avoid in-water work when ESA-listed salmonids are most likely 
to be present. The combined work window for in-water work for the U.S. 
101/Chehalis River Bridge -Scour Project is July 15 through February 
15. Furthermore, work may only occur during daylight hours, when visual 
monitoring of marine mammals can be effectively conducted.
    Establishment of Shutdown Zone--For all pile driving activities, 
WSDOT will establish a shutdown zone. The purpose of a shutdown zone is 
generally 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). In this case, shutdown zones are intended 
to contain areas in which sound pressure levels (SPLs) equal or exceed 
acoustic injury criteria for authorized species. If a marine mammal is 
observed at or within the shutdown zone, work must shut down (stop 
work) until the individual has been observed outside of the zone, or 
has not been observed for at least 15 minutes for all marine mammals. A 
determination that the shutdown zone is clear must be made during a 
period of good visibility (i.e., the entire shutdown zone and 
surrounding waters must be visible to the naked eye). If a marine 
mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during activities or pre-
activity monitoring, all pile driving and removal activities at that 
location must be halted or delayed, respectively. If pile driving or 
removal is halted or

[[Page 53044]]

delayed due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not 
resume or commence until either the animal has voluntarily left and 
been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 15 minutes have 
passed without re-detection of the animal. Pile driving and removal 
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. Shutdown zone sizes 
are shown in Table 8.

          Table 8--Shutdown Zones for Various Pile Driving Activities and Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
                                                    [Meters]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       High-
                   Source type                     Low-frequency     frequency        Phocid          Otariid
                                                     Cetaceans       Cetaceans       pinnipeds       pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-inch timber removal..........................              10              15              10              10
Sheet pile installation.........................              35              50              20              10
H-pile installation and removal.................              10              10              10              10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For in-water heavy machinery activities other than pile driving, if 
a marine mammal comes within 10 m, operations must cease and vessels 
must reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage 
and safe working conditions. WSDOT must also implement shutdown 
measures if the cumulative total number of individuals observed within 
the Level B harassment monitoring zones for any particular species 
reaches the number authorized under the IHA and if such marine mammals 
are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching 
the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zone during in-water construction 
activities.
    Establishment of Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones--WSDOT must 
identify and establish Level B harassment zones which are areas where 
SPLs equal or exceed 120 dB rms. Observation of monitoring zones 
enables observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine 
mammals in the project area and outside the shutdown zone and thus 
prepare for potential shutdowns of activity. Monitoring zones are also 
used to document instances of Level B harassment. Monitoring zone 
isopleths are shown in Table 4.
    Pre-Activity Monitoring--Prior to the start of daily in-water 
construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30 
minutes or longer occurs, the observer shall observe the shutdown and 
monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone shall be 
cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within the zone for 
that 30-minute period. When a marine mammal permitted for Level B 
harassment take is present in the Level B harassment zone, piling 
activities may begin and Level B harassment take shall be recorded. As 
stated above, if the entire Level B harassment zone is not visible at 
the start of construction, piling driving activities can begin. If work 
ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of both 
the Level B harassment and shutdown zone shall commence.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS 
has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures 
provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the 
affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular 
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance

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

Proposed Monitoring Measures

    WSDOT shall employ NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSOs) 
to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its US 101/Chehalis River 
Bridge-Scour Repair Project. The purposes of marine mammal monitoring 
are to implement mitigation measures and learn more about impacts to 
marine mammals from WSDOT's construction activities. The PSOs will 
observe and collect data on marine mammals in and around the project 
area for 30 minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after all pile 
removal and pile installation work. NMFS-approved PSOs shall meet the 
following requirements:
    1. Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are 
required;
    2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer;
    3. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree 
in biological science or related field) or training for experience;
    4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one 
observer

[[Page 53045]]

should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The 
lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer; and
    5. NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
    WSDOT must ensure that observers have the following additional 
qualifications:
    1. Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according 
to assigned protocols;
    2. Experience or training in the field identification of marine 
mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
    3. Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations;
    4. Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations 
including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals 
observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were 
conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation 
(or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine 
mammal behavior; and
    5. 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.
    Monitoring of marine mammals around the construction site shall be 
conducted using high-quality binoculars (e.g., Zeiss, 10 x 42 power). 
Due to the different sizes of monitoring zones from different pile 
types, separate zones and monitoring protocols corresponding to each 
specific pile type will be established.
    For vibratory pile driving and pile removal of sheet piles, a total 
of four land-based PSOs will monitor the shutdown and Level B 
harassment zones. For vibratory pile driving and pile removal of H 
piles and timber piles, a total of three land-based PSOs will monitor 
the shutdown and Level B harassment zones.

Reporting Measures

    WSDOT is required to submit a draft monitoring report within 90 
days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of the 
IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. This report would detail the 
monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and 
estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. NMFS 
would have an opportunity to provide comments on the report, and if 
NMFS has comments, WSDOT would address the comments and submit a final 
report to NMFS within 30 days. Reports shall contain, at minimum, the 
following:
     Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends for 
each day conducted (monitoring period);
     Construction activities occurring during each daily 
observation period, including how many and what type of piles driven;
     Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile 
types, average driving times, etc.
     Weather parameters in each monitoring period (e.g., wind 
speed, percent cloud cover, visibility);
     Water conditions in each monitoring period (e.g., sea 
state, tide state);
     For each marine mammal sighting:
    [cir] Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of 
marine mammals;
    [cir] Description of any observable marine mammal behavior 
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from 
pile driving activity;
    [cir] Location and distance from pile driving activities to marine 
mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
    [cir] Estimated amount of time that the animals remained in the 
Level B harassment zone
     Description of implementation of mitigation measures 
within each monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or delay);
     Other human activity in the area within each monitoring 
period;
     A summary of the following:
    [cir] Total number of individuals of each species detected within 
the Level B harassment zone;
    [cir] Total number of individuals of each species detected within 
the shutdown zone and the average amount of time that they remained in 
that zone; and
    [cir] Daily average number of individuals of each species 
(differentiated by month as appropriate) detected within the Level B 
harassment zone.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    NMFS has identified key qualitative and quantitative factors which 
may be employed to assess the level of analysis necessary to conclude 
whether potential impacts associated with a specified activity should 
be considered negligible. These include (but are not limited to) the 
type and magnitude of taking, the amount and importance of the 
available habitat for the species or stock that is affected, the 
duration of the anticipated effect to the species or stock, and the 
status of the species or stock. When an evaluation of key factors shows 
that the anticipated impacts of the specified activity would clearly 
result in no greater than a negligieble impact on all affected species 
or stocks, additional evaluation is not required. In this case, the 
following factors are in place for all affected species or stocks:
     No takes by Level A harassment are anticipated or 
authorized;
     Takes by Level B harassment constitute less than 5% of the 
best available abundance estimates for all stocks;
     Take would not occur in places and/or times where take 
would be more likely to accrue to impacts on reproduction or survival, 
such as within ESA-designated or proposed critical habitat, 
biologically important areas (BIA), or other habitats critical to 
recruitment or survival (e.g., rookery);
     Take would occur over a short timeframe (less than 30 days 
of active pile driving required during the IHA effective period);
     Take would occur over <25% of species/stock range; and
     Stock is not known to be declining or suffering from known 
contributors to

[[Page 53046]]

decline (e.g., unusual mortality event (UME), oil spill effects).
    Based on these factors, and taking into consideration the 
implementation of the prescribed monitoring and mitigation measures, 
NMFS preliminarily finds that the total take from the proposed activity 
will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or 
stocks.

Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for 
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA 
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated 
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to 
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or 
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to 
small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative 
factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or 
spatial scale of the activities.
    NMFS has estimated that take for all species authorized is less 
than two percent of their respective stock abundance (Table 7). Based 
on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including 
the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated 
take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of 
marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the 
affected species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

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

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for 
authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS 
has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is 
not required for this action.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to WSDOT for conducting US 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour 
Repair Project between July 15, 2019, and February 15, 2020, provided 
the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 
requirements are incorporated. 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 Authorization is valid from July 15, 2019, through February 
15, 2020.
    2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with 
in-water construction work at the US 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour 
Repair Project in the State of Washington.

    3. General Conditions.

    (a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of WSDOT, its 
designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of 
this IHA.
    (b) The species and number of authorized Level B harassment takes 
are provided in Table 7.
    (c) The taking by serious injury or death of any of the species 
listed in condition 3(b), or any taking of any other species of marine 
mammal not listed in condition 3(b) of the Authorization is prohibited 
and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this 
IHA.
    (d) WSDOT must conduct briefings between construction supervisors 
and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and WSDOT staff prior to the 
start of all pile driving, and when new personnel join the work, in 
order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine 
mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.

    4. Mitigation Measures.

    The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the 
following mitigation measures:
    (a) In-water construction work must occur only during daylight 
hours.
    (b) For in-water heavy machinery activities other than pile 
driving, if a marine mammal comes within 10 meters (m), operations must 
cease and vessels must reduce speed to the minimum level required to 
maintain steerage and safe working conditions.
    (c) Pre-activity marine mammal monitoring must take place from 30 
minutes prior to initiation of pile driving and removal. Post-activity 
marine mammal monitoring must continue through 30 minutes post-
completion of pile driving and removal. Pile driving and removal may 
commence at the end of the 30-minute pre-activity monitoring period, 
provided observers have determined that the relevant shutdown zone 
(Table 8) is clear of marine mammals.
    (d) WSDOT must establish and monitor shutdown zone and Level B 
harassment zones:
    i. Shutdown zone sizes for various pile driving activities and 
marine mammal hearing groups are shown in Table 8.
    ii. Level B harassment zone sizes are shown in Table 3.
    (e) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone 
(Table 8) during activities or pre-activity monitoring, all pile 
driving activities at that location must be halted or delayed, 
respectively. If pile driving is halted or delayed due to the presence 
of a marine mammal, the activity may not resume or commence until 
either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed 
beyond the shutdown zone or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection 
of the animal. Pile driving activities include the time to install or 
remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed 
between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty 
minutes.
    (f) WSDOT must establish monitoring locations and protocols as 
described below. Please also refer to the Marine Species Monitoring 
Plan (Monitoring Plan; attached).
    i. For vibratory pile driving of sheet piles, a total of four land-
based PSOs must monitor the shutdown zone and Level B harassment zone 
as depicted in the Monitoring Plan.
    ii. For vibratory pile removal of timber piles and vibratory 
installation and removal of H piles, a total of three land-based PSOs 
must monitor the shutdown and Level B harassment zones.

    5. Monitoring.

    The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine 
mammal monitoring during pile driving and removal.
    (a) Monitoring during pile driving and removal must be conducted by 
NMFS-approved PSOs in a manner consistent with the following:
    i. Independent PSOs (i.e., not construction personnel) who have no 
other assigned tasks during monitoring periods must be used.
    ii. At least one PSO must have prior experience working as a marine 
mammal observer during construction activities. Other PSOs may 
substitute education (degree in biological science or related field) or 
training for experience.
    iii. Where a team of three or more PSOs are required, a lead 
observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead 
observer must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer 
during construction.

[[Page 53047]]

    iv. WSDOT must submit PSO CVs for approval by NMFS prior to the 
onset of pile driving.
    v. WSDOT must ensure that observers have the following additional 
qualifications:
    a. Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according 
to assigned protocols.
    b. Experience or training in the field identification of marine 
mammals, including the identification of behaviors.
    c. Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations.
    d. Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations 
including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals 
observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were 
conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation 
(or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine 
mammal behavior.
    e. 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.

    6. Reporting.

    The holder of this Authorization is required to submit marine 
mammal monitoring and acoustic reports:
    (a) WSDOT must submit a draft report on all marine mammal 
monitoring conducted under this Authorization within ninety calendar 
days following the completion of monitoring. A final report must be 
submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the 
draft report from NMFS. The marine mammal monitoring report must 
contain, at minimum, the informational elements described below:
    i. Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends for each 
day conducted (monitoring period);
    ii. Construction activities occurring during each daily observation 
period, including how many and what type of piles driven;
    iii. Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile types, 
average driving times, etc.
    iv. Weather parameters in each monitoring period (e.g., wind speed, 
percent cloud cover, visibility);
    v. Water conditions in each monitoring period (e.g., sea state, 
tide state);
    vi. For each marine mammal sighting:
    a. Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine 
mammals;
    b. Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, 
including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile 
driving activity;
    c. Location and distance from pile driving activities to marine 
mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
    d. Estimated amount of time that the animals remained in the Level 
B harassment zone;
    vii. Description of implementation of mitigation measures within 
each monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or delay);
    viii. Other human activity in the area within each monitoring 
period
    ix. A summary of the following:
    a. Total number of individuals of each species detected within the 
Level B harassment zone.
    b. Total number of individuals of each species detected within the 
Level A harassment zone and the average amount of time that they 
remained in that zone.
    c. Daily average number of individuals of each species 
(differentiated by month as appropriate) detected within the Level B 
Zone, and estimated as taken, if appropriate.
    (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, 
such as serious injury, or mortality, WSDOT must immediately cease the 
specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Region Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. 
The report must include the following information:
    1. Time and date of the incident;
    2. Description of the incident;
    3. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
    4. Description of all marine mammal observations and active sound 
source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
    5. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
    6. Fate of the animal(s); and
    7. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
    Activities must not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with WSDOT to 
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of 
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. WSDOT may not 
resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
    ii. In the event WSDOT 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), WSDOT must immediately report the 
incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast 
Region 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. NMFS will work 
with WSDOT to determine whether additional mitigation measures or 
modifications to the activities are appropriate.
    iii. In the event that WSDOT 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, or scavenger damage), WSDOT must report the incident to 
the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Region 
Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. WSDOT 
must provide photographs or video footage or other documentation of the 
stranded animal sighting to NMFS.
    7. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if 
the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if 
NMFS determines 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 analyses, the proposed authorization, and 
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed 
project. We also request comment on the potential for renewal of this 
proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with 
your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help 
inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
    On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a second one-year IHA 
without additional notice when (1) another year of identical or nearly 
identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section 
is planned or (2) the activities would not be completed by the time the 
IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for completion of the 
activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section, 
provided all of the following conditions are met:
     A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days 
prior to expiration of the current IHA;

[[Page 53048]]

     The request for renewal must include the following:
    (1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the 
initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed 
activities or include changes so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) 
that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, take estimates, 
or mitigation and monitoring requirements; and
    (2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the 
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the 
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not 
previously analyzed or authorized;
     Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the 
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS 
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, 
the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate, 
and the original findings remain valid.

    Dated: October 15, 2018.
Catherine Marzin,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-22812 Filed 10-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P