Notice2026-20222
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Structure Maintenance and Pile Replacement Program in Puget Sound, Washington
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 2, 2026
Effective
September 25, 2026
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
In accordance with regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the United States Navy (Navy) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the Marine Structure Maintenance and Pile Replacement Program in Puget Sound, Washington.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 190 (Friday, October 2, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 190 (Friday, October 2, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62702-62719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-20222]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XG017]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Structure Maintenance and
Pile Replacement Program in Puget Sound, Washington
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with regulations implementing the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that
NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the
United States Navy (Navy) for authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to the Marine Structure Maintenance and Pile Replacement
Program in Puget Sound, Washington.
DATES: This authorization is effective from September 25, 2026 through
September 24, 2027.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the application and supporting
documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document,
may be obtained online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities</a>. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call
the contact listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Fleming, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) 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; 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 the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to as ``mitigation'');
and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the
takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms used
above are included in the relevant sections below (see also 16 U.S.C.
1362; 50 CFR 216.3, 216.103).
Summary of Request
On February 26, 2026, NMFS received a request from the Navy for an
IHA to take marine mammals incidental to construction associated with
the Navy's 2026 Marine Structure Maintenance and Pile Replacement
project in Puget Sound, Washington. Following NMFS' review of the
application, and subsequent discussions between NMFS and the Navy, the
application was deemed adequate and complete on June 4, 2026. The Navy
submitted a revised application reflecting the previous discussions on
June 26, 2026. We received another revision on August 6, 2026 and a
final revision on August 12, 2026. The Navy's request is for take of 10
species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment and, for a subset of
these species, Level A harassment. Neither the Navy nor NMFS expect
serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and,
therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously promulgated regulations for (84 FR 15963, April 17,
2019) and issued two consecutive IHAs to (89 FR 47539, June 3, 2024)
the Navy for related and similar work. The Navy complied with all the
requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the
previous IHAs, and information regarding their monitoring results may
be found in the Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and
their Habitat.
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
To ensure continuance of necessary missions at its installations,
the Navy must conduct annual maintenance and repair activities at
existing marine waterfront structures, including removal and
replacement of piles of various
[[Page 62703]]
types and sizes. The Navy refers to this program as the Marine
Structure Maintenance and Pile Replacement (MPR) Program. Under the MPR
program, the Navy is planning to conduct repairs and maintenance of
existing marine structures and replacement of degraded piles at three
Navy installations within Puget Sound, Washington. Construction is
planned for up to a total of 227 days, with 22 days planned at Naval
Base Kitsap (NBK) Bangor between July 16 and January 15, 77 days
planned at Naval Station (NS) Everett between July 16 and February 15,
and 128 days planned at NBK Manchester between July 16 and February 15,
up to 7 days per week, during daylight hours only. Repairs include
replacing up to 234 structurally unsound concrete or steel piles with
233 concrete or steel piles over a 1-year period using impact and
vibratory pile driving and removal. The activities that have the
potential to take marine mammals include the impact and vibratory
installation and removal of concrete and steel piles, and steel
casings.
A detailed description of the planned construction project is
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (91 FR
53486, August 18, 2026). Since that time, Navy has revised the size
pile casings to be installed at NBK Manchester (see Changes from
Proposed to Final IHA section). No other changes have been made to the
planned activities, and a detailed description is not provided here.
Please refer to the Federal Register notice for the description of the
specific activity.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to the Navy was
published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2026. That notice
described, in detail, the Navy's activity, the marine mammal species
that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on
marine mammals. In that notice, we requested public input on the
request for authorization described therein, our analyses, the proposed
authorization, and any other aspect of the notice of proposed IHA, and
requested that interested persons submit relevant information,
suggestions, and comments.
During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received one comment
letter from a private citizen. All relevant, substantive comments, and
NMFS' responses, are provided below. The comments and recommendations
are available online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities</a>. Please see the comment submission for full details
regarding the recommendations and supporting rationale.
Comment 1: Citing their status under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), a private citizen urged NMFS to require robust real-time
monitoring and shutdown protocols specifically calibrated for southern
resident killer whales (SRKW) at NS Everett and NBK Manchester, rather
than standard harbor seal or harbor porpoise-focused mitigation
measures.
Response: NMFS clarifies that the required mitigation for this
project, at all installations, has been designed to account for all
hearing groups that could be present in the project area, including
ESA-listed SRKW. Measures specifically designed to mitigate impacts to
ESA-listed SRKW include shutting down pile driving should a large whale
or killer whale be observed within or approaching the largest
harassment zone, and on at least a daily basis, contacting the Orca
Network and monitoring their social media to review updated sighting
locations of large whales, and shutting down or delaying pile driving
if any large whale species are approaching, or within the shutdown
zone. In addition to applying to killer whales, these mitigation
requirements apply to all large whales, including gray whales and ESA-
listed humpback whales.
Comment 2: A private citizen requested that NMFS consider whether
additional precautionary buffers or seasonal restrictions near NS
Everett are warranted, given its proximity to a gray whale feeding
Biologically Important Area (BIA) and given that gray whales are
currently experiencing high numbers of strandings along the Washington
coast and in Puget Sound.
Response: While we acknowledge that the Eastern North Pacific stock
of gray whales is currently experiencing elevated numbers of strandings
along the Washington coast and in Puget Sound, we do not agree that
this stock cannot sustain eight incidents of Level B harassment, which
are likely to be relatively low-level, temporary behavioral reactions,
without incurring greater than a negligible impact on the stock. As
described in the notice of the proposed IHA for this action (91 FR
53486, August 18, 2026), NMFS finds that small numbers of marine
mammals may be taken relative to the population size of the affected
species or stocks and that the incidental take of marine mammals from
the Navy's specified activities will have a negligible impact on all
affected marine mammal species or stocks, including gray whales.
Changes From the Proposed IHA to the Final IHA
Changes from the proposed IHA to the final issued IHA pertain to a
revision to the size of the steel casings that are to be used to
support the installation of 24-inch concrete piles at NBK Manchester.
The Navy has indicated that 74 42-in steel casings may be vibratory
installed and removed instead of 74 36-in steel casings, at the same
production rates (table 1).
Table 1--\1\Pile Types, Installation Methods, and Durations at NBK Bangor, NS Everett, and NBK Manchester
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes
(vibratory)
Installation or removal Pile size Pile type Method Bubble curtain Location Number of piles Piles/ or strikes Construction
planned? day (impact) per days
pile
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBK Bangor
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal......................... 24-in.............. Concrete........ Vibratory.............. No............. Olympic Pier...... 4................. 2 \2\ 10 2
Vibratory.............. No............. EHW-1............. 11................ 3 10 4
Installation.................... 20-in.............. Steel........... Vibratory.............. No............. Olympic Pier...... 4................. 2 \2\ 10 2
Impact proofing........ Yes............ 2 500 2
30-in.............. Steel........... Vibratory.............. No............. EHW-1............. 12................ 2 10 6
Impact proofing........ Yes............ 2 1,000 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62704]]
NS Everett
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal......................... 12-in.............. Steel........... Vibratory.............. No............. Piers A, B, and 144............... 4 10 36
South Wharf.
Installation.................... 18-in.............. Steel........... Vibratory.............. No............. Piers A, B, and 144 (up to 20 may 4 10 36
Impact proofing........ Yes............ South Wharf. be impact 4 400 5
proofed).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBK Manchester
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal......................... 14-in H............ Steel........... Vibratory.............. No............. Fuel Pier......... 74................ 3 10 25
36-in Casing....... Steel........... Vibratory.............. No............. 74................ 3 30 25
42-in Casing.......
Installation.................... 36-in Casing....... Steel........... Vibratory.............. No............. Fuel Pier......... \3\ 74............ 2 30 37
42-in Casing.......
24-in.............. Concrete........ Impact................. No............. Fuel Pier......... \4\ 30............ 2 1,000 15
Installation and Removal........ 24-in.............. Steel........... Vibratory.............. No............. Fuel Pier......... 52................ 4 15 26
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Impact and vibratory driving may occur on the same or separate days depending on contractor needs and scheduling.
\2\ The Navy estimates that vibratory installation will take a median time of 10 minutes per pile, with a maximum time of 45 minutes.
\3\ The vibratory installation and removal of 74 steel casings used to support the installation of 24-in concrete may be 42-in rather than 36-in in diameter.
\4\ Up to 30 out of 74 24-inch concrete piles may be installed with impact driving. The remaining piles are expected to be placed after the casing is installed via vibratory driving and auger
drilling.
This change is minor in terms of its effects on marine mammals and
does not change our small numbers and negligible impact analysis and
determinations. To complete the analysis to support this determination,
NMFS and the Navy used a sound source proxy level of 170 referenced to
1 micropascal (dB re 1[micro]Pa) root mean square (RMS) at 10 m for
vibratory installation and removal of 42-in steel casings (table 5) at
the same production rates planned for vibratory installation and
removal of 36-in steel casings (table 1; table 6).
This change from vibratory installation and removal of 36-in steel
casings to vibratory installation and removal of 42-in steel casings
increases the size of the estimated Level A and Level B harassment
zones associated with this activity (table 7). However, the clearance
and shutdown zones associated with vibratory pile driving and removal
of 42-in steel casings are established following the same logic applied
to the establishment of clearance and shutdown zones of 36-in steel
casings (table 9); for Very High Frequency (VHF) cetaceans, phocids
(PW), and otariids (OW), clearance zones are equivalent to the shutdown
zones and are based on the Level A harassment isopleths. For large
cetaceans and killer whales, the clearance zones are based on the
distance that can reliably be observed by Protected Species Observers
(PSOs) and remain unchanged. For large cetaceans and killer whales, the
shutdown zones correspond to the Level B harassment isopleths. Although
the projected Level B harassment isopleth for vibratory 42-in steel
casings is much larger than the Level B harassment isopleth for 36-in
steel casings (21,544 m and 13,594 m, respectively, table 7), land
truncates the Level B harassment isopleth at 13.9 km at its furthest
distance, requiring only a small increase in the size of the shutdown
zone. As such, there is no increase to the estimated take (table 8).
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. NMFS
fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to
these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional
information regarding population trends and threats may be found in
NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments</a>) and
more general information about these species (e.g., physical and
behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species</a>).
Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the
population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA
and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. 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' SARs). While no serious injury or
mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual mortality
and serious injury (M/SI) from anthropogenic sources are included here
as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks 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' 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' U.S. Alaska and Pacific SARs. All values presented in table 2 are
the most recent available at the time of publication (including from
the 2024 SARs) and are available online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments</a>.
[[Page 62705]]
Table 2--Species, Stocks, and the Status of Marine Mammals \1\ With Estimated Take From the Specified Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/ MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\2\ abundance survey) \3\ SI \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Artiodactyla--Cetacea--Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray Whale...................... Eschrichtius robustus.. Eastern North Pacific.. -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 801 131
2016).
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
Humpback Whale \5\.............. Megaptera novaeangliae. Mainland Mexico--CA-OR- T, D, Y 3,477 (0.101, 3,185, 43 22
WA. 2018).
Hawai[revaps]i......... -, -, N 11,278 (0.56, 7,265, 127 27.09
2020).
Minke Whale..................... Balaenoptera CA-OR-WA............... -, -, N 915 (0.792, 509, 2018) 4.1 >=0.19
acutorostrata.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Killer Whale.................... Orcinus orca........... Eastern North Pacific E, D, Y 73 (N/A, 73, 2023).... 0.13 0
Southern Resident.
West Coast Transient... -, -, N 349 (N/A \6\, 349, 3.5 0.4
2018).
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Dall's Porpoise................. Phocoenoides dalli..... CA-OR-WA............... -, -, N 16,498 (0.61, 10,286, 99 >=0.66
2018).
Harbor Porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena...... Washington Inland -, -, N 11,233 (0.37, 8,308, 66 >=7.2
Waters. 2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
sea lions):
California Sea Lion............. Zalophus californianus. U.S.................... -, -, N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 14,011 >321
2014).
Steller Sea Lion................ Eumetopias jubatus..... Eastern................ -, -, N 36,308 (N/A \7\, 2,178 93.2
36,308, 2022).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor Seal..................... Phoca vitulina......... Washington Inland Hood -, -, N UNK (UNK\8\, UNK, UND 0.2
Canal. 1999).
Washington Inland -, -, N UNK (UNK \8\, UNK, UND 3.4
Southern Puget Sound. 1999).
Washington Northern -, -, N UNK (UNK \8\, UNK, UND 9.8
Inland Waters. 1999).
Northern Elephant Seal.......... Mirounga angustirostris California Breeding.... -, -, N 194,907 (N/A, 88,794, 5,328 11.2
2023).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Information on the classification of marine mammal species can be found on the web page for The Society for Marine Mammalogy's Committee on Taxonomy
(<a href="https://marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/">https://marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/</a>).
\2\ 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.
\3\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports</a>. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
\4\ 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.
\5\ According to Curtis et al. (2025), the probability that whales encountered in the Salish Sea are from the ESA-listed Central America DPS (Central
America/Southern Mexico stock) is 4.3 percent. As such no take of this stock is authorized.
\6\ Nest is based upon count of individuals identified from photo-ID catalogs in analysis of a subset of data from 1958 to 2018.
\7\ Nest is best estimate of counts, which have not been corrected for animals at sea during abundance surveys. Estimates provided are for the U.S.
only.
\8\ Abundance estimates are greater than 8 years old, so stock abundance is considered unknown. Pearson et al., 2024 estimates the population abundance
of the Washington Northern Inland Waters stock of harbor seal to be 15,898, the Washington Inland Southern Puget Sound stock of harbor seal to be
2,529, and the population abundance of the Hood Canal stock of harbor seal to be 2,832.
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the
MPR project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant
stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and
threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in
the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (91 FR 53486, August
18, 2026); since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the
status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions
are not provided here. Please also refer to NMFS' website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species</a>) for generalized species accounts.
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. Not all marine mammal species have equal
hearing capabilities or hear over the same frequency range (e.g.,
Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings,
2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007, 2019) recommended that
marine mammals be divided into hearing groups based on directly
measured (behavioral or auditory evoked potential techniques) or
estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response data, anatomical
[[Page 62706]]
modeling, etc.). Subsequently, NMFS (2018, 2024) described generalized
hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups (table 3).
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65
decibel (dB) threshold from composite audiograms, previous analyses in
NMFS (2018), and/or data from Southall et al. (2007) and Southall et
al. (2019).
Table 3--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups (NMFS, 2024)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 36 kHz.
whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
(dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
whales, bottlenose whales).
Very High-frequency (VHF) cetaceans 200 Hz to 165 kHz.
(true porpoises, Kogia, river
dolphins, Cephalorhynchid,.
Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L.
australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) 40 Hz to 90 kHz.
(true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) 60 Hz to 68 kHz.
(sea lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges may not be as broad. Generalized hearing range
chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from composite audiogram, previous
analysis in NMFS (2018), and/or data from Southall et al. (2007) and
Southall et al. (2019). Additionally, animals are able to detect very
loud sounds above and below that ``generalized'' hearing range.
For more details concerning these groups and associated generalized
hearing ranges, please see NMFS (2024) for a review of available
information.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
The effects of underwater noise from the Navy's construction
activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of
marine mammals in the vicinity of the project area. The notice of the
proposed IHA (91 FR 53486, August 18, 2026) included a discussion of
the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential
effects of underwater noise from the Navy's construction activity on
marine mammals and their habitat. That information and analysis is
referenced in this final IHA determination and is not repeated here;
please refer to the notice of the proposed IHA (91 FR 53486, August 18,
2026).
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized through the IHA, which will inform NMFS' consideration of
``small numbers,'' the negligible impact determinations, and impacts on
subsistence uses.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes are primarily by Level B harassment, as use of the
acoustic sources (i.e., vibratory pile driving and removal, impact pile
driving) has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral
patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential
for auditory injury (AUD INJ; Level A harassment) to result, primarily
for VHF species, PW, and OW, because predicted AUD INJ zones are larger
in comparison to the observability for some species. AUD INJ is
unlikely to occur for mysticetes and high-frequency species. The
mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the
severity of the taking to the extent practicable.
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the
take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by
considering: (1) acoustic criteria above which NMFS believes there is
some reasonable potential for marine mammals to be behaviorally
harassed or incur some degree of AUD INJ; (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) the number of days of activities. We note that while these
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial
prediction of potential 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 take
estimates.
Acoustic Criteria
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic criteria 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 AUD INJ of some degree (equated to
Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment
Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of
behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also
informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source or
exposure context (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle, duration
of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the source), the
environment (e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area, predators in
the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience,
demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to predict (e.g.,
Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2021; Ellison et al., 2012).
Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to
use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized
acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of
behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above RMS
Sound Pressure Level (SPL) of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for continuous (e.g.,
vibratory pile driving, drilling) and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. Generally speaking, estimates
[[Page 62707]]
of take by Level B harassment based on these behavioral harassment
thresholds are expected to include any likely takes by temporary
threshold shift (TTS) as, in most cases, the likelihood of TTS occurs
at distances from the source less than those at which behavioral
harassment is likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can manifest as
behavioral harassment, as reduced hearing sensitivity and the potential
reduced opportunities to detect important signals (conspecific
communication, predators, prey) may result in changes in behavior
patterns that would not otherwise occur.
The Navy's 2026 MPR project includes the use of continuous
(vibratory pile driving and removal) and impulsive (impact pile
driving) sources, and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160
dB re 1 [mu]Pa are applicable.
Level A Harassment
NMFS' Updated Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of
Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 3.0) (Updated
Technical Guidance, 2024) identifies dual criteria to assess AUD INJ
(Level A harassment) to five different underwater marine mammal groups
(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from
two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). The Navy's
2026 MPR project includes the use of impulsive (impact pile driving)
and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving and removal) sources.
The 2024 Updated Technical Guidance criteria include both updated
thresholds and updated weighting functions for each hearing group. The
thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, analysis,
and methodology used in the development of the criteria are described
in NMFS' 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance-other-acoustic-tools">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance-other-acoustic-tools</a>.
Table 4--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Auditory Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUD INJ onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 222 dB; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 197 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 4: LE,HF,24h: 201 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 193 dB.
Very High-Frequency (VHF) Cetaceans.... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,VHF,24h: 181 dB.
LE,VHF,24h: 159 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW)(Underwater)...... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 223 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 195 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 183 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW)(Underwater)..... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 199 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 185 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric criteria for impulsive sounds: Use whichever criteria results in the larger isopleth for
calculating AUD INJ onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure
level criteria associated with impulsive sounds, the PK SPL criteria are recommended for consideration for non-
impulsive sources.
Note: Peak sound pressure level (Lp,0-pk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and weighted cumulative sound
exposure level (LE,p) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa\2\s. In this table, criteria are abbreviated to be
more reflective of International Organization for Standardization standards (ISO, 2017). The subscript
``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the
generalized hearing range of marine mammals underwater (i.e., 7 Hz to 165 kHz). The subscript associated with
cumulative sound exposure level criteria indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function
(LF, HF, and VHF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours.
The weighted cumulative sound exposure level criteria 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 criteria will be exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the project. Marine
mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary
components of the project (i.e., vibratory pile driving and removal,
and impact pile driving).
Source levels for these activities are based on reviews of
measurements of the same or similar pile types and dimensions of piles
available in literature. Source levels used for each pile size and
activity are presented in table 5. Source levels for vibratory
installation and removal of piles of the same diameter are assumed to
be the same.
The Navy plans to use bubble curtains when impact driving steel
piles. For the reasons described in the next paragraph, we assume here
that use of the bubble curtain would result in a reduction of 8 dB from
the assumed SPL (rms), SPL (peak) and Sound Exposure Level (SEL) source
levels for these pile sizes, and reduce the applied source levels
accordingly.
During the 2023 study at NBK Bremerton, the Navy conducted
comparative measurements of source levels when impact driving steel
piles with and without a bubble curtain. Underwater sound levels were
measured at two locations during the installation of one 24-in diameter
steel pile and four 36-in steel piles. The bubble curtain used during
the measurements reduced median peak sound levels by between 8 and 12
dB, median RMS sound levels by 10 and 12 dB, and median single strike
SEL sound levels by 7 and 8 dB. The analysis included in a proposed
rule for regulations (83 FR 9366, March 5, 2018) preceding two
consecutive IHAs (89 FR 47539, June 3, 2026) that preceded this project
as well as results from the NBK Bangor Trident Support Facilities
Explosive Handling Wharf study (Navy, 2013), are consistent with these
findings. While proper set-up and operation of the system is critical,
and variability in performance should be expected, we believe that in
the circumstances evaluated here an effective attenuation performance
of 8 dB is a reasonable assumption.
[[Page 62708]]
Table 5--Estimates of Mean Underwater Sound Levels Generated During Vibratory and Impact Pile Installation and Vibratory Pile Removal
[Unattenuated]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attenuation to be
Method Type Size (in) RMS Peak SEL applied Reference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact......................... Concrete........ 24 174 188 164 N/A.................... Navy, 2015.
Steel........... 18 185 200 175 -8 dB \1\.............. Caltrans, 2020.
20 193 210 181 -8 dB \1\.............. Navy, 2015.\2\
30 195 216 186 -8 dB \1\.............. Navy, 2015.
Vibratory Installation and Steel........... 12 155 N/A N/A N/A.................... Caltrans, 2015.
Removal.
14 H 150 N/A N/A N/A.................... Caltrans, 2015.
18 161 N/A N/A N/A.................... Navy, 2015.\3\
20 161 N/A N/A N/A.................... Navy, 2015.\3\
24 161 N/A N/A N/A.................... Navy, 2015.
30 166 N/A N/A N/A.................... Navy, 2015.
Concrete........ 24 163 N/A N/A N/A.................... NAVFAC SW \4\ 2022.
Casings......... 36 167 N/A N/A N/A.................... Navy, 2015.
\5\ 42 170 N/A N/A N/A.................... Navy, 2012; Navy 2013.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: dB peak = peak sound Level; rms = root mean square; SEL = sound exposure level.
\1\ Values modeled for impact driving of 18, 20 and 30-in steel piles will be reduced by 8 dB for noise exposure modeling to account for attenuation
from a bubble curtain.
\2\ The Navy uses sound levels estimated for impact pile driving of 24-in steel as proxy for this pile type.
\3\ The Navy uses sound levels estimated for vibratory pile driving of 16 and 24-in steel as proxy for these pile types.
\4\ The Navy uses sound levels estimated for vibratory pile driving of 20-in concrete as proxy for this pile type.
\5\ NMFS and the Navy refer to measured sound levels for vibratory driving of 48-in steel pipe piles as proxy for this pile type and find that 170 dB
RMS is a generally conservative value based on those measurements.
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 x Log10 (R<INF>1</INF>/R<INF>2</INF>),
Where:
TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient
R<INF>1</INF> = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven
pile, and
R<INF>2</INF> = the distance from the driven pile of the initial
measurement
Absent site-specific acoustical monitoring with differing measured
TL, a practical spreading value of 15 is used as the TL coefficient in
the above formula. Site-specific TL data for the Puget Sound and Hood
Canal are not available; therefore, the default coefficient of 15 is
used to determine the distances to the Level A harassment and Level B
harassment thresholds.
The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more
technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a
duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User
Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance that
can be used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use
in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict
potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions
included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate
that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be
overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of
potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool
offers a practical, alternative way to estimate isopleth distances when
more sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For
stationary sources such as pile driving, the optional User Spreadsheet
tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at
that distance for the duration of the activity, it would be expected to
incur AUD INJ. Inputs used in the optional User Spreadsheet tool (table
6), and the resulting estimated isopleths (table 7), are reported
below.
Table 6--User Spreadsheet Input Parameters Used for Calculating Level A Harassment Isopleths for Pile Driving and Removal Based on User Spreadsheet
Inputs Provided by the Navy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration to
Weighting Piles per drive a
Location Pile size and type Spreadsheet tab used factor day single pile Strikes
adjustment (minutes)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bangor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olympic Pier............................ 24-in Concrete............. A.1. Vibratory pile driving 2.5 2 10 N/A
EHW-1................................... A.1. Vibratory pile driving 2.5 3 10 N/A
Olympic Pier............................ 20-in Steel................ A.1. Vibratory pile driving 2.5 2 10 N/A
E.1. Impact pile driving... 2 2 N/A 500
EHW-1................................... 30-in Steel................ A.1. Vibratory pile driving 2.5 2 10 N/A
E.1. Impact pile driving... 2 2 1,000 N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NS Everett
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piers A, B, and South Wharf............. 12-in Steel................ A.1. Vibratory pile driving 2.5 4 10 N/A
18-in Steel................ A.1. Vibratory pile driving 2.5 4 10 N/A
E.1. Impact pile driving... 2 4 N/A 400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62709]]
NBK Manchester
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Pier............................... 14-in H.................... A.1. Vibratory pile driving 2.5 3 10 N/A
36-in or 42-in casing A.1. Vibratory pile driving 2.5 3 30 N/A
(removal).
36-in or 42-in casing A.1. Vibratory pile driving 2.5 2 30 N/A
(install).
24-in concrete............. E.1. Impact pile driving... 2 2 N/A 1,000
24-in Steel................ A.1. Vibratory pile driving 2.5 4 15 N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7--Projected Distances to Level A and Level B Harassment Isopleths (m) by Hearing Group
[practical spreading]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment isopleth (m) (attenuated as relevant) Level B
Pile size and type Method Location ------------------------------------------------------------ harassment
LF HF VHF PW OW zone m
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBK Bangor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-in Concrete.................... Vibratory Removal.... Olympic Pier........ 6.0 2.3 4.9 7.8 2.6 7,356
EHW-1............... 7.9 3.0 6.5 10 3.4 7,356
20-in Steel....................... Vibratory Install.... Olympic Pier........ 4.4 1.7 3.6 5.7 1.9 5,412
Impact Install....... 214 27 332 190 71 464
30-in Steel....................... Vibratory Install.... EHW-1............... 10 3.7 7.8 12 4.1 11,659
Impact Install....... 733 94 1,135 651 243 631
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NS Everett
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12-in Steel....................... Vibratory Removal.... Piers A, B, and 2.8 1.1 2.3 3.6 1.2 2,154
South Wharf.
18-in Steel....................... Vibratory Install.... Piers A, B, and 7.0 2.7 5.7 9.1 3.0 5,412
South Wharf.
Impact Install....... 117 15 181 104 39 136
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBK Manchester
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-in H Steel..................... Vibratory Removal.... Fuel Pier........... 1.1 0.4 0.9 1.4 0.5 1,000
36-in Steel....................... 30 12 25 39 13 13,594
42-in Steel....................... 37 14 30 47 16 \1\ 21,544
36-in Steel....................... Vibratory Install.... Fuel Pier........... 23 8.9 19 30 10 13,594
42-in Steel....................... 48 19 39 62 21 \1\ 21,544
24-in Concrete.................... Impact Install....... 86 11 132 76 28 86
24-in Steel....................... Vibratory Install and Fuel Pier........... 9.2 3.5 7.5 12 4.0 5,412
Removal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Underwater noise would be truncated by land at approximately 13.9 km from Manchester Fuel Pier at its furthest distance.
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of
marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which
will inform the take calculations.
Available information regarding marine mammal occurrence in the
vicinity of the project area includes site-specific and nearby survey
information from the Navy and the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT). Specifically, data sources consulted included
(1) the Navy's ``Summary of Weekly Marine Mammal Surveys at Navy
Northwest Region Installations: 2008--2025'', and (2) PSO monitoring
completed across (a) 156 monitoring days associated with four projects
completed by the Navy at Bangor; (b) 11 monitoring days associated with
one project completed by the Navy at Manchester, and (c) 169 monitoring
days between 2015 and 2021, between the months of August and February,
associated with the multi-year WSDOT Multimodal Construction Project
completed by WSDOT, which was located near NS Everett. Species-specific
data summaries of the above are included in the Description of Marine
Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities section.
For large whales (humpback whales, minke whales, and gray whales),
killer whales (transient and resident), Dall's porpoise, and elephant
seals, NMFS considered the data sources identified above, as well as
(1) data collected by The Whale Museum between August 2022 and July
2024 from Blake Island (approximately 3 km from NBK Manchester)
provided by the Navy and, (2) The Orca Network archived sightings.
Take Estimation
Here we describe how the information provided above is synthesized
to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably
likely to occur and authorized.
For species with rare or infrequent occurrence at a given
installation during the in-water work window, the likelihood of
occurrence was reviewed on the basis of past records of occurrence
(described in Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified
Activities) and the potential maximum duration of work days at each
installation, as well as total work days for all installations. In most
cases, the occurrence of the species in this category (i.e., large
whales, killer whales, Dall's porpoise, and elephant seals (all
installations)), is not anticipated to extend for multiple days. Except
for gray whales, where increased strandings reports suggest individuals
may occur in an area for a longer period of time, the probable duration
of all rare, unpredictably occurring species is assumed to be 2 days,
roughly equivalent to one transit in and out of
[[Page 62710]]
a project site (across all installations). The equation used to
estimate take for species with rare or infrequent occurrence is:
Exposure estimate = Probable abundance during construction x probable
duration
Where:
Probable abundance = expected group size or number based on data
sources referenced above
Probable duration = probable duration of the animal(s) presence at
construction sites during the entire in-water pile driving period.
For the remaining species, the Navy utilized density estimates or
site-specific survey data to estimate the likelihood of occurrence.
Specifically, the Navy proposed to use density estimates of harbor
porpoise from the Navy's Marine Mammal Species Density Database (Navy,
2019) to estimate the likelihood of occurrence. However, NMFS finds it
more appropriate to use local monitoring data to estimate the
likelihood of occurrence for harbor porpoise. As such, for harbor
porpoise and the other remaining species (California sea lion, Steller
sea lion, and harbor seal), the Navy and NMFS predicted a daily
occurrence, and estimated take by multiplying the estimated daily
occurrence for each species by the number of in-water construction
days, generally using the following equation;
Take by Level B harassment = marine mammal occurrence x days of pile
driving activities.
Although certain species are not expected to occur at all at some
facilities--for example, resident killer whales are not expected to
occur in Hood Canal--an overall take estimate for these species has
been developed across the entire project.
The Navy plans to implement a shutdown of pile driving activity if
any large whale or killer whale is observed within or approaching any
defined harassment zone (see Mitigation section). Additionally, the
Navy plans at least daily coordination with the Orca Network to
maintain situational awareness of large whales in the vicinity of the
project sites and shut down should they be reported or observed by PSOs
near the project site. As a result of this mitigation, we do not
believe that Level A harassment is a likely outcome upon occurrence of
any large whale or killer whale. Likewise, the Navy has not requested
take by Level A harassment of large whales or killer whales, nor has
NMFS authorized take by Level A harassment of these species.
In most cases where shutdown zones are greater than or equal to the
calculated Level A harassment zones, take by Level A harassment is not
authorized. However, there are scenarios for some pinniped species and
installations (i.e., California sea lions at NBK Bangor and NS Everett
and harbor seals at NS Everett) where take by Level A harassment is
authorized to account for the possibility that individuals could enter
the shutdown zone and stay long enough to incur AUD INJ before PSOs are
able to detect them and enact a shutdown.
Additionally, in cases where the Level A harassment zones are
larger than the shutdown zones (i.e., impact proofing of 30-inch steel
for VHF and harbor seals at NBK Bangor), take by Level A harassment is
authorized. The same general equation is used for take by Level A
harassment that is used for take by Level B harassment: marine mammal
occurrence multiplied by days of pile driving activities. In cases
where the predicted Level A harassment zones exceed the shutdown zones
for species that are occasionally or rarely expected to occur in the
project area (e.g., Dall's porpoise), it is assumed that takes could be
by either Level A or Level B harassment.
We acknowledge that the number of estimated exposures above higher
threshold criteria (e.g., sound exposures exceeding Level A harassment
criteria) also encompasses the potential for less impactful effects
(e.g., Level B harassment). An individual within the estimated Level A
harassment isopleth may not incur auditory injury due to limited
exposure duration; however, the individual may have experienced Level B
harassment. This outcome is accounted for in our authorization of
potential higher-level takes and in our analysis. Specifically, due to
this approach for calculating Level A harassment and Level B harassment
for Dall's porpoise, the number of takes by Level A harassment
authorized may be applied to observations of Level B harassment.
However, the total number of takes may not exceed the sum of the takes
authorized by Level A and Level B harassment (table 8).
The Navy plans to shut down in-water pile driving upon observation
of any large whale or killer whale approaching or within any estimated
harassment zone. While the Navy plans to coordinate with the Orca
Network to maintain situational awareness of the presence of large
whales or killer whales near all three project areas, the Level B
harassment zone is larger than is practicably observable by PSOs during
most activities. As such, some take by Level B harassment is authorized
for these species.
Humpback Whale
The Navy requested and NMFS concurred that one group of two
humpback whales may occur in the Level B harassment zone during active
pile driving on a total of 2 days over the course of the construction
season. Therefore, NMFS has authorized four takes by Level B harassment
of humpback whales.
No takes by Level A harassment of humpback whales are anticipated
and none are authorized.
Gray Whale
The Navy initially assumed that one group of two gray whales may
occur in the Level B harassment zone during active pile driving on a
total of 2 days over the course of the construction season. However,
given the recent reports of stranded gray whales in Puget Sound, the
Navy requested and NMFS concurred that up to eight gray whales may be
taken by Level B harassment during the project period. Therefore, NMFS
has authorized eight takes by Level B harassment of gray whales.
No takes by Level A harassment of gray whales are anticipated and
none are authorized.
Minke Whale
The Navy requested and NMFS concurred that one group of two minke
whales may occur in a Level B harassment zone during active pile
driving on a total of 2 days over the course of the construction season
for a total of four takes by Level B harassment. Therefore, NMFS has
authorized four takes by Level B harassment of minke whales.
No takes by Level A harassment of minke whales are anticipated and
none are authorized.
Transient Killer Whale
The Navy requested and NMFS concurred that 1 group of 6 transient
killer whales may occur in a Level B harassment zone during active pile
driving on a total of 2 days over the course of the constructions
season for a total of 12 takes by Level B harassment. Therefore, NMFS
has authorized 12 takes by Level B harassment of transient killer
whales.
No takes by Level A harassment of transient killer whales are
anticipated and none are authorized.
Southern Resident Killer Whale
The Navy requested and NMFS concurred that 1 group of 10 SRKW may
occur in the Level B harassment zone
[[Page 62711]]
during active pile driving on a total of 2 days over the course of the
construction season for a total of 20 takes by Level B harassment.
Therefore, NMFS has authorized 20 takes by Level B harassment of SRKWs.
No takes by Level A harassment of SRKW are anticipated and none are
authorized.
Dall's Porpoise
The Navy requested and NMFS concurred that one group of two Dall's
porpoise could occur within the project area during active pile driving
on a total of 2 days over the course of the construction season for a
total of four. Because exposure estimates are low and the Level A
harassment zones are larger than are likely observable during impact
pile driving, NMFS has authorized these four takes as Level A
harassment, acknowledging that instead the takes could be by the less
severe Level B harassment.
Harbor Porpoise
NBK Bangor--The Navy requested and NMFS concurred that 12 harbor
porpoises could occur within the Level B harassment zone each
construction day. This results in 264 takes by Level B harassment of
harbor porpoises across the 22 construction days at this project site.
The calculated Level A harassment zone expected to occur during the
6 days of impact proofing of 30-in steel piles at Explosives Handling
Wharf-1 (EHW-1) is 1,135 m, and the Navy plans to maintain a shutdown
zone of 350 m (table 9). NMFS estimates that 12 harbor porpoises per
day could occur within the calculated Level A harassment zone and
remain for a sufficient period to accumulate enough energy to result in
AUD INJ. As such, NMFS has authorized 72 takes by Level A harassment of
harbor porpoises at this project site.
NMFS modified the calculated takes by Level B harassment to deduct
the estimated amount of take by Level A harassment (i.e., 264 takes by
Level B harassment-72 takes by Level A harassment = 192 takes by Level
B harassment). Therefore, for harbor porpoises, NMFS has authorized 192
takes by Level B harassment and 72 takes by Level A harassment for a
total of 264 takes across the 22 days of construction planned at this
site.
NS Everett--The Navy requested and NMFS concurred that two harbor
porpoises could occur within the Level B harassment zone each
construction day. This results in 154 takes by Level B harassment of
harbor porpoises across the 77 construction days at this project site.
No takes by Level A harassment of harbor porpoises are anticipated
at this project site and none are authorized.
NBK Manchester--that the Navy requested and NMFS concurred that two
harbor porpoises could occur within the Level B harassment zone each
construction day. This results in 256 takes by Level B harassment of
harbor porpoises across 128 construction days at this project site.
No takes by Level A harassment of harbor porpoises are anticipated
at this project site and none are authorized.
Across all installations, NMFS has authorized 602 takes by Level B
harassment of and 72 takes by Level A harassment of harbor porpoises
for a total of 674 takes.
California Sea Lion
NBK Bangor--The Navy requested and NMFS concurred that 35
California sea lions could occur within the Level B harassment zone
each construction day. This results in 770 takes by Level B harassment
of California sea lions across the 22 construction days at this project
site.
The Navy plans to shut down at distances slightly larger than the
Level A harassment zones associated with this project site (see table
9). However, given the proximity of hauled out California sea lions to
the project site, and the fact that on 6 construction days the
calculated Level A harassment zone is 243 m (during impact proofing of
30-inch steel at EHW-1), NMFS predicts that it is possible that up to
two California sea lions could go unobserved and remain within the
calculated Level A harassment zone for a sufficient period to
accumulate enough energy to result in AUD INJ. This results in two
takes by Level A harassment of California sea lions at this project
site.
Takes by Level B harassment were modified to deduct the amount of
take by Level A harassment estimated (i.e., 770 takes by Level B
harassment-2 takes by Level A harassment = 768 takes by Level B
harassment). This results in 768 takes by Level B harassment and 2
takes by Level A harassment for a total of 770 takes across the 22 days
of construction planned at this site.
NS Everett--The Navy requested and NMFS concurred that 35
California sea lions could occur within the Level B harassment zone
each construction day. This results in 2,695 takes by Level B
harassment across the 77 construction days at this project site.
The Navy plans to shut down at distances slightly larger than the
Level A harassment zones associated with this project site (see table
9). However, given the proximity of hauled out California sea lions to
the project site (the PSB at this location directly connects to the
southwest end of Pier B and runs about 60 m along the southern end of
both Piers A and B, and approximately 160 m along the southeastern
extent of Pier A), and the fact that on 5 construction days the
calculated Level A harassment zone is 38 m (during impact proofing of
18-inch steel fender piles at Piers A, B, and South Wharf), NMFS
predicts that it is possible that up to one California sea lion per day
could go unobserved and remain within the calculated Level A harassment
zone for a sufficient period to accumulate enough energy to result in
AUD INJ. This results in five takes by Level A harassment of California
sea lions at this project site.
Takes by Level B harassment were modified to deduct the amount of
take by Level A harassment estimated (i.e., 2,695 takes by Level B
harassment-5 takes by Level A harassment = 2,690 takes by Level B
harassment). This results in 2,690 takes by Level B harassment and 5
takes by Level A harassment for a total of 2,695 takes across the 77
days of construction planned at this site.
NBK Manchester--The Navy requested and NMFS concurred that six
California sea lions could occur within the Level B harassment zone
each construction day. This results in 768 takes by Level B harassment
of California sea lions across 128 construction days at this project
site.
No takes by Level A harassment of California sea lions are
anticipated at this project site and none are authorized.
Across all installations, NMFS has authorized 4,226 takes by Level
B harassment and 7 takes by Level A harassment of California sea lions
for a total of 4,233 takes.
Steller Sea Lion
NBK Bangor--The Navy requested and NMFS concurred that four Steller
sea lions could occur within the Level B harassment zone each
construction day. This results in 88 takes by Level B harassment of
Steller sea lions across the 22 construction days at this project site.
No takes by Level A harassment of Steller sea lions are anticipated
at this project site and none are authorized.
NS Everett--The Navy requested and NMFS concurred that 0.25 Steller
sea lions could occur within the Level B harassment zone every
construction day, or one Steller sea lion could occur within the Level
B harassment zone every 4 construction days. This results
[[Page 62712]]
in 19 takes by Level B harassment of Steller sea lions across the 77
days at this project site.
No takes by Level A harassment of Steller sea lions are anticipated
at this project site and none are authorized.
NBK Manchester--The Navy requested and NMFS concurred that four
Steller sea lions could occur within the Level B harassment zone each
construction day. This results in 512 takes by Level B harassment
across the 128 construction days at this project site.
No takes by Level A harassment of Steller sea lions are anticipated
at this project site and none are authorized.
Across all installations, NMFS authorized 619 takes by Level B
harassment of Steller sea lions. No takes by Level A harassment of
Steller sea lions are requested and none are authorized.
Harbor Seal
NBK Bangor--The Navy requested and NMFS concurred that 16 harbor
seals could occur within the Level B harassment zone each construction
day. This results in 352 takes by Level B harassment across the 22
construction days at this project site.
The calculated Level A harassment zone expected to occur during 6
days of impact proofing of 30-inch steel piles at EHW-1 is 651 m. The
calculated Level A harassment zone expected to occur during impact
proofing of 20-inch steel fender piles at Olympic Pier is 190 m
(planned on 2 construction days). The Navy plans to maintain a shutdown
zone of 200 m (table 9) at this site during all impact pile driving
activities. NMFS predicts that three harbor seals could be present in
the project area during each of the 6 construction days where the
calculated Level A harassment zone exceeds the planned shutdown zone.
Additionally, given the regular occurrence of harbor seals at the
project site, NMFS predicts that up to three harbor seals per day could
go unobserved and remain within the calculated Level A harassment zone
for a sufficient period to accumulate enough energy to result in AUD
INJ during the 2 construction days where shutdown zone exceeds the
calculated Level A harassment zone, but the Level A harassment zone is
relatively large and more challenging for PSOs to effectively monitor.
As such, NMFS has authorized 24 takes by Level A harassment of harbor
seals at this project site.
Takes by Level B harassment were modified to deduct the amount of
take by Level A harassment estimated (i.e., 352 takes by Level B
harassment-24 takes by Level A harassment = 328 takes by Level B
harassment). This results in 328 takes by Level B harassment and 24
takes by Level A harassment of harbor seals for a total of 352 takes
across the 22 days of construction planned at this site.
NS Everett--The Navy requested and NMFS concurred that 54 harbor
seals could occur within the Level B harassment zone each construction
day. Fifty-four represents 25 percent of the harbor seals documented
during the Navy's pinniped monitoring, because surveys were recently
expanded to include the entire East Waterway. This results in 4,158
takes by Level B harassment across the 77 construction days planned at
this site.
The Navy plans to shut down at distances slightly larger than the
Level A harassment zones associated with this project site (see table
9). However, given the regular occurrence of harbor seals at the
project site, and the fact that on 5 construction days the calculated
Level A harassment zone is 104 m (during impact proofing of 18-inch
steel fender piles at Piers A, B, and South Wharf), NMFS predicts that
it is possible that up to one harbor seal per day could go unobserved
and remain within the calculated Level A harassment zone for a
sufficient period to accumulate enough energy to result in AUD INJ. As
such, NMFS has authorized five takes by Level A harassment of harbor
seals at this project site.
Takes by Level B harassment were modified to deduct the amount of
take by Level A harassment estimated (i.e., 4,158 takes by Level B
harassment-5 takes by Level A harassment = 4,153 takes by Level B
harassment). This results in 4,153 takes by Level B harassment and 5
takes by Level A harassment for a total of 4,153 takes across the 77
days of construction planned at this site.
NBK Manchester--The Navy requested and NMFS concurred that 13
harbor seals could occur within the Level B harassment zone each
construction day. This results in 1,664 takes by Level B harassment
across the 128 construction days planned at this project site.
No takes by Level A harassment of California sea lions are
requested at this project site and none are authorized.
Across all installations, we authorized 6,145 takes by Level B
harassment of and 29 takes by Level A harassment of harbor seals for a
total of 6,174 takes.
Northern Elephant Seal
Because the occurrence of northern elephant seals in Puget Sound is
unpredictable and this species is known to linger, NMFS predicts that
one northern elephant seal could occur within the project area on up to
4 days during the project period. This results in four takes by Level B
harassment.
No takes by Level A harassment of northern elephant seals are
anticipated and none are authorized.
Table 8--Take by Stock and Harassment Type and as a Percentage of Stock Abundance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take as a
Level A Level B Total percentage
Species Stock harassment harassment harassment of stock
abundance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale.......................... Eastern N Pacific..... 0 8 8 <1
Humpback whale \1\.................. Mainland Mexico--CA-OR- 0 4 4 <1
WA.
Hawai[revaps]i........ ........... ........... ........... <1
Minke whale......................... CA-OR-WA.............. 0 4 4 <1
Killer whale........................ West Coast Transient.. 0 12 12 3.4
Southern Resident 0 20 20 27
Killer Whale.
Dall's Porpoise..................... CA-WA-OR.............. \2\ 4 0 0 <1
Harbor Porpoise..................... Washington Inland..... 72 602 674 6.0
California Sea Lion................. US.................... 7 4,226 4,233 1.6
Steller sea lion.................... Eastern U.S........... 0 619 619 1.7
Harbor Seal \3\..................... Washington Inland Hood 24 328 352 12
Canal.
Washington Inland 5 4,153 4,158 26
Northern Puget Sound.
Washington Inland 0 1,664 1,664 66
Southern Puget Sound.
[[Page 62713]]
Northern elephant seal.............. California Breeding... 0 4 4 <1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to Curtis et al. (2025), the probability that whales encountered in the Salish sea are as follows:
Central America DPS (Central America/Southern Mexico stock) (4.3 percent); Mexico DPS (Mainland Mexico--Oregon/
California/Oregon stock) (45.7 percent); Hawaii DPS (Hawai[revaps]i stock) (50 percent). As such we estimate
that 2 takes by Level B harassment would be from the Mainland Mexico--CA-OR-WA stock, and 2 takes by Level B
harassment would be from the Hawai[revaps]i stock while 0 takes by Level B harassment would be from the
Central America/Southern Mexico stock. Because PSOs would not be able to identify the stock of an observed
humpback whale, all take is assumed to be from either stock where some occurrence is predicted.
\2\ As described above, because exposure estimates are low and the Level A harassment zones are larger than are
likely observable during impact pile driving, NMFS authorizes these four takes as Level A harassment,
acknowledging that instead the takes could be by the less severe Level B harassment.
\3\ The Washington Inland Hood Canal stock of harbor seal is the only harbor seal stock expected to occur at NBK
Bangor. The Washington Inland Northern Puget Sound stock of harbor seal is the only stock of harbor seal
expected to occur at NS Everett. The Washington Inland Southern Puget Sound stock of harbor seal is the only
stock of harbor seal expected to occur at NBK Manchester.
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 the
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the 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 the
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, NMFS
considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, and impact on
operations.
The mitigation requirements described in the following were
proposed by the Navy in its adequate and complete application or are
the result of subsequent coordination between NMFS and the Navy. The
Navy has agreed that all of the mitigation measures are practicable.
NMFS has fully reviewed the specified activities and the mitigation
measures to determine if the mitigation measures would result in the
least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals and their habitat,
as required by the MMPA, and has determined the proposed measures are
appropriate. NMFS describes these below as mitigation requirements, and
has included them in the IHA.
Shutdown and Clearance Zones
NMFS requires the establishment of both clearance and, where
technically feasible, shutdown zones during project activities that
have the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals. The
purpose of ``clearance'' of a particular zone is to minimize potential
instances of harassment and/or minimize the intensity of a harassment
event by delaying the commencement of an activity if marine mammals are
observed within the defined area. The purpose of a shutdown zone is to
prevent or minimize a specific acute impact and/or minimize the
intensity or duration of a harassment event by halting the activity
that is already underway if a marine mammal is observed within the
defined area (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined
area). For VHF, PR, and OW species, the clearance zone at all sites for
all activities is equivalent to the shutdown zone and are not
differentiated. For large whales and killer whales, a minimum clearance
zone that is based on the distance that can be reliably observed by
PSOs is established in addition to a shutdown zone.
For all large cetaceans and killer whales, the Navy plans to shut
down at distances based on the largest estimated harassment zone for
each activity. At Bangor, the largest shutdown zone for these hearing
groups is 11. km, which corresponds to the maximum Level B harassment
distance during a vibratory pile driving activity. At Everett, the
largest shutdown zone for these hearing groups is 5.4 km, which
corresponds to the maximum Level B harassment distance during a
vibratory pile driving activity. At Manchester, the largest shutdown
zone for these hearing groups is 13.9 km (revised from 13.6 from the
notice of proposed IHA), which corresponds to the maximum Level B
harassment distance during a vibratory pile driving activity (now based
on vibratory removal and installation of 42-in casings rather than 36-
in casings). If a large whale or killer whale is observed approaching
the Level B harassment zone (i.e., the shutdown zone) the Navy would
implement shutdown measures.
Recognizing that the entirety of the Level B harassment zone cannot
practicably be monitored by PSOs, the Orca Network will be consulted
prior to commencing pile driving each day, and Navy biologists and lead
PSOs will have access to text updates (See Monitoring and Reporting
section for more details). If any large cetacean or killer whale is
documented near or approaching the shutdown zone (equivalent to the
Level B harassment zone during most activities), pile driving would be
delayed or stopped until the whale or whales have moved away.
For all other hearing groups and activities, the shutdown zones are
primarily based on the estimated Level A harassment isopleths. However,
in
[[Page 62714]]
cases where it would be challenging to detect marine mammals at the
Level A harassment isopleth, (i.e., VHF cetaceans and PW species during
impact pile driving of 30-in steel piles at NBK Bangor), smaller
shutdown zones have been established (table 9).
Table 9--Minimum Clearance and Shutdown Zones (m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Shutdown zones (m)
clearance ---------------------------------------------------- Level B
Install or remove Pile size and type Method Location zone-- LF harassment
and HF (m) LF HF VHF PW OW zone (m)
\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBK Bangor
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal.................. 24-in Concrete................. Vibratory.................... Olympic Pier............ 2,500 7,356 7,356 10 10 10 7,356
Vibratory.................... EHW-1................... 2,500 7,356 7,356 10 15 10 7,356
Install.................. 20-in Steel.................... Vibratory.................... Olympic Pier............ 2,500 5,412 5,412 10 10 10 5,412
Impact....................... 500 475 475 350 200 75 464
30-in Steel.................... Vibratory.................... EHW-1................... 2,500 11,660 11,660 10 15 10 11,659
Impact proofing.............. 750 750 650 350 200 250 631
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NS Everett
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal.................. 12-in Steel.................... Vibratory.................... Piers A, B, and South 2,200 2,200 2,200 10 10 10 2,154
Wharf.
Install.................. 18-in Steel.................... Vibratory.................... Piers A, B, and South 2,500 5,412 5,412 10 10 10 5,412
Wharf.
Impact....................... 150 140 140 190 110 50 136
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBK Manchester
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal.................. 14-in H Steel.................. Vibratory.................... Fuel Pier............... 1,000 1,000 1,000 10 10 10 1,000
36-in Steel Casing............. Vibratory.................... Fuel Pier............... 2,500 13,600 13,600 30 50 15 13,594
42-in Steel Casing............. Vibratory.................... Fuel Pier............... 2,500 \2\ \2\ 30 50 20 \2\ 21,544
21,544 21,544
Install.................. 36-in Steel Casing............. Vibratory.................... Fuel Pier............... 2,500 13,600 13,600 30 50 15 13,594
42-in Steel Casing............. Vibratory.................... Fuel Pier............... 2,500 \2\ \2\ 40 70 30 \2\ 21,544
21,544 21,544
24-in Concrete................. Impact....................... Fuel Pier............... 100 90 90 140 80 35 86
Install and Removal...... 24-in Steel.................... Vibratory.................... Fuel Pier............... 2,500 5,412 5,412 10 20 10 5,412
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For low frequency and high frequency cetaceans, a clearance zone is established based on the distance that can practicably be observed by PSOs. For VHF cetaceans, PW, and OW species, the
clearance zones are equivalent to the shutdown zones and are not differentiated. Prior to commencing pile driving, PSOs must, at minimum, be able to determine that the clearance zones are
clear of marine mammals. Shutdowns must be implemented should a marine mammal be observed entering or within a relevant shutdown zone.
\2\ Underwater noise would be truncated by land at approximately 13.9 km from Manchester Fuel Pier at its furthest distance.
Pre-Clearance Monitoring Through Post-Activity Monitoring
Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activities (i.e.,
pile driving), or whenever a break in pile driving of 30 minutes or
longer occurs, PSOs will observe the clearance zones (at minimum) (LF
and HF) and shutdown zones and beyond to the extent that PSOs can see
for a period of 30 minutes. Pre-start clearance monitoring must be
conducted during periods of visibility sufficient for the lead PSO to
determine that the clearance zones (at minimum) (LF and HF) and
shutdown zones are clear of marine mammals.
Pile driving may commence following 30 minutes of observation when
the determination is made that the clearance zones (at minimum) (LF and
HF) and shutdown zones are clear of marine mammals. Monitoring of the
clearance zone, shutdown zone, and beyond to the extent that PSOs can
see, will continue for the duration of pile driving through 30 minutes
post completion of pile driving activity. Monitoring beyond the
shutdown zones enables observers to be aware of and communicate the
presence of marine mammals in the project areas outside the shutdown
zones and thus prepare for a potential delay or cessation of activity
should the animal enter the zone.
If any marine mammal is observed entering or within the shutdown
zones, pile driving activity must be delayed or halted. If pile driving
is delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal, the
activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has
voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the relevant
zone, (at minimum), or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of
the animal. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity
monitoring of the clearance zone (at minimum) (LF and HF) and shutdown
zones, and beyond to the extent that PSOs can see, would commence.
Construction supervisors and crews, PSOs, and relevant Navy staff
must avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals during all
construction activities. If a marine mammal comes within 10 m of such
activity, operations must cease and vessels must reduce speed to the
minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working
conditions, as necessary to avoid direct physical interaction.
PSOs
The number and placement of PSOs (described in the Monitoring and
Reporting section) would ensure that the clearance zone (at minimum)
(LF and HF) and shutdown zones are visible, such that PSOs are
confident of their ability to observe marine mammals at relevant
distances. For VHF cetaceans, PW, and OW species, the clearance zones
are equivalent to the shutdown zones and are not differentiated. For
low frequency and high frequency cetaceans, the clearance zones are
based on the distances that can be reliably observed by PSOs. However,
PSOs would conduct monitoring beyond the clearance zones to the extent
that they can see.
Soft Start
The use of soft-start procedures is believed to provide additional
protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or giving marine
mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at
full
[[Page 62715]]
capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors would be required to
provide an initial set of three strikes from the hammer at reduced
energy, with each strike followed by a 30-second waiting period. This
procedure would be conducted a total of three times before impact pile
driving begins. Soft start would be implemented at the start of each
day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact
pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer. Soft start is not
required during vibratory pile driving activities.
Bubble Curtain
A bubble curtain will be employed during impact installation or
proofing of steel piles. Bubble curtains are not required during
vibratory pile driving. If a bubble curtain is used, it would
distribute air bubbles around 100 percent of the piling perimeter for
the full depth of the water column. The lowest bubble ring would be in
contact with the mudline for the full circumference of the ring. The
weights attached to the bottom ring would ensure 100 percent mudline
contact. No parts of the ring or other objects would prevent full
mudline contact.
NMFS conducted an independent evaluation of the measures, and has
determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting
the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and
their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while
conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
<bullet> Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density);
<bullet> Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the activity; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
<bullet> Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
<bullet> How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
<bullet> Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and
<bullet> Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The monitoring and reporting requirements described in the
following were proposed by the Navy in its adequate and complete
application and/or are the result of subsequent coordination between
NMFS and the Navy. The Navy has agreed to the requirements. NMFS
describes these below as requirements and has included them in the IHA.
Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring will be conducted by trained PSOs positioned at
suitable vantage points to be able to observe the entirety of the
clearance zones (at minimum) (LF and HF), the shutdown zones, and the
surrounding area to the maximum extent possible based on the required
number of PSOs, required monitoring locations, and environmental
conditions.
During all pile driving activities at all installations the Navy
intends to employ three PSOs per location (for a total of nine PSOs on
days with work at all three locations), to monitor the clearance zones
(at minimum) (LF and HF), the shutdown zones, and the surrounding area.
At least one PSO will be placed near the pile driving site during all
pile driving and removal activities.
Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30
minutes after all in-water construction activities. In addition, PSOs
would record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of
distance from activity, and would document any behavioral reactions in
concert with distance from piles being driven or removed. 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 30 minutes.
Coordination With Local Marine Mammal Research Network
The Orca Network receives sighting information from citizen
scientists, vessel captains, and researchers throughout the Puget Sound
area. Navy biologists and the lead PSO will have access to the Orca
Network notification texts, and they can call into the notification
system. Prior to pile driving each day, the lead PSO will contact the
Orca Network and monitor social media to review updated sighting
locations of large whales, including ESA-listed SRKWs and humpback
whales. If any large whale or killer whale species are reported
approaching, or within the shutdown zone, pile driving would be delayed
until the whale or whales have moved away.
Acoustic Monitoring
The Navy may implement hydroacoustic monitoring during impact pile
driving of sheet piles with a bubble curtain to verify the sound source
levels associated with the use of this attenuation device with this
pile type. If hydroacoustic monitoring is planned, Navy would submit a
hydroacoustic monitoring plan to NMFS for review and approval no less
than 90 days prior to implementation of sound source verification
activities. The Navy would conduct its activities consistent with the
NMFS-approved plan.
Reporting
The Navy will submit a draft marine mammal monitoring report within
90 calendar days after the completion of pile driving activities, or 60
days prior to a requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for
projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The report will
include an overall description of the construction work completed, a
narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data
sheets (in a queryable electronic format). Specifically, the report
will include:
<bullet> Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal
monitoring;
<bullet> Construction activities occurring during each daily
observation period, including: (1) number of and type of
[[Page 62716]]
piles that were driven and the method (e.g., impact or vibratory); and
(2) Total duration of driving time for each pile (vibratory driving)
and number of strikes for each pile (impact driving);
<bullet> PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;
<bullet> Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at
beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change
significantly), including Beaufort sea state and other relevant weather
conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall
visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance;
<bullet> Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following
information: (1) name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location
and activity at time of sighting; (2) time of sighting; (3)
identification of the animal(s) (e.g., genus/species, lowest possible
taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO confidence in identification,
and the composition of the group if there is a mix of species; (4)
distance from activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine
mammals to the observation point; (5) estimated number of animals (min/
max/best estimate); (6) estimated number of animals by cohort (adults,
juveniles, neonates, group composition, etc.); (7) animal's closest
point of approach and estimated time spent within the estimated
harassment zone; (8) description of any marine mammal behavioral
observations (e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling),
including an assessment of behavioral responses thought to have
resulted from the activity (e.g., no response or changes in behavioral
state such as ceasing feeding, changing direction, flushing, or
breaching);
<bullet> Number of marine mammals detected within the estimated
harassment zones, by species; and,
<bullet> Detailed information about implementation of any
mitigation (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of specific
actions that ensued, and resulting changes in behavior of the
animal(s), if any.
Should acoustic monitoring be conducted, an acoustic monitoring
report(s) must be submitted, at minimum, on the same schedule as visual
monitoring reports (i.e., within 90 days following the completion of
activity). The estimated harassment and clearance/shutdown zones may be
modified with NMFS' approval following NMFS' acceptance of an acoustic
monitoring report. The acoustic monitoring report(s) would need to be
submitted to NMFS for review and approval prior to any adjustments to
the harassment zones. The acoustic monitoring report must contain the
informational elements described in the acoustic monitoring plan.
A final report must be prepared and submitted within 30 calendar
days following receipt of any NMFS comments on the draft report. If no
comments are received from NMFS within 30 calendar days of receipt of
the draft report, the report will be considered final. All PSO data
will be submitted electronically in a format that can be queried such
as a spreadsheet or database and will be submitted with the draft
marine mammal report.
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the Navy must report the
incident to the NMFS OPR (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8adad8a4c3dedaa4c7e5e4e3fee5f8e3e4edd8effae5f8fef9cae4e5ebeba4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7020225e3924205e3d1f1e19041f02191e172215001f020403301e1f11115e171f06">[email protected]</span></a> and
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e78e9397c9818b828a8e8980a789888686c9808891"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c4adb0b4eaa2a8a1a9adaaa384aaaba5a5eaa3abb2">[email protected]</span></a>) and the West Coast Region Stranding Hotline as
soon as possible. If the death or injury was clearly caused by the
specified activity, the Navy must immediately cease the activities
until NMFS OPR is able to review the circumstances of the incident and
determine what, if any, additional measures are appropriate to ensure
compliance with the terms of this IHA. The Navy must not resume their
activities until notified by NMFS. The report must include the
following information:
<bullet> Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
<bullet> Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
<bullet> Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if
the animal is dead);
<bullet> Observed behaviors of the animals(s), if alive;
<bullet> Photographs or video footage of the animal(s), if
available; and
<bullet> The general circumstances under which the animal was
discovered.
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 impacts or responses (e.g., intensity, duration),
the context of any impacts or responses (e.g., critical reproductive
time or location, foraging impacts affecting energetics), 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' 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 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).
To avoid repetition, the majority of our analysis applies to all
the species listed in table 2, given that many of the anticipated
effects of this project on different marine mammal stocks are expected
to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful
differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in
anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take
on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts
on habitat, they are described independently in the analysis below.
Pile driving and removal associated with this project, as outlined
previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals.
Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form
of Level B harassment and, for Dall's porpoise, harbor porpoise,
California sea lions and harbor seals, Level A harassment, from
underwater sounds generated by pile installation and removal. Potential
takes could occur if individuals are present in the ensonified zone
when these activities are underway.
No serious injury or mortality is expected, even in the absence of
required mitigation measures, given the nature of the activities.
Further, for six species of marine mammals (all low frequency and high
frequency cetaceans, Steller sea lions, and northern elephant seals),
no take by Level A harassment is anticipated, due to the rarity of
these species in the project areas (Steller sea lions and northern
elephant seals), or due to the relatively small Level A harassment
zones (low and high frequency cetaceans). The likelihood of
[[Page 62717]]
take by Level A harassment occurring is further reduced by Navy's plans
to implement mitigation measures such as shutdown zones that encompass
all or a portion of the Level A harassment zones (see Mitigation
section).
Level A harassment is authorized for VHF cetaceans (Dall's porpoise
and harbor porpoise) and the pinniped species that commonly occur in
the project areas (California sea lions, and two out of three stocks of
harbor seals). Any take by Level A harassment is expected to arise
from, at most, a small degree of AUD INJ (i.e., minor degradation of
hearing capabilities within regions of hearing that align most
completely with the energy produced by impact pile driving such as the
low-frequency region below 2 kHz), not severe hearing impairment or
impairment within the ranges of greatest hearing sensitivity. Animals
would need to be exposed to higher levels and/or longer duration than
are expected to occur here in order to incur any more than a small
degree of AUD INJ.
Additionally, the amount of take by Level A harassment authorized
for these four species is very low. NMFS expects no more than 4 takes
by Level A harassment for Dall's porpoise, 72 takes by Level A
harassment for harbor porpoise, 7 takes by Level A harassment for
California sea lions, and 29 takes by Level A harassment for harbor
seals (across 2 out of 3 stocks). For all hearing groups, if hearing
impairment occurs, it is most likely that the affected animal would
lose only a few dB in its hearing sensitivity. Due to the small degree
anticipated, any AUD INJ potentially incurred would not be expected to
affect the reproductive success or survival of any individuals, much
less result in adverse impacts on the species or stock.
Additionally, some subset of the individuals that are behaviorally
harassed could also simultaneously incur some small degree of TTS for a
short duration of time. However, since the hearing sensitivity of
individuals that incur TTS is expected to recover completely within
minutes to hours, it is unlikely that the brief hearing impairment
would affect the individual's long-term ability to forage and
communicate with conspecifics, and would therefore not likely impact
reproduction or survival of any individual marine mammal, let alone
adversely affect rates of recruitment or survival of the species or
stock.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment in the
form of behavioral disruption, on the basis of reports in the
literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, would
likely be limited to reactions such as avoidance, increased swimming
speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such
activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006). The Navy has
conducted multi-year activities potentially affecting marine mammals at
some of the installations considered herein (NBK Bangor and NBK
Manchester). Reporting from these activities has similarly reported no
apparently consequential behavioral reactions or long-term effects on
marine mammal populations (Callaghan et al., 2024; Hamer Environmental,
2021; Sandoval and Johnson, 2022; DoN, 2022; DoN, 2021). Most likely,
individuals would simply move away from the sound source and
temporarily avoid the area where pile driving is occurring.
If sound produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing,
animals are likely to simply avoid the area while the activities are
occurring. We expect that any avoidance of the project areas by marine
mammals would be temporary in nature and that any marine mammals that
avoid the project areas during construction would not be permanently
displaced. Short-term avoidance of the project areas and energetic
impacts of interrupted foraging or other important behaviors is
unlikely to affect the reproduction or survival of individual marine
mammals, and the effects of behavioral disturbance on individuals is
not likely to accrue in a manner that would affect the rates of
recruitment or survival of any affected stock.
Some individual marine mammals in the project areas, such as
California sea lions, harbor seals, or harbor porpoises, may be present
and be subject to repeated exposure to sound from pile driving
activities on multiple days. Repeated exposures of individuals to
relatively low levels of sound outside of preferred habitat areas are
unlikely to significantly disrupt critical behaviors. Thus, even
repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of an overall stock is
unlikely to result in any effects on rates of reproduction and survival
of the stock.
Additionally, pile driving and extraction would not likely occur
every day at each installation, and these individuals would likely
return to normal behavior during gaps in pile driving activity within
each day of construction and in between work days. As discussed above,
individuals could temporarily relocate during construction activities
to reduce exposure to elevated sound levels from the project. While
vibratory driving associated with some project components may produce
sound at distances of many kms from the pile driving site, thus
intruding on higher-quality habitat, the project sites themselves and
the majority of sound fields produced by the specified activities are
within industrialized areas. Therefore, we expect that animals
displaced by project sound would simply avoid the area.
The project is also not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitats. The project activities
would not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant
amount of time. The activities may cause a low level of turbidity in
the water column and some fish may leave the area of disturbance, thus
temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a
limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short
duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat
that may be affected (with the exception of gray whales and SRKWs,
there are no habitats of known particular importance to marine
mammals), the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to
cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
There is a BIA for feeding gray whales that intersects with the
project area associated with NS Everett, but it is active between
February and May (Calambokidis et al., 2024), which does not intersect
with the majority of the time period when the project activities are
planned (mid-July through mid-February at NS Everett). This suggests
that impacts from the project would have minimal to no impact on
foraging gray whales and would therefore be unlikely to affect
reproduction and survival.
ESA critical habitat for SRKW occurs in Puget Sound (see the
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
section of this notice) but excludes the areas around military
installations which would be most impacted by pile driving sound. NMFS
did not identify in-water sound levels as a separate essential feature
of critical habitat, though anthropogenic sound is recognized as one of
the primary threats to SRKW (NMFS, 2019). The exposure of SRKW to sound
from the planned activities would be minimized by the required
mitigation measures (e.g., shutdown zones equivalent to the Level B
harassment zones). The effects of the activities on SRKW habitat
generally, such as sedimentation and impacts to availability of prey
species, are expected to be limited both spatially and temporally,
constrained to the immediate area around the pile driver(s) at each
pier and returning to baseline
[[Page 62718]]
levels quickly. Additionally, the timing of the in-water work window
for the projects is intended to limit impacts to ESA-listed fishes,
which would accordingly reduce potential impacts to SRKW prey.
As described above, increased sightings of gray whale strandings
have been reported in Puget Sound. We do not expect authorized takes to
exacerbate or compound upon these increased strandings. As discussed
above, no injury, serious injury or mortality is expected or
authorized, and the impact of Level B harassment takes of these species
will be minimized through the incorporation of mitigation measures. The
strandings do not provide cause for concern regarding population-level
impacts. Despite the strandings, the Eastern North Pacific population
of gray whales remains healthy.
Finally, it is unlikely that minor noise effects in a small,
localized area of habitat would have any effect on the reproduction or
survival of any individuals, much less these stocks' annual rates of
recruitment or survival. In combination, we believe that these factors,
as well as the available body of evidence from other similar
activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified
activities would have only minor, short-term effects on individuals.
The specified activities are not expected to impact rates of
recruitment or survival and would therefore not result in population-
level impacts.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity
are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
<bullet> No serious injury or mortality is anticipated authorized;
<bullet> Any Level A harassment is anticipated to cause only slight
auditory injury, including PTS of a few decibels within the lower
frequencies associated with impact pile driving of 18-in steel at
Everett and 30-in steel at Bangor, and not encompassing a species' full
hearing range;
<bullet> At worst, the anticipated incidents of Level B harassment
would result in temporary behavior modifications or a small degree of
TTS that would resume to baseline at the cessation of activities or as
animals move away from the source;
<bullet> The project areas at all three installations are
industrialized; therefore, individuals taken are likely habituated to
anthropogenic activities and behavioral reactions are expected to be
minor and temporary;
<bullet> The project areas at all three installations are small
relative to the overall habitat range of each species, and overlap with
known habitats of particular importance is minimal;
<bullet> Effects on marine mammal prey species from the activities
are primarily expected to be short-term, and any associated impacts on
marine mammal feeding are not expected to result in significant or
long-term consequences for individuals, or to accrue to adverse impacts
on their populations; and
<bullet> The mitigation measures are expected to minimize the
severity of the effects of the specified activity.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the
activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal
species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals
may be authorized under section 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. When the predicted number of
individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock
abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers (see 86 FR
5322, January 19, 2021). Additionally, other qualitative factors may be
considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of
the activities.
We authorize incidental take of 15 marine mammal stocks (table 8).
The total amount of taking authorized is less than 33.3 percent for 14
stocks, which meets the definition stated above.
Though the most recent SAR includes an unreliable population
estimate for the Washington Inland Southern Puget Sound stock of harbor
seal because it is more than 8 years old, Pearson et al. (2024) reports
that the peak population estimate for this stock is 2,832. The total
number of authorized takes for the Washington Inland Southern Puget
Sound stock of harbor seals, if assumed to accrue solely to new
individuals, is 66 percent of the total stock abundance. However, these
numbers represent the estimated incidents of take, not the number of
individuals taken. Harbor seals in the Puget Sound region are known to
exhibit site fidelity and generally remain close to their primary
haulout location; those that move further from their primary haulout
tend to stay at a new location for several weeks (Peterson et al.,
2012). Given the relatively short duration of the projects at each
site, NMFS believes that it is highly unlikely that each exposure would
affect a new individual. Rather, NMFS predicts that a relatively small
subset of this population will be harassed by project activities.
Given that the specified activity will be stationary within an area
not recognized as being of any special significance that would serve to
attract or harbor seals, we therefore believe that the estimated
numbers of takes, were they to occur, likely represent repeated
exposures of a much smaller number of individual harbor seals and that
these estimated incidents of take represent small numbers of harbor
seals.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the activity (including
the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of
marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals would
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
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency ensures that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take of
endangered or threatened species.
NMFS authorized take of SRKW, as well as one stock of humpback
whales (Mainland Mexico--CA-OR-WA), which are listed under the ESA.
[[Page 62719]]
The NMFS OPR requested initiation of section 7 consultation with
the NMFS West Coast Region (WCR) for the issuance of this IHA. On
September 18, 2026, WCR concluded that NMFS' current action remains
covered by the programmatic Biological Opinion (WCRO-2016-00018)
completed for the issuance of regulations preceding this IHA (83 FR
9366, March 5, 2018), and that reinitiation of the consultation is not
required. WCR specified that the new IHA is consistent with the
original effects analysis included in the original programmatic
opinion, and OPR's action would not change the conclusions nor the
effects of the proposed action as written in the Biological Opinion.
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 IHA) and
alternatives with respect to potential impacts on the human
environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or
mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not
individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts
on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not
identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this
categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the
issuance of this IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from
further NEPA review.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to the Navy for the potential harassment of
small numbers of 10 marine mammal species incidental to conducting the
2026 MPR Project in Puget Sound, Washington, Washington, that includes
previously explained mitigation,
Dated: September 25, 2026.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2026-20222 Filed 10-1-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 2, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.